MAPLE RIDGE HEALTH SERVICES

2730 W RAMSEY AVE, MILWAUKEE, WI 53221 (414) 282-2600
For profit - Corporation 80 Beds NORTH SHORE HEALTHCARE Data: November 2025 2 Immediate Jeopardy citations
Trust Grade
24/100
#222 of 321 in WI
Last Inspection: April 2025

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

Overview

Maple Ridge Health Services has received a Trust Grade of F, indicating significant concerns about its care quality. Ranking #222 out of 321 facilities in Wisconsin places it in the bottom half, while being #16 of 32 in Milwaukee County means only 15 local options are better. The facility is improving, as it reduced its issues from 11 in 2024 to 3 in 2025, but it has a concerning staffing rating of 1 out of 5 stars, with a turnover rate of 47%, which is average for the state. Notably, RN coverage is less than 98% of Wisconsin facilities, meaning residents may not receive the level of care needed. Recent inspector findings revealed critical incidents, including a resident who experienced severe respiratory distress due to a miscommunication about their condition, leading to their death, and another resident at high risk for pressure injuries who was not properly cared for, highlighting serious deficiencies in care. While there are some signs of improvement, the overall weaknesses raise red flags for families considering this facility.

Trust Score
F
24/100
In Wisconsin
#222/321
Bottom 31%
Safety Record
High Risk
Review needed
Inspections
Getting Better
11 → 3 violations
Staff Stability
⚠ Watch
47% turnover. Above average. Higher turnover means staff may not know residents' routines.
Penalties
✓ Good
$14,433 in fines. Lower than most Wisconsin facilities. Relatively clean record.
Skilled Nurses
⚠ Watch
Each resident gets only 23 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — below average for Wisconsin. Fewer RN minutes means fewer trained eyes watching for problems.
Violations
⚠ Watch
36 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
★★☆☆☆
2.0
Overall Rating
★☆☆☆☆
1.0
Staff Levels
★★☆☆☆
2.0
Care Quality
★★★☆☆
3.0
Inspection Score
Stable
2024: 11 issues
2025: 3 issues

The Good

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

Facility shows strength in fire safety.

The Bad

2-Star Overall Rating

Below Wisconsin average (3.0)

Below average - review inspection findings carefully

Staff Turnover: 47%

Near Wisconsin avg (46%)

Higher turnover may affect care consistency

Federal Fines: $14,433

Below median ($33,413)

Minor penalties assessed

Chain: NORTH SHORE HEALTHCARE

Part of a multi-facility chain

Ask about local staffing decisions and management

The Ugly 36 deficiencies on record

2 life-threatening
Jul 2025 1 deficiency
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Accident Prevention (Tag F0689)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure two staff members transferred a res...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure two staff members transferred a resident which resulted in an injury for one of 11 residents (Resident (R) 1) reviewed for accidents. This had the potential to cause injuries during improper transfers. Findings include: Review of the facility policy titled Safe Resident Handling and Transfers revised 08/05/22 revealed, .Resident lifting and transferring will be performed according to the resident's individual plan of care .Review of R1's admission Record located in the Electronic Medical Record (EMR) under the Admission tab indicated that she was initially admitted to the facility on [DATE] and re-admitted on [DATE]. Review of R1's Minimum Data Set (MDS) with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 03/27/25 located in the EMR under the MDS tab revealed a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 15 out of 15 indicating that she was cognitively intact. R1 was noted to have impairment on one side for upper extremities and lower extremities and was dependent on staff for all transfers. Review of R1's Care Plan provided by the facility and initiated on 11/06/24 included ADL (activities of daily living) self-care deficit as evidenced by: weakness related to : Hx (history) of CVA (stroke), emphysema, COPD (chronic obstructive pulmonary disease), asthma .Transfer: Assist of 2 with gait belt and pivot . Review of R1's Kardex provided by the facility initiated 05/01/25 indicated that R1 should be transferred with assistance from one staff member with gait belt and walker. Review of R1's Progress Notes located in the EMR under the Progress Notes tab dated 05/21/25 revealed R1 was being transferred by a sit to stand lift to a shower chair. R1 slipped out of the sling and fell to the floor. CNA (Certified Nursing Assistant) 1 yelled for help, myself and other staff responded to resident on the floor. Resident was responsive speech was clear. Resident had complaint of pain on the back of head .A lump was on the right back side of patient head. The ambulance was called for patient to be sent out for further evaluation. Review of the Facility Reported Incident (FRI) provided by the facility and dated 05/21/25 indicated that The CNA reported the resident fell while transferring the resident with a sit to stand lift without the assistance of 2 (two staff). The resident reports she hit her head when she fell. However, she does not complain of pain or any injuries. The resident was sent to the emergency room for evaluation. The resident returned to the facility with no noted injuries. An MRI (magnetic resonance imaging) of the resident's head was completed and is negative . The CNA was unavailable for an interview. During an interview on 07/01/25 at 2:10 PM with the Director of Nursing (DON) stated that she recalled R1 sustaining a fall while being transferred with a sit to stand mechanical lift. CNA1 was trying to hurry to transfer her from the bed to the shower chair and chose to use the sit to stand lift. To her knowledge, no staff had previously used the lift for R1's transfer and it was not determined why CNA1 chose to use it that day because her Kardex and Care Plan both indicated R1 was a two person lift using stand/pivot technique. The DON stated that CNA1 had worked at the facility for over 10 years and it was a surprise that she had chosen to transfer the resident using this technique. It was her expectation that staff review the Kardex/Care Plan prior to transfers. During an interview on 07/01/25 at 2:26 PM with Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN)1 stated on 05/21/25 she heard CNA1 yelling for help, she immediately went to R1's room where she witnessed R1 on the floor. R1 stated she hit her head. CNA1 stated that she was trying to transfer R1 with the sit to stand mechanical lift when R1 slid out of the lift onto the floor. It was determined that R1 was not strapped into the lift and she fell while being transferred. LPN1 assessed R1 and then sent her to the hospital for evaluation and treatment. She was noted with a lump to the back of her head and when she returned it was confirmed that she had no internal damage/bleeding per MRI evaluation.
Apr 2025 2 deficiencies
CONCERN (D)

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

Comprehensive Care Plan (Tag F0656)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility did not ensure 1 (R20) of 18 residents reviewed had a comprehensive care plan...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility did not ensure 1 (R20) of 18 residents reviewed had a comprehensive care plan developed and implemented so that residents can attain their highest practicable physical, mental and psychosocial well-being. * R20 started receiving dialysis on December 7, 2024. R20's comprehensive care plan does not address the need for dialysis and the care and treatment of R20's dialysis site. Findings include: 1.) R20 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses of type 2 diabetes, morbid obesity, and chronic kidney disease. R20's medical record indicates that on 12/7/2024, R20 began receiving dialysis treatments. R20 has a perma cath (central venous catheter for dialysis access) to the right chest that is to be used during dialysis. R20's physician orders indicate R20 receives dialysis twice a week and the order is for staff to monitor the perma cath site for any signs and symptoms of infection. Surveyor reviewed R20 care plan did not find a comprehensive care plan that addresses R20 dialysis and care and treatment of perma cath site. On 4/29/25 at 3:00 p.m., during the daily exit meeting ,Surveyor informed DON-B and NHA-A of the above findings. Surveyor explained that R20 doesn't have a care plan that addresses R20's dialysis treatments and care and or care of R20's perma cath. DON-B stated she would look into it. On 4/30/25 at 9:30 a.m., DON-B informed Surveyor that there should be a care plan for R20's dialysis treatments and perma cath care. DON-B informed Surveyor that DON-B is not sure why there is not a comprehensive care plan developed for R20's dialysis services and perma cath site care. No additional information was provided as to why R20 did not have a comprehensive care plan developed for dialysis services or perma cath care.
CONCERN (D)

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

Pressure Ulcer Prevention (Tag F0686)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, record review and interview, the facility did not ensure that 2 (R43 & R33) of 5 residents reviewed receiv...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, record review and interview, the facility did not ensure that 2 (R43 & R33) of 5 residents reviewed received care, consistent with professional standards of practice, to prevent pressure injuries and ensure that residents do not develop pressure injuries. *R43 is at risk for the development of pressure injuries and was observed to have their heels resting against a surface and not offloaded to prevent pressure injury development. * R33 is at risk for the development of pressure injuries and was observed to have their heels resting against a surface and not offloaded to prevent pressure injury development. Findings include: The facility's policy and procedure titled Pressure Injuries and Non pressure injuries dated 8/2/2021, documents: This center will complete a comprehensive assessment to identify risk factors for the development of pressure injuries and put in place measures intended to achieve the goal of prevention of pressure injuries in our residents. 1.) R43 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with hypertension (high blood pressure) and stage 3 pressure injuries on buttock and coccyx. R43's Quarterly minimum data set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] documents that R43 has no current pressure injuries and is at risk of developing a pressure injury. R43 is assessed as dependent on staff for bed mobility and is non-ambulatory. R43 is assessed for a 10 on the Brief Interview of Mental Status (BIMS), which suggests moderate cognitive impairment. R43's Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) Care Plan dated 4/30/2025, documents: Encourage resident to float heels while lying in bed. R43's plan of care (POC) dated 9/23/22 for skin integrity related to impaired mobility, incontinence, obesity, picking at scabs. documents under the Goal section: Resident will not develop pressure related tissue injury, through next care plan review, date of 5/21/25. Under the Interventions section it documents: - Encourage resident to float heels in bed; initiated 1/22/24. On 4/28/25, at 9:14 AM, Surveyor observed R43 in bed with R43's exposed from the bed covers. R43's heels were resting against the air mattress. R43 heels were not positioned for pressure relief. On 4/29/25, at 7:18 AM, Surveyor observed R43 in bed with R43's exposed from the bed covers. R43's heels were resting against the air mattress. R43 heels were not positioned for pressure relief. Surveyor asked R43 about off-loading their heels. R43 stated that R43 did not like to wear boots (pressure relief boots) and staff sometimes will float their heels with pillows. On 4/29/25, at 1:12 PM, Surveyor observed R43 in bed with R43's exposed from the bed covers. R43's heels were resting against the air mattress. R43 heels were not positioned for pressure relief. On 5/01/25, at 8:08 AM, Surveyor observed R43 in bed with R43's exposed from the bed covers. R43's heels were resting against the air mattress. R43 heels were not positioned for pressure relief. On 5/01/25, at 8:13 AM, Surveyor interviewed Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON)- C. Surveyor shared the observations of R43's heels resting on the mattress and not off loaded to prevent pressure injuries. ADON-C stated they (the facility) did not know why (R43's heels are not offloaded) and maybe R43 refuses off-loading their heels. Surveyor informed ADON-C that Surveyor could not locate any documentation in R43's medical record that R43 was offered or refused to wear off-loading heel boots. ADON-C stated They will review education with staff for off-loading heels. On 5/1/24, at 2:00 PM, Surveyor shared the concerns with R43 with Nursing Home Administrator (NHA)- A. 2.) R33 was admitted on [DATE] with diagnosis of cardiac (heart) disease. R33's Quarterly minimum data set (MDS) completed 3/21/25 documents that R33 is assessed to have physical impairments to both lower extremities. The MDS documents that R33 requires partial/moderate assist for bed mobility and that R33 is assessed for a risk for pressure injury and that R33 does not have current pressure injuries. R33's Brief Interview for Mental status (BIMS) is a 9 for moderate cognitive impairment. R33's Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) Care Plan dated 4/30/2025 documents: Encourage resident to float heels while lying in bed and Encourage to wear Prevalon boots in bed. R33's plan of care (POC) dated 6/7/24 for skin integrity related to impaired mobility, incontinence and diabetes mellitus. documents under the Goal section: Skin will remain intact, free from erythema, breakdown, excoriation, or bruising until next review, date of 6/12/25. Under the Interventions section it documents: - Encourage resident to float heels in bed. on 6/14/24. - Encourage resident to wear Prevalon boots in bed. on 6/14/24. On 4/28/25, at 9:32 AM, Surveyor observed R33 in bed. R33 heels were resting against the mattress and not offloaded to prevent pressure injuries On 4/29/25, at 1:15 PM, Surveyor observed, R33 in their bed. R33's right leg was fully extended with R33's right heel resting against the mattress. R33's left leg was flexed inward with R33's ankle resting against the mattress. R33 stated, They (staff) sometimes float my (R33) heels and that R33 does not know anything about Prevalon boots. On 5/01/25, at 8:13 AM, Surveyor and Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON) -C observed R33's feet in their bed. R33's left foot is flexed upwards with R33's outer ankle resting against a pillow. R33's right heel is resting on the mattress. Surveyor observed a one green colored pressure off-loading boot in R33's room above the closet. ADON-C stated, They did not know why the Prevalon boot(s) were not used and thought maybe Resident refused. Surveyor shared that R33's medical records do not contain documentation of refusal of off-loading heels. ADON-C stated, They will review education with staff for off-loading heels. On 5/1/24, at 2:00 PM, Surveyor shared the concerns with R33 with Nursing Home Administrator (NHA)- A.
Oct 2024 3 deficiencies 1 IJ
CRITICAL (J) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) - the most serious Medicare violation

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 did not ensure residents received treatment and care consistent with N6 Wisco...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility did not ensure residents received treatment and care consistent with N6 Wisconsin Nurse Practice Act for 2 (R3 & R1) of 4 residents reviewed. R3 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. During the night of [DATE], R3 experienced a change of condition including having shortness of breath, increased pulse and respirations, and oxygen (O2) saturations of 65% (as obtained by Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN)-N. LPN-N sought out Registered Nurse (RN)-L for a second opinion. LPN-N and RN-L had a miscommunication as RN-L believed R3's O2 sats were 85%. RN-L listened to R3's lung sounds but did not complete a comprehensive assessment of R3's change of condition. LPN-N obtained an order to transfer R3 to the hospital and called a private ambulance service. Upon EMS arrival, they found R3 to be in severe respiratory distress and unresponsive. R3 passed away in the ambulance while still at the facility. The facility's failure to have effective communication of R1's medical status between RN-L and LPN-N, the failure to complete a comprehensive assessment of R3's status by RN-L, the failure to recognize the acute change in condition to include hypoxia, and the delay in providing emergency medical care to R3 by not calling 911 when R3's oxygen saturation was 65% created a finding of Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) which began on [DATE]. NHA (Nursing Home Administrator)- A, DON (Director of Nursing)-B, & [NAME] President of Success-Q were notified of the immediate jeopardy on [DATE] at 2:03 p.m. The immediate jeopardy was removed on [DATE]. The deficient practice continues at a scope and severity of D (potential for harm/isolated) related to the example involving R1 and as the facility continues to implement its action plan. *R1 was observed without the right lower extremity tubi grip on [DATE] & [DATE]. Findings include: The facility's policy titled, Change in Condition of the Resident and reviewed/revised [DATE] under Policy documents: A facility should immediately inform the resident; consult with the resident's physician; and notify, consistent with his or her authority, the resident representative(s) when there is an accident involving the resident which results in injury and has the potential for requiring physician intervention; a significant change in the resident's physical, mental, or psychosocial status (that is, a deterioration in health, mental, or psychosocial status in either life-threatening conditions or clinical complications); or a need to alter treatment significantly (that is, a need to discontinue an existing form of treatment due to adverse consequences, or to commence a new form of treatment). According to the State of Wisconsin Nurse Practice Act: N 6.03 - Standards of practice for registered nurses. (1) General nursing procedures. An R.N. 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 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. 2. Assist with the development and revision of a nursing care plan. 3. Reinforce the teaching provided by an R.N. provider and provide basic health care instruction. 4. Participate with other health team members in meeting basic patient needs. According to https://www.yalemedicine.org People should contact a health care provider if their oxygen saturation readings drop below 92%, as it may be a sign of hypoxia, a condition in which not enough oxygen reaches the body's tissues. If blood oxygen saturation levels fall to 88% or lower, seek immediate medical attention. R3 is an [AGE] year-old male admitted to the facility on [DATE]. R3 was hospitalized from [DATE] to [DATE] following a fall in the bathroom. R3 presented to the ED (emergency department) in A Fib (Atrial Fibrillation) with rapid venticular response, concern for ST (sinus tachycardia), and troponin elevation. R3 received heparin during hospitalization but was transitioned to low dose Eliquis. R3's diagnoses include non-sinus tachycardia myocardial infarction, syncope and collapse, chronic kidney disease with heart failure, diabetes mellitus, depressive disorder, atrial fibrillation, and presence of left artificial hip joint. R3 was his own person and did not have an activated power of attorney for health care. The nurses note dated [DATE], at 17:05 (5:05 p.m.), documents: Resident is on follow up for: New Admission. The current status is Resident arrived facility at 1500 (3:00 p.m.) from [hospital initials]. Resident was in hospital after a fall at home. Resident has complaints of mild pain in both hips and lower back. Resident uses urinal in bed and is a check and change for BM (bowel movement) due to weakness until evaluated by therapy. Active bowel sounds in all four quads (quadrants), Lungs clear. Hospital states resident would be a candidate for sit to stand but it was never attempted in hospital. Resident is A&Ox3 (alert and orientated times three) sometimes a bit confused but easily redirected. Resident has a friend [first name] that is very involved and visits often. This nurses note was written by LPN (Licensed Practical Nurse)-T. The nurses note dated [DATE], at 00:38 (12:38 a.m.), documents: Resident is on follow up for: New Admission. The current status is Resident in bed resting with eyes closed at this time. Follow up, new admit. Resident adjusting well to facility. No c/o (complaint of) pain or discomfort. No sob (shortness of breath) or respiratory distress noted. All cares provided by staff PPOC (per plan of care). Will monitor. This nurses note was written by LPN-U. The nurses note dated [DATE], at 08:29 (8:29 a.m.), documents: Resident is a new admit who went into hospital after a fall at home. Resident has complaints of mild pain in both hips and lower back. Resident uses urinal in bed and is a check and change for BM due to weakness until evaluated by therapy. Active bowel sounds in all four quads, Lung clear. Hospital states resident would be a candidate for sit to stand but it was never attempted in hospital. Resident is A&Ox3 some confused at times but easily redirected. We will cont. (continue) ppoc. This nurses note was written by LPN-M. The nurses note dated [DATE], at 19:25 (7:25 p.m.), documents: Resident is on follow up for: New Admission. The current status is Follow up, new admit after a fall at home. Resident adjusting well to facility. No c/o pain or discomfort. No sob (shortness of breath) or respiratory distress noted. All cares provided by staff PPOC. Resident here post fall at home, resident here for weakness and strengthening. This nurses note was written by LPN-T. Review of R3's oxygen saturation under the weight/vitals tab reveals the following: [DATE], at 1543 (3:43 p.m.) 95% on room air. [DATE], at 0445 (4:45 a.m.) 93% on room air. [DATE], at 1132 (11:32 a.m.) 95% on room air. [DATE], at 1632 (4:32 p.m.) 96% on room air. [DATE], at 0131 (1:31 a.m.) 65% on room air. Review of R3's pulse under the weight/vitals tab reveals the following: [DATE] at 1543 (3:43 p.m.) 74 bpm (beats per minute). [DATE] at 0445 (4:45 a.m.) 65 bpm. [DATE] at 1132 (11:32 a.m.) 80 bpm. [DATE] at 1632 (4:32 p.m ) 60 bpm. [DATE] at 0131 (1:31 a.m.) 97 bpm. Review of R3's respirations under the weight/vitals tab reveals the following: [DATE] at 1543 (3:43 p.m.) 22 breaths per minute. [DATE] at 0445 (4:45 a.m.) 20 breaths per minute. [DATE] at 1132 (11:32 a.m.) 18 breaths per minute. [DATE] at 1632 (4:32 p.m ) 18 breaths per minute. [DATE] at 0131 (1:31 a.m.) 28 breaths per minute. Review of R3's Electronic Medical Record (EMR) indicates R3 experienced an acute change in condition on [DATE]. After receiving an oxygen saturation of 65% on [DATE], LPN-N left R3 to obtain oxygen and seek out Registered Nurse (RN)-L on a different unit for a 2nd opinion on R3's status. RN-L stated during interviews, she listened to R3's lung sounds but did not confirm/verify the information gathered by LPN-N or complete a comprehensive assessment of R3's change in condition. RN-L stated after listening to R3's lungs she agreed something was going on with R3. Both nurses left R3's room, LPN-N proceeded to call R3's physician/nurse practitioner's office to obtain an order to send R3 to the hospital for further evaluation (physician's office was called at 1:18am.) LPN-N obtained the order to transfer R3 to the hospital and called a private ambulance service (not 911) at 1:31am that arrived at the facility without lights and sirens. RN-L left R3 to get paperwork ready for R3's transfer to the hospital and was then called back to her assigned unit. During interviews with RN-L she shared she thought LPN-N said the pulse ox level was 85% not 65%. RN-L shared had she known that she would have immediately sent R3 out. When RN-L went back to check on LPN-N EMS (Emergency Medical Services) was already in R3's room. Upon EMS arrival to R3's room (at 1:38am) they were informed by facility staff R3 had exhibited severe lethargy and unusually slow respiratory pattern for approximately 30 minutes prior to EMS activation. BLS (Basic Life Support) EMS assessed R3 to be in severe respiratory distress, periodic breathing-Cheyne-Stokes breathing, unresponsive, no blood pressure, weak pulse at 56, blood glucose of 222, and agonal breathing at 70% O2 saturation on room air. BLS EMS used a BVM (Bag Valve Mask) and 15 liters of oxygen to assist R3 with breathing. ALS (Advanced Life Support) EMS arrived at the facility at 1:48am with lights and sirens to provided BLS EMS assistance. R3 was transferred into the ALS ambulance and was found to be in asystole and CPR was implemented. R3 was pronounced deceased in the ALS ambulance while still at the facility. On [DATE], at 6:30 a.m., Surveyor interviewed LPN-N, who was assigned to care for R3 and was the charge nurse for her shift on [DATE]. Surveyor asked LPN-N to walk Surveyor through what happened on [DATE] with R3. LPN-N informed Surveyor R3 was basically a new patient, he was doing fine, on report for new admission. LPN-N informed Surveyor she doesn't know the exact time, probably around 1:50 a.m. to 2:00 a.m., R3 had his call light on. LPN-N informed Surveyor she answered the light because the CNA was on break. LPN-N informed Surveyor she went into R3's room and he was having a hard time breathing so I asked him if this just started. LPN-N informed Surveyor she went to grab all her vital sign things, blood pressure cuff, pulse ox, thermometer. LPN-N informed Surveyor R3's SPO2 was 65%, R3 said this just started and she went to go look for oxygen and to get the other nurse. LPN-N then stated, I think I called her because I wanted to get the O2 (oxygen). LPN-N informed Surveyor she went back to R3 and thinks started the oxygen at 2 liters. LPN-N informed Surveyor R3's pulse ox was not going up, so she put a mask on him & increased the oxygen to 3 liters then the RN [RN-L's first name] was in assessing R3 as I wanted her to be a 2nd person. Surveyor asked if R3's oxygen saturations increased. LPN-N informed Surveyor it stayed at 65%. We listened to R3's lungs, could hear trach congestion and wheezing. LPN-N informed Surveyor they ended up calling [name of medical group] and the NP said okay to send to [hospital name]. LPN-N informed Surveyor she called the ambulance, emergency contact, and called in report to the RN at the hospital. LPN-N informed Surveyor a little while later, [name] ambulance came in and told her R3 had expired, and the protocol is for the cops to come so they will be talking with us. Surveyor asked who called the ambulance. LPN-N replied, I believe I did. Surveyor asked who she called. LPN-N stated [Name] of ambulance company. Surveyor asked LPN-N why she didn't call 911. LPN-N replied, the nurse practitioner didn't specify to call 911. LPN-N informed Surveyor she was conferring with the RN and asked if they should call 911 before. Surveyor asked LPN-N what assessments RN-L did. LPN-N informed Surveyor RN-L was listening to R3's lungs and asking him questions like how long he has felt like this, when did it start, did he want to go to the hospital. R3 said yes. That's all I believe I can recall. Surveyor asked LPN-N if she told RN-L what R3's oxygen saturation was. LPN-N replied yes. Surveyor asked LPN-N when she obtained an oxygen saturation of 65% for R3 why didn't she send R3 out to the hospital. LPN-N replied because I had to call the doctor. Usually, we have to get an order to send him out. Surveyor asked LPN-N if she was in R3's room prior to him placing on the call light. LPN-N replied, just to peek in. Surveyor asked LPN-N what she meant by peeking in. LPN-N informed Surveyor she checks to make sure the resident is not at the edge of the bed, positioning is good, bed is low, call light, things like that. Surveyor asked prior to R3 putting on his call light, had she taken R3's vital signs. LPN-N replied, I did not. Surveyor asked from the time she called for the ambulance, how long was it until they arrived. LPN-N replied 15 maybe 20 minutes seemed like they came pretty fast. Surveyor asked LPN-N who was the charge nurse this night. LPN-N replied I believe it was me but not positive. Surveyor asked who documents the assessments. LPN-N replied usually the RN puts their own note in. Surveyor asked if RN-L documented. LPN-N replied, I don't believe she did, no. Surveyor asked LPN-N if RN-L gave her any information to include in her note. LPN-N replied no, not that I'm aware of. Surveyor asked LPN-N after she received an oxygen sat for R3 of 65% how long was it until RN-L came to the unit. LPN-N replied maybe 5 minutes. Surveyor asked LPN-N if there was anything else she wanted Surveyor to know. LPN-N informed Surveyor she tried to put everything in her note. LPN-N's nurses note is dated [DATE], at 02:12 (2:12 a.m.), documents Patient C/O (complained of) SOB (shortness of breath). TPR (temperature, pulse, respirations) 98.4, 97, 28. BP (blood pressure) 124/78. SPO2 65%, RA (room air). O2 (oxygen) started at 2L (liters) and SPO2 remained at 65% so increased to 3L (liters) per NC (nasal cannula)/mask. Congested cough with tracheal congestion noted. LS (lung sounds) course with expiratory wheezes. HOB (head of bed) elevated. LPN (Licensed Practical Nurse) and RN (Registered Nurse) assessed. NP (Nurse Practitioner) notified and ok to send to [hospital initials] ER (emergency room) for evaluation. [Name] ambulance called. Emergency contact notified. [Name] ambulance here to transport to [hospital initials] ER. Report called to ER RN [Name]. This nurses note was written by LPN-N. LPN-N also had a nurses note dated [DATE], at 02:19 (2:19 a.m.) which documents: Blood sugar 222. Surveyor notes LPN-N was calling the NP, responsible party, ambulance company, and giving report to the receiving hospital while RN-L was gathering the necessary paperwork for R3's transfer, however, RN-L was called back to her assigned unit, leaving CNA-V with R3 who continued to experience a more severe change in condition as noted by BLS EMS's assessment of R3 upon their arrival. On [DATE], at 2:34 p.m., Surveyor interviewed RN (Registered Nurse)-L regarding R3. RN-L informed Surveyor she works the back half which consists of the 200 & 300 units. RN-L informed Surveyor R3 was having trouble breathing and [first name of LPN-N] asked her to give a 2nd opinion. RN-L stated his lungs were not sounding great. RN-L informed Surveyor when she went in, he was alert and talking with both of them, stated he was having trouble breathing and his O2 (oxygen) was mid to high 80s. RN-L informed Surveyor she couldn't remember the exact number. Surveyor asked RN-L if she did any assessment. RN-L informed Surveyor she listened to R3's lungs, they weren't clear and wasn't sure if they were coarse. RN-L informed Surveyor she told LPN-N, you're right something is going on. Surveyor asked RN-L if LPN-N told her what R3's oxygen saturation was. RN-L stated, she (LPN-N) got, like I said, mid to high 80s. Surveyor informed RN-L R3's oxygen saturation was 65%. RN-L replied, Sh*t I didn't know it was that low thought 85, 88. Surveyor then read LPN-N's [DATE] note which documented R3's oxygen at 65%. RN-L replied, Sh*t I would have called [name of medical group] if it was 65 and sent R3 out. RN-L informed Surveyor O2 at 85 (%) she's worried but at 65 (%) she's panicking. Surveyor asked who called [name of medical group]. RN-L informed Surveyor she doesn't remember. RN-L informed Surveyor she was trying to get the paperwork ready but was having trouble with the printer. Surveyor asked RN-L if she remembers what time LPN-N came to get her. RN-L informed Surveyor she doesn't remember any of the times. Surveyor asked RN-L if she documented her assessment. RN-L informed Surveyor usually she has a notebook in her pocket so she can write things down and tear it out. Surveyor asked RN-L if she gave LPN-N any information. RN-L informed Surveyor she assumes she did but can't swear she did. Surveyor asked RN-L if she was the supervisor this night. RN-L replied no they have not made me charge nurse and explained usually, the nurse on the 100 unit is the charge nurse, who was LPN-N, was the charge nurse. Surveyor asked who would document an assessment. RN-L informed Surveyor the nurse who has the resident. RN-L informed Surveyor the nurse who has the resident would do the change of condition, call [name of medical group] and all that stuff. Surveyor asked who documented on R3. RN-L replied just the LPN and stated she was getting everything ready. RN-L informed Surveyor while she was with LPN-N she got called back to her unit and when she went back to check on LPN-N, EMS (emergency medical services) was already in the room ready to load R3 up. Surveyor asked RN-L prior to LPN-N getting her, had she been told anything about R3. RN-L replied no, explaining she is usually on unit 3 and didn't know anything about R3. RN-L informed Surveyor when LPN-N came to get her she was charting at the nurses' station on her unit and asked her if she could borrow her. RN-L informed Surveyor she checked R3's breathing. Surveyor asked RN-L who determined to place 2 liters of oxygen on R3. RN-L replied she did. RN-L informed Surveyor they were partners in assessing if that makes sense. Surveyor asked RN-L again if she knew R3's oxygen was 65. RN-L replied, I didn't realize it was that low, thought she said 85, I must have misheard. 85 is worrying & 65 is panic and I panic. Did not know it was 65. According to https://my.clevlandclinic.org, Hypoxia can be life-threatening and if you are experiencing symptoms of hypoxia, call 911. Surveyor notes LPN-N's evaluation of R3 was miscommunicated and/or misunderstood by RN-L. RN-L did not complete and document an assessment of R3. BLS Ambulance Crew arrived at the facility and assessed R3 to be experiencing a more severe change in condition as they were unable to get blood pressure, a weak carotid bradycardic regularly irregular pulse at 58, SPO2 was approximately 70% on room air, bradypneic at approximately 8 for irregularly irregular respiration rate. Crew used BVM (Bag valve mask) with oxygen at 15 liters per min (minute). Surveyor reviewed the private ambulance Patient Care Report, dated [DATE], which documents: Disp (dispatch) notified: 01:31(AM), [DATE] Recvd (received): 01:31 (AM), [DATE] En route: 01:31 (AM), [DATE] At scene: 01:37 (AM), [DATE] At patient: 01:38 (AM), [DATE] [NAME] (Transition of care): 01:45 (AM), [DATE] Crew 1 level: EMT-Basic Nature of the call: Respiratory Distress Unit type: BLS (Basic Life Support) Chief Complaint: Respiratory-Severe Distress (Primary) Primary Symptoms: Periodic Breathing; or Cheyne-Stokes Breathing (periods of shallow breathing alternating with periods of deeper, rapid breathing. The deep, rapid breathing may be followed by a pause before breathing begins again.); Abnormal breathing pattern. Assessment: [DATE], at 01:39 (AM), B/P (blood pressure) no; Pulse: 58, weak, regular; Respiratory: Weak, Agonal, irregularly irregular; SPO2 (oxygen saturation): 70% on room air. -Skin Temp-Cool; Skin color: Pale; Skin moisture: Clammy -Level of consciousness: Unresponsive, Arm Movement: Left-None, Right-None; Leg - Movement: Left-None, Right-none Treatment Summary: Time: 01:40 (AM): Oxygen -Device: Adult BVM (Bag Valve Mask) -Dosage Unites: Liters per Minute -Rate: 15 LPM (Liters per Minute) -Indication: Respiratory Failure -Response: Improved -Successful: Yes Time: 01:42 (AM) Indication: Respiratory Distress Response: Unchanged SpO2: 85% Time: 01:46 (AM) -Blood Glucose Measurement: 222 -Response: Unchanged Narrative: [Name of Ambulance Company] dispatched no lights and sirens to address above (address of the Facility) for [AGE] year-old male patient for respiratory distress.Upon arrival crew was directed to patient room. Crew did not receive paperwork from health care staff, when brought up health care professional states staff was getting the paperwork now. Upon arrival patient was found in bed unconscious, crew obtaining vitals. Crew unable to get blood pressure. Crew obtained a weak carotid bradycardic regularly irregular pulse at 58. SPO2 was approximately 70% on room air. Patient was bradypneic at approximately 8 for irregularly irregular respiration rate. Crew used BVM with oxygen at 15 liters per min (minute). Crew was unable to get a [sic] adequate seal on the patients mouth due to the patient's bariatric status. Crew tried to get a summary of what happened. Healthcare professional that guided crew to patient stated she was not the person that took care of the patient and didn't know what was going on. Crew asked the healthcare professional to get the person that has information about the patient. Crew monitored patients SPO2 and heart rate. SPO2 improved with BVM and 15 liters of oxygen up to approximately 80%. Crew obtained blood glucose measurement at 222. ALS (Advanced Live Support/EMS) arrived on scene with healthcare professional in charge of patient. Crew transferred care to ALS. Crew assisted ALS due to poor seal of the BVM. ALS provided crew with CPAP (continuous positive air-way pressure) mask to put on patient as well. Crew assisted ALS with 12 lead. When put on patient was asystole (A condition where the heart's electrical and mechanical activity completely stops, resulting in a lack of a heartbeat.). Crew assisted ALS by providing chest compressions and breathing for patient with BVM at 15 liters per minute. Crew alternated positions to maintain adequate depth and speed for compressions. Crew proceeded to do CPR until instructed by ALS to stop due to med (medical) control pronouncing patient deceased . ALS (Advance Life Support) Ambulance Narrative, dated [DATE]: Assessment at 1:48 (AM): -Breathing: Absent: agonal -Level of consciousness: unresponsive -Circulation: Pulses- Carotid-weak -Mental Status: Unresponsive [Name of private ambulance company] responded w/ (with) lights and sirens to the above location for respiratory distress. Crew arrived to discover an 85-y/o (year old) male PT (Patient) lying supine in bed assisted by SNF (Skilled Nursing Facility) staff, and [name of ambulance company number of BLS (Basic Life Support) crew] had been on the scene for a few minutes prior to (ALS)'s arrival, and immediately reported to crew that pt was in hypoxic shock due to inadequate ventilation PT had reportedly had severe bradynea at rate of 4-6 BPM on their arrival w/ thready pulses centrally and SPO2 measured ~60% on conventional device. Crew noted that pts skin was pale, cool, and dry. [BLS] had intervened immediately w/ BVM ventilation but were otherwise unable to intervene prior to [ALS]'s arrival. Staff indicated that PT had arrived [DATE] for rehabilitation of a recent procedure on the left hip. PT had reportedly exhibited severe lethargy and usually slow respiratory pattern approx. (approximately) 30 min (minutes) prior to EMS activation. PT's paperwork indicated PMH (Primary Medical History) of AKI (Acute Kidney Injury), primary hypertension, and Type 2 diabetes, w/ multiple antihypertensive and anticoagulants listed on the chart. Assessment was performed on scene. PT was found totally unresponsive/weak pulses noted in the carotid artery at ~30 BPM. Assessment from vitals was unsuccessful, as no numerical measurements were appreciable at [BLS] assessment. [DATE], at 01:57 (AM), Initial CPR: Attempted ventilation and initiated Chest Compressions. On [DATE], at 8:33 a.m., Surveyor called [name of medical group] to inquire who was the NP facility staff had contacted on [DATE]. NP-W informed Surveyor it was NP-Y and NP-W can email her as she doesn't have her phone number. On [DATE], at 9:02 a.m., Surveyor called [name of medical group] to try to speak with MD (Medical Doctor)-X. NP-W informed Surveyor MD-X is out on leave. Surveyor asked NP-W if she received a call from the facility telling her there is a new admission with oxygen sats at 65% what would she tell the nurse to do. NP-W replied call 911. NP-W informed Surveyor NP-Y works part time and wasn't working this day but could read Surveyor NP-Y's note. NP-W read to Surveyor NP-Y's note which read, nursing call request order ED for evaluation due to respiratory distress. Pt pulse ox 65% on 3L inspirations and expirations wheezing using accessory muscles. Nursing orders given. NP-W informed Surveyor NP-Y's note doesn't say to call 911. NP-W informed Surveyor this note was created on [DATE] at 2:16 a.m. On [DATE], at 9:15 a.m., Surveyor spoke with NP-W on the telephone along with Director of Operations-Z from [name of medical group] to inquire if NP-Y spoke with the facility when they called or if she had to call them back. Surveyor was informed the call from the facility came in at 1:18 a.m., the patient order given was time stamped at 2:16 a.m. for when it was created in the chart, but they don't know if NP-Y spoke to the facility at 1:18 a.m. or she had to call back. On [DATE], at 10:38 a.m., Surveyor spoke with DON (Director of Nursing)-B to inquire what the night shift staffing is. DON-B informed Surveyor there are 2 nurses and 3 to 4 CNAs. One nurse is on the 100 unit and the other nurses takes 2 & 3. Surveyor asked if there is a charge nurse. DON-B informed Surveyor the charge nurse is working on the 100 unit. Surveyor asked what happens when a resident has a change of condition. DON-B informed Surveyor they typically wait for an order if it's an emergency the nurse could use their judgement and send them out. Surveyor asked about oxygen orders. DON-B informed Surveyor there is a standard nursing order for 2 liters and then call the doctor if it needs to go up. Surveyor asked if an LPN is working the unit, and a resident has a change of condition what should be done. DON-B informed Surveyor the LPN should observe the findings what they see, call the RN in the building, the RN can assess, and if it's an emergency send them out. Surveyor asked about R3. DON-B informed Surveyor LPN-N came into the room to answer the call light, R3 was SOB, she called RN-L who came and assessed. DON-B informed Surveyor he was responsive, his O2 was 85, respirations were high, they called [name of medical group] and gave an order. Once the ambulance came, they took over. Surveyor asked DON-B if the RN does their own vital signs. DON-B replied, she said they were doing vitals together. Surveyor asked DON-B if a resident has O2 sats of 65 what would you expect staff to do. DON-B replied hope they called for ambulance and prepare for code. DON-B informed Surveyor personally she would have cranked up the oxygen. Surveyor asked DON-B if she was aware when LPN-N took R3's oxygen sats it was 65. DON-B replied no, not until I looked at the progress note. RN-L told me 85. Surveyor asked DON-B if the NP doesn't specifically say to call 911 could the nurse call 911. DON-B replied, I don't know what our policy is I'll have to get back to you. On [DATE], at 3:07 PM, Surveyor interviewed Deputy Director of Operations for the EMS ambulance company (DDO)-AA who stated BLS did report to ALS R3 was in hypoxic shock upon their arrival. The facility's failure to ensure R3 received appropriate care and treatment when R3 experienced a change in condition including shortness of breath, increased pulse and respirations, and low oxygen sats led to a finding of immediate jeopardy. The immediate jeopardy was removed on [DATE] when the facility implemented the following action plan: * Director of Nursing completed an audit of residents requiring transfer from facility to higher level of care within the last 14 days, to verify appropriate provider notification and Emergency Medical Services activation. [DATE] * Facility Licensed Nursing staff reeducated by Director of Nursing or designee on Change of Condition of the Resident policy starting [DATE] and will be completed prior to next scheduled shift. This re-education included information on assessing (done by the RN if available) or data gathering (done by the LPN) and reporting findings requiring immediate notification to the medical provider. Re-education includes use of the INTERACT 4.5 Change in Condition Guidelines for when to immediately notify the physician/provider. Reeducation also includes when to activate Emergency medical services by calling 911 for residents requiring emergency intervention. * The Director of Nursing, Executive Director, and [NAME] President of Success reviewed established Change in condition of resident policy. No changes were necessary to this policy. [DATE]. * Director of Nursing or Designee will review facility charting daily to identify resident change in condition, to ensure proper documentation of change of condition and notification of provider including method of transfer and if 911 contacted or ambulance service contacted. These audits will be completed daily 2 weeks, then with morning clinical 5 days per week for 10 weeks or until substantial compliance is maintained. Results of these audits will be brought to QAPI (quality assurance performance improvement) for review and recommendation. * ADHOC QAPI review of this plan was completed with Medical Director, VP (Vice President) of Success, Director of Nursing, and Executive Director. [DATE] The deficient practice continues at a scope/severity of D (harm/isolated) as evidenced by the following example with R1. 2.) R1's diagnoses includes atherosclerotic heart disease, chronic kidney disease, and hypertension. The physician orders dated [DATE] documents RLE (right lower extremity) tubi grip in AM (morning) for RLE swelling. On in AM/off at bedtime and remove per schedule. On [DATE], from 8:43 to [TRUNCATED]
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Deficiency F0557 (Tag F0557)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and staff interview, the facility did not ensure 1 Resident (R2) of 3 sampled Residents were treated with...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and staff interview, the facility did not ensure 1 Resident (R2) of 3 sampled Residents were treated with dignity and respect. *The facility sent R2 to a chemotherapy appointment covered in emesis. Findings Include: R2 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses of Cerebral Palsy, Malignant Neoplasm of Colon, Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease, Legal Blindness, and Essential Hypertension. R2 has an activated Health Care Power of Attorney (HCPOA). R2's Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) completed 9/12/24 documents R2's Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score to be 4, indicating R2 demonstrates severely impaired skills for daily decision making. R2 is documented as having no mood or behavior issues. R2's MDS also documents R2 is independent with eating, has range of motion impairment on both sides of lower extremity, requires substantial/maximum assistance for showers and upper dressing. Partial/moderate assistance for lower dressing, mobility and transfers. R2's MDS documents R2 to always be incontinent of bladder and frequently incontinent of bowel. On 10/9/24, at 10:29 AM, Surveyor interviewed Receptionist at the Cancer Center (REC)-C via telephone. REC-C reported the van driver who transported R2 was appalled at the condition of R2. In particular, the day R2 was covered with emesis all down the front of R2. The nurse at the Cancer Clinic (RN)-D reported that RN-D noticed on several occasions R2 has been wet from urine. R2 has had R2's mask filled with food. RN-D confirmed R2 arrived covered in emesis to the clinic. RN-D stated R2's tubing was filled with emesis and that it had hardened and smelled so bad. On 10/9/24, at 11:25 AM, Medical Records (MR)-E confirmed that MR-E is responsible for scheduling of appointments and arranging transportation for the residents. On 10/9/24, at 11:42 AM, Surveyor interviewed via telephone Office Manager (OM)-F of the transportation company. OM-F informed Surveyor OM-F recalls the incident with R2. OM-F stated the van driver informed OM-F that when the van driver picked up R2 from the facility, R2 was covered in dried emesis. The van driver informed the person at the desk (of the Facility), who acted like they didn't care. OM-F stated the person at the desk would not take R2 to get changed before leaving the facility to go to the Cancer Center for chemotherapy. OM-F stated OM-F called the facility and reported the details to MR-E. OM-F informed Surveyor the incident occurred on 9/19/24. On 10/9/24, at 12:04 PM, Surveyor spoke with the Van Driver (VD)-G. VD-G informed Surveyor R2 was completely full of emesis the day VD-G picked up R2 to transport to the Cancer Clinic. VD-G stated that was the first time VD-G transported R2. VD-G stated R2 was brought up front late, a little over 20 minutes VD-G waited for R2. VD-G talked with the nurse at the Cancer Clinic about it and the nurse stated R2 has been soaked in urine at times. On 10/9/24, at 2:01 PM, MR-E denies receiving any phone calls from OM-F in regards to R2. On 10/10/24, at 11:06 AM, Director of Social Services (DSS)-K stated R2 is gone for R2's chemotherapy appointment for about 5 hours and about 30 minutes the second day to get R2's port out. On 10/10/24, at 11:25 AM, Surveyor shared the concern with Director of Nursing (DON)-B that R2 arrived to the Cancer Center covered in emesis, compromising R2's dignity. No further information was provided by the facility at this time.
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

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 a clean, comfortable, and homelike environment which had the pot...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation and interview, the facility did not ensure a clean, comfortable, and homelike environment which had the potential to affect 2 (R1 and R2) of 3 wheelchairs observed during the survey process. *R1's wheelchair was observed to be dirty during the survey. *R2's wheelchair was observed to be dirty, and the arm rests in need of repair during the survey. Findings Include: R2 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses of Cerebral Palsy, Malignant Neoplasm of Colon, Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease, Legal Blindness, and Essential Hypertension. R2 has an activated Health Care Power of Attorney (HCPOA). R2's Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) completed 9/12/24 documents R2's Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score to be 4, indicating R2 demonstrates severely impaired skills for daily decision making. R2 is documented as having no mood or behavior issues. R2's MDS also documents R2 is independent with eating, has range of motion impairment on both sides of lower extremity, requires substantial/maximum assistance for showers and upper dressing. Partial/moderate assistance for lower dressing, mobility and transfers. R2's MDS documents R2 to always be incontinent of bladder and frequently incontinent of bowel. On 10/9/24, at 11:04 AM, Surveyor observed R2's wheelchair. Both arm rests are missing the leather covering the foam. The right arm rest foam is mostly exposed with very little leather covering the arm rest. Surveyor observed dried food on the center of the wheelchair on both sides under the seat of the wheelchair. The wheels are dirty and dusty. R2's wheelchair brakes are covered with dried food crumbs. On 10/9/24, at 11:28 AM, Surveyor interviewed Maintenance Director (MD)-R. MD-R stated 3rd shift staff completes the task of cleaning the wheelchairs. MD-R stated they rely on staff communicating to MD-R if a wheelchair needs to be repaired. On 10/9/24, at 3:03 PM, Director of Nursing (DON)-B stated that wheelchairs are cleaned on the night shift on shower days and as needed. On 10/10/24, at 7:42 AM, Surveyor notes R2 was to have a shower on 10/9/24, which means that R2's wheelchair should have been cleaned on night shift on 10/9/24. On 10/10/24, at 8:15 AM, Surveyor observed R2's wheelchair continued to be dirty as observed on 10/9/24, evident of R2's wheelchair not being cleaned on R2's shower day. R2's arm rests remain in poor condition and in need or repair with exposed foam. On 10/10/24, at 10:33 AM, Surveyor interviewed Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA)-H. CNA-H stated wheelchairs are cleaned on 3rd shift and should be in the CNA assignment book as a task. On 10/10/24, at 10:34 AM, CNA-J informed Surveyor that 3rd shift washes the wheelchairs. CNA-J stated if CNA-J observed anything needing to be fixed on a wheelchair, CNA-J would let the maintenance department know. On 10/10/24, at 11:25 AM, Director of Nursing (DON)-B and Surveyor both observed R2's wheelchair together. DON-B agreed R2's wheelchair was filthy and both arm rests needed to be replaced with new ones. DON-B stated she understands Surveyor's concern with the dirty wheelchair. DON-B confirmed 3rd shift should be cleaning wheelchairs and is part of the CNA assignment. DON-B stated that wheelchairs can be cleaned as needed. No further information was provided by the facility at this time. 2.) On 10/9/24, at 8:52 a.m., Surveyor observed under R1's roho wheelchair cushion there are multiple small food crumbs and debris throughout the wheelchair seat. On 10/10/24, at 8:03 a.m., Surveyor observed under R1's roho cushion there are multiple small food crumbs and debris throughout the wheelchair seat. On the front edge of the wheelchair seat there is dried food. On 10/10/24, at 11:25 AM, a Surveyor interviewed Director of Nursing (DON)-B in regards to the procedure for washing wheelchairs. DON-B explained that wheelchairs are expected to be cleaned on 3rd shift as part of the CNA assignment and as needed on the Residents' shower day when staff see the wheelchair needs to be cleaned. DON-B was informed of the observation of R1's dirty wheelchair.
May 2024 3 deficiencies
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Investigate Abuse (Tag F0610)

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 thoroughly investigate 1 of 2 Facility Reported Incidents (FRI) revie...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility did not thoroughly investigate 1 of 2 Facility Reported Incidents (FRI) reviewed for alleged abuse. R1 and R2 were found in R1's room and R2 was fondling R1's breasts. An investigation was opened and FRI submitted to the State Agency. The staff member who found the residents, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN)-F, was not interviewed by the management preparing the investigation. No residents were interviewed to rule out the extent of R2's behavior or if others witnessed or had knowledge of potential inappropriate contact between R1 and R2. Findings include: Surveyor reviewed the facility's Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation policy with a revision date of 7/15/2022. Documented was: .V. Investigation of Alleged Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation A. An immediate investigation is warranted when allegation or suspicion of abuse, neglect or exploitation, or reports of abuse, neglect or exploitation occur. B. Written procedures for investigations include: 1. Identifying staff responsible for the investigation; 2. Exercising caution in handling evidence that could be used in a criminal investigation (e.g not destroying evidence); 3. Investigating different types of alleged violations; 4. Identifying and interviewing all involved persons, including the alleged victim, alleged perpetrator, witnesses, and others who might have knowledge of the allegation(s); 5. Focusing the investigation on determining if abuse, neglect, exploitation, and/or mistreatment has occurred, the extent, and cause; and 6. Providing complete and thorough documentation of the investigation . R1 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included Cerebral Atherosclerosis, Cognitive Communication Deficit, Anxiety and Symptoms and Signs Involving Cognitive Function and Awareness. Surveyor reviewed R1's MDS (Minimum Data Set) Assessment with an assessment reference date of 1/31/24. Documented under Cognition was a BIMS (brief interview mental status) score of 10 which indicated moderate cognitive impairment. R2 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included Orthostatic Hypotension, Dementia, Anxiety and Alcohol Induced Amnestic Disorder. Surveyor reviewed R2's MDS Assessment with an assessment reference date of 4/19/24. Documented under Cognition was a BIMS score of 10 which indicated moderate cognitive impairment. Surveyor reviewed the FRI submitted to the state agency on 4/25/24. Included with the Misconduct Incident Report was an Investigation Summary, Face Sheets for both residents, staff questionnaire sheets and Appendix 1 - Recommendations for Addressing Resident Relationships Intimacy & Sexuality History. Surveyor noted there were no interviews with other residents asking if R2 had any concerns with R2's behavior towards them or if they had witnessed any potentially inappropriate contact between R1 and R2. There were also no witness statements or an interview with LPN-F who witnessed the incident. Documented under Investigation Summary was: .Description of Incident: .On 4/20/2024, [LPN-F], was completing her rounds and observed [R2] in [R1's] room. [LPN-F] stated [R1] had her breasts exposed and [R2] was touching her breasts. She removed [R2] from [R1's] room and notified [Nursing Home Administrator (NHA)-A] immediately. Investigation protocol was initiated, and the investigation was started immediately . [Assistant Executive Director/Social Services Director (SSD)-C) and [Social Services Coordinator (SSC)-G] interviewed [R1] and [R2]. The State of Wisconsin's Board on Aging and Long-Term Care's presentation on Balancing Rights and Protection: Inclusive Relationships, Sexuality and Consent was used as a guide to interview both Residents. [R1] denied the above allegation, stating she and [R2] were just watching TV. She denied that he touched her in any way and expressed she was aware of her rights to maintain a relationship with [R2] should she wish. She acknowledged her awareness of her right to say no if she felt uncomfortable with any interactions with [R2] however denied any concerns at this time. She said she is not interested in pursuing anything beyond friendship with [R2] and enjoys spending time with him, as they have a lot in common. She denied any concerns and verbalized she feels safe and comfortable at [the facility]. [R2] also denied the above allegations. He stated that he and [R1] are very good friends and he feels thankful to have met someone he can share companionship with. He stated he is not interested in pursuing anything but friendship with [R1]. He expressed awareness of his rights to pursue relationships and his right to say no if he felt uncomfortable with any interactions. He denied any concerns and stated he feels safe and comfortable at [the facility]. Both [R2] and [R1's] activated POA's (Power of Attorney) were notified of the interaction. Neither voiced any concerns and both stated they were happy their loved ones had found companionship in each other. [R1] and [R2] had increased monitoring post interaction. Skin assessments were completed with no evidence of trauma. [R1] and [R2] were noted to be watching TV in the common area and chatting per usual. No behaviors or complications noted as a result of the interaction . On 5/6/24, at 12:17 PM, Surveyor interviewed SSD-C and Social Service Coordinator (SSC)-G. Surveyor asked what happened on the day of the incident. SSD-C stated LPN-F found R2 fondling R1's breasts in R1's room. LPN-F removed R2 from R1's room and called Nursing Home Administrator (NHA)-A. SSD-C stated she and SSC-G came to the facility and started interviewing. They interviewed R1 and R2 and the staff that was available at the time. Surveyor asked if any other residents were interviewed. SSD-C stated no, only the 2 involved in the incident. Surveyor asked if LPN-F was interviewed. SSD-C stated she was interviewed by NHA-A. On 5/6/24, at 1:30 PM, Surveyor interviewed NHA-A. Surveyor asked about the interview with LPN-F. NHA-A stated she did not interview LPN-F. NHA-A stated when the incident occurred, LPN-F called the on-call manager. That day it was Scheduler-E. Scheduler-E then called her and reported what happened. She called SSD-C and reported what LPN-F had said to Scheduler-E. Surveyor noted that SSD-C stated she had taken LPN-F's statement, which meant no one interviewed LPN-F as the main witness. Surveyor also note no other residents besides R1 and R2 were interviewed. NHA-A stated SSD-C was new to the Assistant Executive Director role and still learning how to do FRI's. Surveyor expressed concerns that a thorough investigation did not occur and asked for any other documentation of interviews being completed. No other documentation was provided.
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Quality of Care (Tag F0684)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility did not comprehensively assess 2 (R1 and R2) of 4 residents reviewed for alle...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility did not comprehensively assess 2 (R1 and R2) of 4 residents reviewed for alleged abuse. The facility must ensure that residents receive treatment and care in accordance with professional standards of practice, the comprehensive person-centered care plan, and the residents' choices, to have the highest practicable physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being. R1 and R2 were found in R1's room and R2 was fondling R1's breasts. Prior to this incident, R1 and R2 were spending lots of time together including being found holding hands. The residents were not assessed for competency, ability to consent to a sexual relationship or intimacy and sexual history assessment completed. Findings include: R1 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included Cerebral Atherosclerosis, Cognitive Communication Deficit, Anxiety and Symptoms and Signs Involving Cognitive Function and Awareness. Surveyor reviewed R1's MDS (Minimum Data Set) Assessment with an assessment reference date of 1/31/24. Documented under Cognition was a BIMS (brief interview mental status) score of 10 which indicated moderate cognitive impairment. R2 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included Orthostatic Hypotension, Dementia, Anxiety and Alcohol Induced Amnestic Disorder. Surveyor reviewed R2's MDS Assessment with an assessment reference date of 4/19/24. Documented under Cognition was a BIMS score of 10 which indicated moderate cognitive impairment. Surveyor reviewed FRI submitted to the state agency on 4/25/24 prepared by [Assistant Executive Director/Social Services Director (SSD)-C)]. Included with the Misconduct Incident Report were an Investigation Summary, Face Sheets for both residents, staff questionnaire sheets and 2 copies of Appendix 1 - Recommendations for Addressing Resident Relationships Intimacy & Sexuality History that included an attached page of resident specific questions related to the relationship between R1 and R2. One copy had R1's name on the top and 1 copy had R2's name on the top. Both assessments and additional page of questions were blank. 3 of the 17 staff questionnaire sheets noted staff had seen R1 and R2 holding hands prior to the incident on 4/20/24. Documented under Investigation Summary was: .Description of Incident: On 4/20/2024, Licensed Practical Nurse [LPN-F], was completing her rounds and observed [R2] in [R1's] room. [LPN-F] stated [R1] had her breasts exposed and [R2] was touching her breasts. She removed [R2] from [R1's] room and notified [Nursing Home Administrator (NHA)-A] immediately. Investigation protocol was initiated, and the investigation was started immediately. Upon report of the above allegation, the following was initiated: Interview of affected residents Investigation protocol initiated Skin check completed on affected residents Self-report submitted Provider notified for both residents Residents monitored post interaction Police department notified of incident- declined to respond or pursue investigation Notification to [State Ombudsmen-J] Results of Investigation: [SSD-C] and [Social Services Coordinator (SSC)-G] interviewed [R1] and [R2]. The State of Wisconsin's Board on Aging and Long-Term Care's presentation on Balancing Rights and Protection: Inclusive Relationships, Sexuality and Consent was used as a guide to interview both Residents. [R1] denied the above allegation, stating she and [R2] were just watching TV. She denied that [R2] touched her in any way and expressed she was aware of her rights to maintain a relationship with [R2] should she wish. She acknowledged her awareness of her right to say no if she felt uncomfortable with any interactions with [R2] however denied any concerns at this time. She said she is not interested in pursuing anything beyond friendship with [R2] and enjoys spending time with him, as they have a lot in common. She denied any concerns and verbalized that she feels safe and comfortable at [the facility]. [R2] also denied the above allegations. He stated he and [R1] are very good friends and he feels thankful to have met someone he can share companionship with. He stated he is not interested in pursuing anything but friendship with [R1]. [R1] expressed awareness of his rights to pursue relationships and his right to say no if he felt uncomfortable with any interactions. He denied any concerns and stated he feels safe and comfortable at [the facility]. Both [R2] and [R1's] activated POA's (Power of Attorney) were notified of the interaction. Neither voiced any concerns and both stated they were happy their loved ones had found companionship in each other. [R1] and [R2] had increased monitoring post interaction. Skin assessments were completed with no evidence of trauma. [R1] and [R2] were noted to be watching TV in the common area and chatting per usual. No behaviors or complications noted as a result of the interaction . Surveyor reviewed documentation of email correspondence between SSD-C and Ombudsman-J. Documented to Ombudsman-J from SSD-C on 4/22/24, at 4:34 PM, was: We have 2 Residents here that have been pursuing a very close friendship recently. Over the weekend, they were noted to be engaging in some sexual behavior. We did submit a self report right away and interviewed both Residents regarding the incident however they both denied that anything happened. During the interviews, they both made it very clear they were only interested in pursuing a friendship with each other and were not interested in anything further. I was able to refer back to the presentation Balancing Rights and Protection from a few months ago for reference. Just wanted to make [sic] aware and see if you had any recommendations or suggestions on how to handle this moving forward. Thanks! Documented to SSD-C from Ombudsman-J on 4/23/24, at 4:55 PM, was: I have attached some documents about sexuality and intimacy you might find helpful. The important thing, if the residents decide to pursue something beyond friendship, is their ability to understand and give consent to one another. One of the documents attached is a guide in determining the ability to consent. The residents should not be deterred from pursuing a relationship, if they choose, as long as they still have an understanding of intimacy and can consent. Let me know if you have any additional questions. Attached to the email was Balancing Rights and Protection: Inclusive Relationships, Sexuality and Consent PowerPoint, Recommendations for Addressing Resident Relationships, Appendix 1 - Recommendations for Addressing Resident Relationships Intimacy & Sexuality History and Appendix 2 - Recommendations for Addressing Resident Relationship Assessment for Consent to Physical Sexual Expressions. Surveyor reviewed Recommendations for Addressing Resident Relationships. Documented was: This document provides guidance to facilities suggesting what might be included in a Resident Relationships Policy that addresses intimacy and sexuality issues. It does not in any way constitute a regulation, mandate or requirement. Facilities are encouraged to write their own policies related to these issues . Surveyor reviewed Appendix 1 - Recommendations for Addressing Resident Relationships Intimacy & Sexuality History. Documented was: This appendix is not legal advice or mandated, but is intended to be used as a guide for facilities to obtain information about a resident's intimacy and sexuality history. This history is to be completed with the resident, and the information obtained may be helpful overall in assisting residents to feel at home, comfortable and secure. This information may be best gathered once rapport is gained between a resident and staff skilled at interviewing. If additional information is needed, a family member or legal decision maker could be interviewed. It may be helpful to take notes about the resident's statements, as the actual verbal response often reveals a lot about the person's level of understanding of the topic. It should also be understood that the resident has the right to refuse to participate in this conversation, and that refusal should not constitute an inability to consent to an intimate or sexual relationship . Surveyor reviewed Appendix 2 - Recommendations for Addressing Resident Relationship Assessment for Consent to Physical Sexual Expressions. Documented was: Wisconsin has not specifically defined what an individual must understand in order to consent to sexual contact. However, discussion in the Guardianship of Adults (http://www.dhs.wisconsin.gov/publications/P2/p20460.pdf), implies that there may be indications that the following four guidelines could be used as the basis for an assessment to determine a person's ability to consent to sexual contact. Depending on the uniqueness of each situation, additional considerations might be appropriate. Assessment efforts should focus on the resident revealing his/her understanding of the following four guidelines: 1. The person understands the distinctively sexual nature of the conduct. That is, that the acts have a special status as sexual. 2. The person understands that their body is private and they have the right to refuse, or say no. They should also understand the other person should respect their right of refusal. 3. The person understands there may be health risks associated with the sexual act. (pregnancy, STD's, cardiac, other health risks) 4. The person understands there may be negative societal response to the conduct. (Gossip, name calling, social fallout, stigmatized.) . On 5/6/24, at 12:17 PM, Surveyor interviewed Social Service Director (SSD)-C and (Social Service Coordinator) SSC-G. Surveyor asked about the information provided by Ombudsman-J. SSD-C stated that is what they used to determine that both residents could consent and were allowed to have a relationship if they wanted to, but at this time they only wanted a friendship. Surveyor noted the blank copied of Appendix 1 with R1 and R2's names on them. Surveyor asked why the assessments were blank. SSD-C stated both residents refused to answer the questions. Surveyor asked if either resident were assessed prior to the 4/20/24 incident. SSD-C stated no. Surveyor noted that R1 and R2 were observed by staff holding hands and spending lots of time together. Surveyor asked why they were not assessed prior to the incident. SSD-C stated she was not sure. Surveyor asked if either resident was reapproached to answer any of the questions from Appendix 1 after the incident. SSD-C stated no because they were adamant it did not happen and it was just a friendship. Surveyor noted LPN-F had witnessed the incident. SSD-C and SSC-G did not respond. Surveyor asked where the refusal to answer the questions was documented. SSD-C stated it was not. Surveyor asked how they determined R1 and R2 were able to consent. SSD-C stated she asked the two questions, if they understood their rights to have a relationship and if they understood if the other one was reluctant to be in a relationship and the right to say no. Surveyor noted if they were using the information provided by Ombudsman-J, Appendix-J has four specific questions to determine competency. Surveyor asked if they had used Appendix 2. SSD-C stated no. Surveyor asked if either R1 or R2 had been assessed for consent prior to the incident on 4/20/24. SSD-C stated no. SSD-C stated R1 and R2 only want a friendship so consent was not needed. Surveyor asked what would warrant a sexual/intimacy assessment and consent assessment. SSD-C stated a resident wanting to pursue a relationship with someone in the facility. On 5/6/24, at 1:30 PM, Surveyor interviewed (Nursing Home Administrator (NHA)-A. Surveyor explained the concerns with no assessments being completed to determine a residents' ability to consent to a potentially sexual relationship prior to the 4/20/24 incident where R1 and R2 were observed touching each other in a sexual manner. NHA-A stated she was concerned about resident rights issues but understood the concerns about the assessments and they will be completed to avoid this situation.
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Deficiency F0699 (Tag F0699)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interview, the facility did not comprehensively assess 2 (R1 and R3) of 3 residents reviewed for trau...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interview, the facility did not comprehensively assess 2 (R1 and R3) of 3 residents reviewed for trauma informed care and care plan approaches to mitigate any triggers to prevent re-traumatization. ~ R1 was admitted [DATE] and during her admission psychosocial assessment, the facility did not identify R1 as having a history of physical abuse. On 5/1/24 the facility completed Trauma Informed Care Assessments for all high risk residents. R1's past history of physical abuse was then identified. A care plan and approaches to mitigate any triggers to prevent re-traumatization was not put in place after the assessment for R1 had been completed. ~ R3 was admitted on [DATE] and during her admission psychosocial assessment, the facility identified R3 as having a history of physical abuse. This information was not transferred to R3's plan of care. On 5/1/24 the facility completed Trauma Informed Care Assessments for all high risk residents and identified R3 as having a history of physical and sexual abuse. Prior to that R3 had no care plan approaches to mitigate any triggers to prevent re-traumatization. Findings include: Surveyor reviewed the facility's Trauma Informed Care policy with a revision date of 10/18/2022. Documented was: Policy: It is the policy of this facility to provide care and services which, in addition to meeting professional standards, are delivered using approaches which are culturally competent, account for experiences and preferences, and address the needs of trauma survivors by minimizing triggers and/or re-traumatization. Definitions: Trauma results from an event, series of events, or set of circumstances that is experienced by an individual as physically or emotionally harmful or life threatening and that has lasting adverse effects on the individual's functioning and mental, physical, social, emotional, or spiritual well-being. Common sources of trauma may include, but are not limited to: a. Natural and human caused disasters b. Accidents c. War d. Physical, sexual, mental, and/or emotional abuse (past or present) e. Rape f. Violent crime g. History of imprisonment h. History of homelessness i. Traumatic life events (death of a loved one, personal illness, etc.) Trauma-Informed Care is an approach to delivering care that involves understanding, recognizing, and responding to the effects of all types of trauma. A trauma-informed approach to care delivery recognizes the widespread impact and signs and symptoms of trauma in residents, and incorporates knowledge about trauma into care plans, policies, procedures and practices to avoid re-traumatization. Policy Explanation and Compliance Guidelines: 1. The facility will work to facilitate the principles of trauma informed care which include: a. Safety - Ensuring residents have a sense of emotional and physical safety. b. Trustworthiness and transparency - Efforts to establish a relationship based on trust, and clear and open communication between the staff and the resident. c. Peer support and mutual self-help - If practicable, assist the resident in locating and arranging to attend support groups (potentially hosted by the facility) which are organized by qualified professionals. d. Collaboration - an emphasis on partnering between residents and/or his or her representative, and all staff and disciplines involved in the resident's care in developing the plan of care. e. Empowerment, voice, and choice - Ensuring that resident's choice and preferences are honored and that residents are empowered to be active participants in their care and decision-making, including recognition of, and building on resident's strengths. 2. The facility will use a multi-pronged approach to identifying a resident's history of trauma. This will include asking the resident about triggers that may be stressors or may prompt recall of a previous traumatic event, as well as reviewing documentation such as the history and physical, consultation notes, or information received from family/responsible party . 4. The facility will collaborate with resident trauma survivors, and as appropriate, the resident's family, friends, the primary care physician, and any other health care professionals (such as psychologists and mental health professionals) to develop and implement individualized care plan interventions. 5. The facility will identify triggers which may re-traumatize residents with a history of trauma. Trigger-specific interventions will identify ways to decrease the resident's exposure to triggers which re-traumatize the resident, as well as identify ways to mitigate or decrease the effect of the trigger on the resident and will be added to the resident's care plan. While most triggers are highly individualized, some common triggers may include, but are not limited to: a. Experiencing a lack of privacy or confinement in a crowded or small space. b. Exposure to loud noises, or bright/flashing lights. c. Certain sights, such as objects that are associated with their abuser. d. Sounds, smells, and physical touch. 6. Trauma-specific care plan interventions will recognize the interrelation between trauma and symptoms of trauma such as substance abuse, eating disorders, depression, and anxiety. These interventions will also recognize the survivor's need to be respected, informed, connected, and hopeful regarding their own recovery. 7. The facility will evaluate whether the interventions have been able to mitigate (or reduce) the impact of identified triggers on the resident that may cause re-traumatization. The resident and/or his or her family or representative will be included in this evaluation to ensure clear and open discussion and better understand if interventions must be modified. 8. In situations where a trauma survivor is reluctant to share their history, the facility will still try to identify triggers which may re-traumatize the resident and develop care plan interventions which minimize or eliminate the effect of the trigger on the resident. ~ R1 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included Cerebral Atherosclerosis, Cognitive Communication Deficit, Anxiety and Symptoms and Signs Involving Cognitive Function and Awareness. Surveyor reviewed R1's MDS (Minimum Data Set) Assessment with an assessment reference date of 1/31/24. Documented under Cognition was a BIMS (brief interview mental status) score of 10 which indicated moderate cognitive impairment. Surveyor reviewed R1's Psychosocial Assessment admission with an effective date of 1/27/24 prepared by Former Registered Nurse/Case Manager (RN)-I. Documented was Prior Trauma or [history/diagnosis (hx/dx)] of [Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD)]? c. none of the above. Surveyor noted the assessment did not identify R1's history of physical abuse. Surveyor reviewed R1's Trauma-Informed Care Observation with an effective date of 5/1/24 prepared by Social Services Director (SSD)-C. Documented was: .5. Have you ever experienced, witnessed, learned about a physical assault (e.g. attacked, hit, beaten up, etc.)? b. Personally experienced . Experience 1. Did any of these events bother you? b. Yes 2. Comments on events resident was bothered by: Resident states her ex-husband was physically abusive. He has since passed away. She remarried and stated her most recent husband was the best thing that ever happened to me. States she always has the memories of the abuse she suffered with her first husband however tries to remember the good memories with her second husband . Effects . 2. How much did the event(s) bother you emotionally? d. Much 3. What are the triggers that remind you of the event (e.g, loud noises, confined spaces, bath tubs, hot surfaces, sirens, etc.)? Verbalized no current triggers, just often thinks about the events. Has a close relationship with peer and daughter; states spending time with them helps her forget about negative memories. 4. How do you react when you are reminded of the event(s)? Becomes sad/tearful. Treatment 1. When you are reacting to the event(s), what helps you refocus? Spending time with friend/family, watching tv. Enjoys going for walks, going to group activities, enjoying nice weather, etc . Surveyor reviewed R1's Comprehensive Care Plan. There was no Trauma Informed Care care plan put in place after this assessment was completed. On 5/7/24, at 11:00 AM, Surveyor interviewed SSD-C. Surveyor asked why R1's physical abuse was not identified on her admission psychosocial assessment. SSD-C stated she was not sure and RN-I no longer worked at the facility. Surveyor asked why the Trauma Informed Care assessment was not done until 5/1/24. SSD-C stated R1 had an incident with another resident on 4/20/24 so they decided to assess all the high-risk residents. Surveyor asked who should receive a Trauma Informed Care assessment. SSD-C stated anyone who triggers for trauma on the psychosocial assessment. SSD-C stated she was unsure why R1's assessment did not identify the physical abuse. ~ R3 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included a Right Fibula Fracture, Personality Disorder, Anxiety and Schizoaffective Disorder. Surveyor reviewed R3's MDS (Minimum Data Set) Assessment with an assessment reference date of 12/6/23. Documented under Cognition was a BIMS (brief interview mental status) score of 06 which indicated severe cognitive impairment. Surveyor reviewed R3's Psychosocial Assessment admission with an effective date of 11/30/23 prepared by Former Registered Nurse/Case Manager (RN)-I. Documented was: Social History . 5. Other important relationships: [Sister] - POA for healthcare (not active) Prior Trauma or [history/diagnosis (hx/dx)] of [Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD)]? a. Prior trauma 5aa. Describe prior trauma Resident states parents were physically abusive D. Care Planning Check all that apply to add care plan 2. Trauma Informed Care Surveyor noted the assessment did not identify R1's history of sexual abuse. Surveyor also noted no Focus, Goals or Interventions were checked under care planning. Surveyor reviewed R3's Comprehensive Care Plan. There was no Trauma Informed Care care plan put in place after this assessment was completed. R3 did have a care plan addressing her behaviors with an initiation date of 12/1/23. Documented was: Focus: At risk for adverse effects [related to (r/t)] use of antipsychotic medication, mood stabilizer Dx schizoaffective disorder, bipolar type anxiety disorder, personality disorder. Goal: - To show minimum side effects of medications taken - Show no signs of hallucinating or delusional thinking - Will have medication dose reduction/elimination as indicated Interventions/Tasks: - AIMS testing per facility guidelines (upon admission, initiation of, change of, every 6 months and [as needed (PRN)] - Evaluate effectiveness and side effects of medications for possible decrease/elimination of psychotropic drugs - Provide resident teaching of risks and benefits of medications as needed - Psychiatrist consult and follow up as needed - TARGET BEHAVIOR 1: Resident will become paranoid, believe that someone is trying to murder her and her family, someone is going to rape her and as a result can become verbally and physically aggressive. Intervention #1: Offer 1:1 opportunity to express feelings and validate. Intervention #2: Offer to assist in contacting sister. Intervention #3: Allow Resident time to calm and reapproach as needed. Offer to take for a walk to get some fresh air. - TARGET BEHAVIOR 2: Resident will become tearful when feeling depressed. Intervention #1: Offer 1:1 opportunity to express feelings and validate. Intervention #2: Offer to assist in contacting sister. Intervention #3: Offer diversionary activity. Resident enjoys watching tv, 1:1 visits, talking with sister. Surveyor reviewed R3's Trauma-Informed Care Observation with an effective date of 5/1/24 prepared by Nursing Home Administrator (NHA)-A. Documented was: .5. Have you ever experienced, witnessed, learned about a physical assault (e.g. attacked, hit, beaten up, etc.)? b. Personally experienced . 6. Have you ever experienced, witnessed, learned about a sexual assault (e.g. rape, attempted rape, mad perform a sexual act via force or threat of harm, etc.) b. Personally experienced . Experience . 2. Comments on events resident was bothered by: Sexual and physical abuse Effects 1. How long were you bothered by the event(s)? d. Other: 1a. I am still affected by these events. 2. How much did the event(s) bother you emotionally? e. Very much 3. What are the triggers that remind you of the event (e.g. loud noises, confined spaces, bath tubs, hot surfaces, sirens, etc.)? Seeing photos of my family, shows or movies involving abuse, the word abuse. Conversations regarding abusive or sexual situations. 4. How do you react when you are reminded of the event(s)? I cry and scream. Treatment 1. When you are reacting to the event(s), what helps you refocus? Talking to staff, going outside for fresh air, coloring, eating a snack, getting nails done. 2. What type of help have you received to address your response to the event(s)? b. Medications c. Counseling . 4. Additional Observer Info: Resident's trauma recently shared by her sister. Resident does often speak of her hallucinations (auditory and visual) and often talks to the voices in her head. She is redirectable but would benefit from a quiet, small environment. Placement being actively pursued as resident has done well in group home setting and regularly seeing psych services along with taking her medications . On 5/2/24 a Comprehensive Care Plan was put in place for R3 for Trauma Informed Care. Documented was: Focus: At risk for retraumatization of past event or experience where reminders/triggers of event or experience may cause behavioral changes and/or emotional distress per resident history of sexual assault and mental illness. Goal: Reminder/triggering events will be avoided with minimal impact during stay within the facility. Interventions/Tasks: - 1 on 1 care provided - Determine individualized de-escalation preferences; stop talking about current situation that is bothersome. - Monitor for decreased social interaction and explore opportunities to avoid decline. If other residents are engaging in conversation and it appears to be stressful, need to remove resident from situation/environment. - Monitor for increased withdrawal, anger or depressive behaviors and explore opportunities to avoid - Provide choice-making activities - Provide a safe environment - Refer to Psychology as indicated - Remove/Avoid situations that may trigger retraumatization including the word abuse, sexual abuse, pictures of family members. On 5/7/24, at 11:00 AM, Surveyor interviewed Social Service Director (SSD)-C. Surveyor asked why R3's Trauma Informed Care care plan and assessment was not completed until 5/1/24. SSD-C stated after the incident with R1 and R2 they decided to assess all the high-risk residents. Surveyor asked why the sexual abuse trauma was not identified earlier. SSD-C stated they found that information out from her sister/POA who was not involved until recently. Surveyor asked what recently meant. SSD-C stated the last week or two. Surveyor asked who should receive a Trauma Informed Care assessment. SSD-C stated anyone who triggers for trauma on the psychosocial assessment. Surveyor stated that R3's 11/30/23 Psychosocial Assessment triggered for trauma but there was no Trauma Informed Care assessment until this one completed on 5/1/24. SSD-C stated she was unsure why R3 did not have the trauma assessment done. SSD-C stated RN-I did the Psychosocial Assessment and she does not work here anymore so they were unable to ask her. On 5/6/24, at 1:30 PM, Surveyor interviewed NHA-A. Surveyor asked why the sexual abuse trauma for R3 was not identified earlier. NHA-A stated they found that information out from her sister/POA who was not involved until a few weeks ago. Surveyor noted on the 11/30/23 Psychosocial Assessment prepared by RN-I it stated Sister/POA as important person in her life. NHA-A stated she was unaware of that. Surveyor asked why all the Trauma Informed Care assessments were not completed until 5/1/24. NHA-A stated after the incident with R1 and R2 they identified the residents that were at risk for trauma and completed the assessment on them. Surveyor noted R3 did trigger for physical trauma on 11/30/23 and also had a care plan in place with behaviors that she will become paranoid, believe that someone is trying to murder her and her family and someone is going to rape her. NHA-A stated that is part her delusions and psych issues. Surveyor noted could these behaviors possibly be part of past trauma. NHA-A stated she understands the concerns. NHA-A stated R3 is working closely with Psych currently and will be transferred to a Psych group home which is a more appropriate setting for her.
Jan 2024 5 deficiencies
CONCERN (D)

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

Medication Errors (Tag F0758)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review the facility did not ensure 1 (R54) of 2 residents reviewed for psychotropic medication wer...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review the facility did not ensure 1 (R54) of 2 residents reviewed for psychotropic medication were being assessed and monitored appropriately to be free from unnecessary drugs. R54 started Quetiapine/Seroquel (Antipsychotic) and did not have an AIMS (Abnormal involuntary movement scale) completed at the start of the medication. When the AIMS was completed, there was a recommendation for a neurological exam based off of the score indicated. There was no follow up on this recommendation or reassessment of the AIMs score. Finding include: The facility policy, entitled Psychotropic Medications, date revised 10/24/22, states: #8. Residents who receive an antipsychotic medication will have an Abnormal Involuntary Movement scale (AIMS) test performed on admission, at least every 6 months, when the antipsychotic medication is changed, and PRN. R54 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses of heart disease with heart failure, unspecified dementia, aphasia following cerebral infarction, hemiplegia and hemiparesis following cerebral infarction, anxiety disorder, and alcohol abuse with alcohol induced mood disorder. R54's Quarterly MDS (Minimum Data Set) assessment, dated 12/14/23, documents a BIMS (Brief Interview for Mental Status) score of 3, indicating R54 is severely cognitively impaired. It also assesses that R54 is taking antipsychotics and antianxiety medication. Review of R54's medical record documents a physician order that documents, Seroquel, oral tablet, 25 MG (milligram), give 12.5 mg by mouth two times a day for Dementia, with an active date of 12/9/23. Review of R54's Monthly Medication Pharmacy Review dated 10/2/2023 documents recommendations were made which include to check the AIMS. Review of R54's Monthly Medication Pharmacy Review dated 11/6/23 documents recommendations were made which include to check the AIMS. Surveyor was able to locate one AIMS which was completed on 11/16/23. The score on this assessment is 4 which indicates a referral for neurological exam is needed. Surveyor notes that there are no AIMS completed when Seroquel was originally started on 9/25/23. Surveyor is also unable to locate any follow up for this neurological exam or a retake of the AIMS to determine if the score of 4 was a mistake or not. On 01/24/23, at 1:11 PM, Surveyor spoke with Director of Nursing (DON)-B who informed Surveyor that they are new to their role and unsure of who administers the AIMS and how often the AIMS should be completed. DON-B also informed Surveyor that she just recently started taking over reviewing the monthly medication pharmacy reviews and did not know who was responsible for the follow up prior to her. On 01/24/24, at 02:59 PM, at the end of day meeting with Nursing Home Administrator (NHA)-A, DON-B, Social Worker (SW)-C, Surveyor informed them of the concerns regarding a lack of an AIMS upon start of an antipsychotic for R54 and that for two months the monthly pharmacy review recommended an AIMS to be completed and then when it was completed the score indicated that a referral for a neurological exam was needed. Surveyor asked if there was any follow up. They stated they would look. On 01/25/24, at 07:31 AM, NHA-A and SW-C informed Surveyor that R54 was seen on 11/21/23 by neurology for follow up for his stroke. The team felt that this appointment was satisfactory and that a new referral was not made based off of the AIMS assessment. Surveyor reviewed the after-visit paperwork summary from the neurology visit on 11/21/23 and did not find any reference to neurological work up for side effects for antipsychotics as well as did not find Seroquel listed on the current medication list. Surveyor could not find documentation that the neurologist was made aware of the antipsychotic and results of the AIMS and therefore would not even know to be looking for side effects of them. On 01/25/24, at 07:57 AM, NHA-A stated that in review they believe that the initial AIMS completed on 11/16/23 was scored incorrectly and that they redid the AIMS the previous night and got a score of 0. NHA-A explained that they did start education for nurses on how to administer the AIMS and scoring. No additional information was provided.
CONCERN (D)

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

Unnecessary Medications (Tag F0759)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, interview and record review the facility did not ensure its medication error rates are not 5 percent or greater. There were 2 errors in 29 opportunities for an error rate of 6.9%...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview and record review the facility did not ensure its medication error rates are not 5 percent or greater. There were 2 errors in 29 opportunities for an error rate of 6.9% for R3 and R22. * R3 was administered Senna Plus (Docusate Sodium/Sennosides) versus regular Senna as ordered by the Physician. * R22's Medication Administration Record (MAR) documented an order for Atropine 0.01% versus 1% as ordered by the Physician. Findings include: The facility policy titled Medication Administration dated 01/23 documents (in part) . .Medication Preparation 3. Prior to administration, review and confirm medication orders for each individual resident on the Medication Administration Record (MAR). Compare the medication and dosage schedule on the resident's MAR with the medication label. If the label and MAR are different, and the container is not flagged indicating a change in directions, or if there is any other reason to question the dosage or directions, the prescriber's orders are checked for the correct dosage schedule. Apply a direction change sticker to label if directions have changed from the current label. Medication Administration 9. Verify medication is correct three (3) times before administering the medication. a. When pulling medication package from med cart b. When dose is prepared c. Before dose is administered 1. On 1/23/24 at 7:45 AM Surveyor observed Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN)-G prepare R3's medications which consisted of Senna Plus (Docusate Sodium/Sennosides) 50/8.6 mg (milligrams) - 2 tablets, Aspirin EC (enteric coated) 81 mg - 1 tablet, Arnulty Ellipta (Fluticasone) 100 mcg (micrograms) 1 puff daily, Quetiapine Fumarate 50 mg - 1 tablet, Divalproex Sodium DR (delayed release) 250 mg - 1 tablet, Fluoxetine HCL 10 mg - 3 tablets, Metformin HCL ER 750 mg - 1 tablet and Miralax 17 grams mixed with 180 ml (milliliters) of water. Surveyor verified the number of tablets with LPN-G. LPN-G reported Calcium with vitamin D and Laculose was not available and would obtain from contingency/order from pharmacy. LPN-G handed R3 the cup containing the medications and R3 proceeded to swallow the medications with Miralax/water. LPN-G handed R3 the inhaler which she did independently and rinsed her mouth after. R3's current January 2024 MAR documented an order for Senna Oral Tablet (Sennosides) Give 2 tablets by mouth two times a day for laxative - start date 9/28/23. Surveyor noted LPN-G administered Senna Plus versus the Sennosides as ordered. On 1/23/24 at 9:09 AM Surveyor advised LPN-G of the observation Senna Plus versus Senna given. LPN-G advised Surveyor she gave R3 the Calcium and Lactulose. LPN-G reported pharmacy made a delivery last night and the medications were put in the wrong medication cart. Surveyor verified the medications signed out as administered. 2. On 1/23/24 at 9:30 AM Surveyor observed LPN-H prepare medications for R22 which consisted of Atropine 1% eye drops - 2 drops sublingually TID (three times daily), Famotidine 20 mg - 1 tablet and Levetiracetam oral solution 100 mg/ml - 2.5 ml. LPN-H administered the Famotidine and Levetiracetam through R22's gastrostomy tube. Surveyor identified no concerns with procedure. R22 refused the Atropine. LPN-H asked R22 three times, but R22 refused. R22's current January 2024 MAR documented an order for Atropine Sulfate Ophthalmic Solution 0.01 % - Give 2 drops by mouth three times a day for oral secretions - start date 2/20/23. On 1/23/24 at 9:56 AM Surveyor asked LPN-H to view the Atropine bottle together. Surveyor advised LPN-H the label indicates 1%, however the MAR order indicates 0.01%. LPN-H stated: I don't know, I'll have to look into that. Surveyor review of R22's medical record revealed a progress note dated 1/23/24 at 10:59 AM which documented: Writer had Atropine eye drops clarified by NP (Nurse Practitioner) and order rewritten. Family here visiting and updated of patient's condition. Note Text: Atropine Sulfate Ophthalmic Solution 1% - Give 2 drop by mouth three times a day for secretions - Atropine 1% eye drop instill 2 drops sublingually TID. Surveyor noted R22's MAR was corrected to include the order for Atropine 1% versus 0.01%. On 1/24/24 at 9:05 AM Nursing Home Administrator (NHA)-A was advised of the above observations and medication error rate. No additional information was provided.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0761 (Tag F0761)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview and record review the facility did not ensure that drugs and biological's used in the facility w...

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 that drugs and biological's used in the facility were labeled in accordance with currently accepted professional principles, and include the expiration date when applicable for 2 of 3 medication carts reviewed in the facility. * Medication carts contained insulin that was not labeled, dated and/or expired. On [DATE] Surveyor observed a Levemir insulin pen which was open and used, but not dated when opened. In addition, there was no label or name on the insulin pen. On [DATE] Surveyor observed R23's Levemir insulin vial was open and used dated wither 6/13 or [DATE]. Once opened this product expires 42 days after first use or removal from the refrigerator which ever comes first. In addition, the physician's order indicates a discontinued date of [DATE] for Levemir Subcutatneous Solution 100 Unit/ML On [DATE] Surveyor observed R46's Humalog insulin Kwikpen was open and used dated [DATE]. Once opened this product expires 28 days after first uses or removal from the refrigerator, whichever comes first. Findings include: The facility policy titled Medication Storage dated 01/23 documents (in part) . .Policy Medications and biological's are stored properly, following manufacturer's or provider pharmacy recommendations, to maintain their integrity and to support safe effective drug administration. The medication supply shall be accessible only to licensed nursing personnel, pharmacy personnel, or staff members lawfully authorized to administer medications. Procedures 12. Insulin products should be stored in the refrigerator until opened. Note the date on the label for insulin vials and pens when first used. The opened insulin vial may be stored in the refrigerator or at room temperature. Opened insulin pens can be stored at room temperature. (Refer to Section 9.10 - Medications with Shortened Expiration Dates). 14. Outdated, contaminated, discontinued or deteriorated medications and those in containers that are cracked, soiled, or without secure closures are immediately removed from stock, disposed of according to procedures for medication disposal and reordered from the pharmacy if a current order exists. The facility policy titled Medication Administration dated 01/23 documents (in part) . .Medication Administration 8. Check expiration date on package/container. No expired medication will be administered to a resident. a. Drugs dispensed in the manufacturer's original container will be labeled with a manufacturer's expiration date. b. The nurse shall place a date opened sticker on the medication if one is not provided by the dispensing pharmacy and enter the date opened. c. Certain products or package types such as multi-dose vials and opthalmic drops have specific shortened end-of-use dating, once opened, to ensure medication purity and potency (refer to section 9.10 - Medications With Shortened Expiration Dates). Section 9.10 Appendix of Resources Medications with Shortened Expiration Dates: Levemir vial: Once opened product expires 42 days after first use or removal from refrigerator, whichever comes first. Levemir Flextouch pen: Once opened product expires 42 days after first use or removal from refrigerator, whichever comes first. Humalog kwikpen: Once opened product expires 28 days after first use or removal from refrigerator, whichever comes first. 1. On [DATE] at 1:53 PM Surveyor observed the unit 300 side 2 medication cart. In the top drawer of the cart, Surveyor located a Levemir insulin pen which was open and used, but not dated when opened. In addition, there was no label or name on the insulin pen. Surveyor asked Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN)-H who the insulin pen belonged to. LPN-H stated: I don't know, there's no name on it. 2. Surveyor located a Levemir insulin vial labeled with R23's name, which was open and used, dated [DATE] or [DATE]. Surveyor asked LPN-H if she could clarify the date. LPN-H reported she was not sure which date was written, adding either way it not right. Let me look to see if she even still gets it. LPN-H looked at R23's Medication Administration Record and stated: Yes, she still gets it. I think they switched her to the pen, I'll get rid of this (referring to vial). Surveyor review of R23's Physician's orders documented: Levemir Subcutaneous Solution 100 UNIT/ML (milliliters) Inject 25 unit subcutaneously one time a day for DM (Diabetes Mellitus) start date [DATE] discontinued [DATE]. Levemir FlexPen Subcutaneous Solution Pen-injector 100 UNIT/ML Inject 25 unit subcutaneously one time a day related to Type 2 DM with hyperglycemia start date [DATE]. 3. On [DATE] at 2:06 PM Surveyor observed unit 200 high end medication cart. In the top drawer, Surveyor located a Humalog insulin kwikpen with R46's name which was open and used, dated [DATE]. Surveyor showed LPN-I the Humalog insulin pen and asked if she knew how long the insulin was good for once opened. LPN-I stated: I'm not sure, I think 3 months. Usually there's a label with a use by date. LPN-I looked at the insulin pen and was unable to find a use by date. LPN-I stated: Just leave it here and I will get rid of it. On [DATE] at 9:00 AM Nursing Home Administrator (NHA)-A was advised of the above observations. No additional information was provided.
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0657 (Tag F0657)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 5. R22 was admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses that include cerebral palsy, epilepsy, encephalopathy, dementia, heart failure and ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 5. R22 was admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses that include cerebral palsy, epilepsy, encephalopathy, dementia, heart failure and other developmental disorders of speech and language. R22's Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] indicated R22 had moderate cognitive impairment with a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 9 and the Activities of Daily Living Care indicate that R22 needs extensive assistance with all cares. R22 does have a Guardian. Surveyor reviewed R22's medical record. A psychosocial note dated 2/23/23 documents, .Writer is trying to schedule a care conference with hospice and family. Another psychosocial note dated 2/2/23 documents, .declined scheduling a care conference as we had one not long ago. Care Conferences documented in R22's medical record occurred on 3/1/23 and 11/21/22. No other documentation was found of quarterly care conference meetings. On 01/23/24, at 03:11 PM, at the daily exit with the facility, Surveyor shared with Nursing home Administrator (NHA)-A, Director of Nursing (DON)-B and Social Worker (SW)-C concern for no care conference meeting documentation could be found since 3/1/23. NHA-A stated they would look for information. 6. R24 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that include multiple sclerosis, heart failure, depressive disorder, lymphedema and encephalopathy. R24's Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] indicated R24 is cognitively intact with a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 15 and the Activities of Daily Living Care indicate that R24 is dependent with most cares. On 1/23/24, Surveyor spoke with R24 about their care conferences. R24 stated that they don't attend care conferences as they usually decline them. Surveyor reviewed R24's medical record. Social services note dated, 9/15/23, documents, .Declines care conference at this time. Surveyor reviewed R24's medical record and was unable to locate any care conferences over the past year. On 01/23/24, at 03:11 PM, at the daily exit with the facility, Surveyor shared with Nursing home Administrator (NHA)-A, Director of Nursing (DON)-B and Social Worker (SW)-C concern for no care conference meeting documentation could be found for R24. NHA-A stated they would look for information. 7. R15 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that include Alzheimer's disease, major depressive disorder, epilepsy, dyskinesia of esophagus and mild neurocognitive disorder. R15 has an activated Power of Attorney (POA). R15's Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] indicated R15 is moderately cognitively impaired with a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 11 and the Activities of Daily Living Care indicate that R15 is dependent with most cares. Surveyor reviewed R15's medical record. A communication with family/POA note dated, 10/10/23, documents, .offer to schedule a care conference .and declined a care conference being scheduled at this time. Surveyor reviewed R15's medical record and care conferences were documented on 8/31/22, 11/3/22 and 3/2/23. Surveyor was unable to locate any care conferences held after 3/2/23. On 01/23/24, at 03:11 PM, at the daily exit with the facility, Surveyor shared with Nursing home Administrator (NHA)-A, Director of Nursing (DON)-B and Social Worker (SW)-C concern for no care conference meeting documentation after 3/2/23 could be found for R15. NHA-A stated they would look for information. On 01/24/24, at 07:38 AM, NHA-A informed Surveyor they could not locate any care conference documentation after 3/1/23 for R22, no care conference for R24 for the past year, and no care conference after 3/2/23 for R15. NHA-A stated that when a resident or power of attorney does not want a care conference, they do not schedule one, however the residents code status is still updated at that time. On 01/24/24, at 01:36 PM, Surveyor interviewed Social Worker-L regarding care conferences. Social Worker-L confirmed when a resident declines to have a care conference the interdisciplinary team does not usually meet. They will still update a resident's code status. Surveyor informed her of the concerns that R22 did not have a care conference since 3/1/23. Surveyor informed her of the concerns that R24 did not have a care conference over the past year. Surveyor informed her of the concerns that R15 did not have a care conference held after 3/2/23. No additional information was provided. Based on record review and interview, the facility did not review and revise Comprehensive Care Plans by the interdisciplinary team with resident voice after comprehensive and quarterly assessments for 7 (R13, R7, R14, R47, R22, R24 and R15) of 18 sampled residents. R13, R7, R14, R47, R22, R24, and R15 did not have quarterly care conferences with the Interdisciplinary Team (IDT) and resident or resident representative and did not have documentation of inviting the resident or resident representative and their declination of the invitation. Findings: The facility policy and procedure entitled Comprehensive Care Plan dated 9/23/2022 states: Policy Explanation and Compliance Guidelines: 1. The care planning process will include an assessment of the resident's strengths and needs and will incorporate the resident's personal and cultural preferences in developing goals of care. Services provided or arranged by the facility, as outlined by the comprehensive care plan, shall be culturally-competent and trauma-informed. 2. The comprehensive care plan will be developed within 7 days after the completion of the comprehensive MDS (Minimum Data Set) assessment. Care Assessment Areas (CAAs) triggered by the MDS will be considered in developing the plan of care. Other factors identified by the interdisciplinary team, or in accordance with the resident's preferences, will also be addressed in the plan of care. 3. The comprehensive care plan will describe, at a minimum, the following: . f. Resident specific interventions that reflect the resident's needs and preferences and align with the resident's cultural identity, as indicated. 4. The comprehensive care plan will be prepared by an interdisciplinary team, that includes, but is not limited to: . e. The resident and the resident's representative, to the extent practicable. Based on record review and interview, the facility did not review and revise Comprehensive Care Plans by the interdisciplinary team with resident voice after comprehensive and quarterly assessments for 7 (R13, R7, R14, R47, R22, R15, and R24) of 18 sampled residents. R13, R7, R14, R47, R22, R15, and R24 did not have quarterly care conferences with the Interdisciplinary Team (IDT) and resident or resident representative and did not have documentation of inviting the resident or resident representative and their declination of the invitation. Findings: The facility policy and procedure entitled Comprehensive Care Plan dated 9/23/2022 states: Policy Explanation and Compliance Guidelines: 1. The care planning process will include an assessment of the resident's strengths and needs and will incorporate the resident's personal and cultural preferences in developing goals of care. Services provided or arranged by the facility, as outlined by the comprehensive care plan, shall be culturally competent and trauma-informed. 2. The comprehensive care plan will be developed within 7 days after the completion of the comprehensive MDS (Minimum Data Set) assessment. Care Assessment Areas (CAAs) triggered by the MDS will be considered in developing the plan of care. Other factors identified by the interdisciplinary team, or in accordance with the resident's preferences, will also be addressed in the plan of care. 3. The comprehensive care plan will describe, at a minimum, the following: . f. Resident specific interventions that reflect the resident's needs and preferences and align with the resident's cultural identity, as indicated. 4. The comprehensive care plan will be prepared by an interdisciplinary team, that includes, but is not limited to: . e. The resident and the resident's representative, to the extent practicable. 1. R13 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses of lumbar radiculopathy, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, morbid obesity, lymphedema, depression, atrial fibrillation, and anxiety. R13's Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] indicated R13 was cognitively intact with a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 15. R13 did not have an activated Power of Attorney. R13 had an Annual MDS assessment dated [DATE] with a documented Care Conference with the IDT on 7/26/2023. No other Care Conferences were documented. No documentation was found indicating R13 was offered a Care Conference at any time after 7/26/2023 and declined attending. 2. R7 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses of demyelinating disease of the central nervous system, lupus, paraplegia, chronic kidney disease, depression, and osteoporosis. R7's Quarterly MDS assessment dated [DATE] indicated R7 was cognitively intact with a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 15. R7 did not have an activated Power of Attorney. R7 had a Quarterly MDS assessment dated [DATE] with a documented Care Conference with the IDT on 6/26/2023. No other Care Conferences were documented. No documentation was found indicating R7 was offered a Care Conference at any time after 6/26/2023 and declined attending. On 1/22/2024 at 9:57 AM, Surveyor asked R7 if R7 had quarterly Care Conferences to discuss their plan of care and goals. R7 stated they had a Case Manager but did not have any meetings with anyone. 3. R14 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses of chronic kidney disease Stage 4, chronic respiratory failure, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, congestive heart failure, and fibromyalgia. R14's Quarterly MDS assessment dated [DATE] indicated R14 was cognitively intact with a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 15. R14 did not have an activated Power of Attorney. R14 had a Quarterly MDS assessment dated [DATE]. On 8/3/2023 at 10:29 AM in the progress notes, Social Worker (SW)-C charted R14's AHCPOA (Activated Healthcare Power of Attorney) declined a care conference for R14 and wished R14 to remain a DNR (Do Not Resuscitate). R14's AHCPOA agreed to the psych recommendation for melatonin 3 mg. Surveyor noted R14's Power of Attorney had not been activated. No documentation was found indicating the IDT had a Care Conference for R14 to correlate with the 7/31/2023 Quarterly MDS assessment. R14 elected hospice services on 8/16/2023 with a terminal diagnosis of end stage kidney disease. No documentation was found of a Care Conference including the IDT and the hospice agency. R14 had a Quarterly MDS assessment dated [DATE]. A Psychosocial Assessment was completed on 10/31/2023 by Social Worker (SW)-L. SW-L documented R14 declined scheduling a Care Conference at that time. SW-L charted R14 had a HCPOA in place but R14 is their own decision maker. No documentation was found indicating the IDT had a Care Conference for R14 to correlate with the 10/31/2023 Quarterly MDS assessment or with the hospice agency. R14 had a Significant Change MDS assessment dated [DATE] to capture the election of hospice services in 8/2023. No documentation was found of a Care Conference including the IDT and the hospice agency or documentation R14 was invited to attend the Care Conference and their declination to attend. 4. R47 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses of osteomyelitis of the left ankle and foot, diabetes, depression, anxiety, epilepsy, and peripheral vascular disease. R47's Quarterly MDS assessment dated [DATE] indicated R47 had moderate cognitive impairment with a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 12. R47 did not have an activated Power of Attorney. On 7/13/2023 on the Care Conference Summary, R47 was invited to the Care Conference and attended along with Social Worker (SW)-l and an Occupational Therapist. R47 declined family to be invited. The purpose of the meeting was to establish a Baseline Care Plan. On 8/18/2023 on the Care Conference Summary, R47 was invited to the Care Conference and attended along with SW-I and an Occupational Therapist. R47 declined family to be invited. The purpose of the meeting was due to readmission to the facility after hospitalization. No documentation was found that R47 had a Care Conference or was invited to attend a Care Conference and the declination of attending after the Care Conference on 8/18/2023. In an interview on 1/24/2024 at 1:21 PM, Surveyor asked Registered Nurse Case Manager (RNCM)-K what the facility process was for Care Conferences. RNCM-K stated when a resident is newly admitted , a Care Conference is held within the first 24-48 hours and the following Care Conferences are dependent on the resident and their discharge goals. RNCM-K stated RNCM-K works with the short-term residents and if a resident is admitted for long term care or hospice, RNCM-K attends the initial Care Conference and then Social Worker (SW)-L takes over for the following Care Conferences. In an interview on 1/24/2024 at 1:31 PM, Surveyor asked SW-L how Care Conferences are scheduled and who attends the Care Conferences for long term care residents. SW-L stated Care Conferences for long term care residents are held quarterly or annually. SW-L stated the resident will be asked if they want to schedule a Care Conference and most times the resident will decline having a Care Conference. SW-L stated when SW-L talks to the resident quarterly to do the BIMS and the PHQ-9 for the MDS, SW-L will verify the code status with the resident and then invite them to a Care Conference. Surveyor asked SW-L if the resident declines the Care Conference, does the IDT meet to discuss the resident and their plan of care with goals. SW-L stated the IDT does not meet. SW-L stated the resident's care plan is reviewed individually by the IDT members. SW-L stated the IDT does touch base in morning meetings and monthly behavior meetings when psychotropic medications are reviewed. SW-L stated it is the resident's right to decline a Care Conference. Surveyor agreed with SW-L that the resident or resident representative does not have to attend the Care Conference, but the Care Plan should have the resident voice which SW-L could bring forward to the Care Conference with the IDT to incorporate into the Care Plan. SW-L stated R13 declined the last couple of Care Conferences and stated SW-L did not schedule a Care Conference for the IDT to meet and review R13's Care Plan to ensure it had R13's voice. SW-L stated R7 usually declines Care Conferences and stated R7 is reviewed in behavior meetings because R7 is on psychotropic medications, so they are being monitored. SW-L stated SW-L did not schedule a Care Conference for the IDT to meet and review R7's Care Plan to ensure it had R7's voice. SW-L stated R14 has an activated Power of Attorney who was invited to a Care Conference which they declined, but the code status was verified and confirmed R14 was to stay long term care. SW-L stated SW-L did not schedule a Care Conference for the IDT to meet and review R14's Care Plan to ensure it had R14's voice. Surveyor asked SW-L if a Care Conference was held when R47 became a long-term care resident with different needs from initially expecting to go home after therapy completed. SW-L stated R47 usually declines Care Conferences and stated R47 is reviewed in behavior meetings because R47 is on psychotropic medications, so they are being monitored. SW-L stated SW-L did not schedule a Care Conference for the IDT to meet and review R47's Care Plan to ensure it had R47's voice. On 1/24/2024 at 2:11 PM, Surveyor shared with Nursing Home Administrator (NHA)-A the concern R13 had not had a Care Conference since 7/26/2023 and the IDT does not meet to review R13's Care Plan to ensure R13's voice is in the Care Plan. Surveyor shared with NHA-A the concern R7 had not had a Care Conference since 6/26/2023 and the IDT does not meet to review R7's Care Plan to ensure R7's voice is in the Care Plan. Surveyor shared with NHA-A the concern no documentation was found indicating R14 has had a Care Conference and the IDT does not meet to review R14's Care Plan to ensure R14's voice is in the Care Plan. Surveyor shared with NHA-A the concern no documentation was found indicating R47 has had a Care Conference and the IDT does not meet to review R47's Care Plan to ensure R47's voice is in the Care Plan. Surveyor shared with NHA-A no documentation was found that the IDT met to discuss R47's Care Plan or goals with R47's wishes being presented and there was no documentation R47 was invited to attend a Care Conference and declined the invitation since the readmission Care Conference on 8/18/2023. NHA-A stated if the resident or family decline to come to a care conference, the IDT still review the Care Plan but do not have a Care Conference. No further information was provided at that time.
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, record review and interview, the facility did not ensure food was prepared safely, for 75 of 75 Residents who eat food prepared in the main kitchen. On 1/23/24, the 2 thermometer...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, record review and interview, the facility did not ensure food was prepared safely, for 75 of 75 Residents who eat food prepared in the main kitchen. On 1/23/24, the 2 thermometer probes were not sanitized between taking the temperatures of different food items. Findings: The facility policy, entitled Food Temperatures, revised date of 8/16/2022, states: the temperatures of all food items will be taken and properly recorded prior to service of each meal. On 01/23/24, at 11:19 AM, Surveyor observed Cook-D take temperature of food items. Cook-D opened two thermometers. The first thermometer #1 was placed in the ravioli and the temperature was taken. This thermometer was wiped with an alcohol swab and placed on a clean plate. This thermometer was then taken from the plate and placed in the green beans. The temperature was taken and then placed on the plate without being cleaned with an alcohol swab. This thermometer was then placed in puree veggie, the temperature was taken, and then placed on the plate with no cleaning of the thermometer. The second thermometer #2 was placed in a Salisbury steak and temperature taken. This thermometer was placed on the plate and not cleaned with an alcohol swab. Thermometer #2 was then picked up from the plate and placed into puree meat and temperature taken, it was cleaned with the same wipe as used previously and placed on the plate. Thermometer #2 was then placed in the puree ravioli, temperature was taken and then placed on the plate without cleaning of the thermometer. This process continued where the two thermometers alternated food items. The probes were not cleaned properly after each use or before taking the temperature of a different food item. A total of 10 different food items had their temperature taken and a total of 4 alcohol swabs were used. On 1/23/24, at 12:51 PM, Surveyor interviewed Dietary Manager-E and District Manager-F who explained that the thermometer probe should be cleaned with a wipe after each food item to prevent any cross contamination. Surveyor explained concern with the observation of temperatures being taken and the use of two thermometers and only being wiped occasionally after being in a food item. District Manager-F stated this was not their process and that if 10 food items were tested then there should have been a total of 10 wipes used. District Manager-F stated they would begin conducting an in-service for dietary staff starting with the cooks. On 1/23/24, at 03:10 PM, at the end of the day meeting with Nursing Home Administrator-A, Director of Nursing-B, and Social Worker-C, Surveyor explained concerns with observation of temperatures being taken at the lunch time meal. They expressed that they understood the concern and that food service employees would be educated. No additional information provided.
Dec 2023 1 deficiency
CONCERN (F) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Food Safety (Tag F0812)

Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, interviews, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure food was stored, prepared, distribu...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, interviews, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure food was stored, prepared, distributed, and served in accordance with professional standards for food service safety as required for 72 census residents who received meals from the facility kitchen. These failures had the potential to lead to food-borne illness among all facility residents. Findings include: Observations during the tour of the kitchen on 12/20/23 at 1:50 PM revealed: -A large opened, undated, and unsealed bag of beef gravy mix located on the shelf above the three-compartment sink. The walk-in refrigerator revealed: -Three 46-ounce (oz.) thickened cranberry juice cartons, opened and undated. The cartons revealed, After opening, may be kept up to seven days under refrigeration. -A large opened and unsealed bag of shredded cheese. -An opened 1/5 lb. (pound) container of egg salad. The egg salad container revealed, Use by [DATE]. -Thirty-six 6-oz. cartons of orange drink. The cartons revealed, After thawing, keep refrigerated. Use within 14 days after thawing. The cartons did not have a thaw date but had a best by date of 10/03/23. During an interview on 12/20/23 at 2:30 PM, the Dietary Manager (DM) stated she expected the walk-in refrigerator to be checked regularly to make sure everything was dated and labeled appropriately, and expired items were removed as needed. The DM stated she believed thickened drinks were good after opening for three to five days and was not sure why there were open thickened juice cartons in the walk-in refrigerator. The DM stated the egg salad was thrown out. The DM stated the 6-oz. cartons of orange drink had recently been removed from the freezer for thawing, but was not sure which day, and was not aware of best by dates on the cartons. During an interview on 12/21/23 at 4:40 PM, the Administrator stated the kitchen had been a work in progress and was aware of some ongoing concerns. The Administrator stated they had made some staff changes recently and had newer staff in the kitchen. Administration reviewed expectations with dietary staff approximately once a month. The Administrator stated they expected the dietary staff to follow the policy for dating and labeling of foods. Review of the facility's policy titled Food Storage, last revised 08/16/22, documented Sufficient storage facilities will be provided to keep foods safe, wholesome, and appetizing. Food will be stored in an area that is clean, dry and free from contaminants. Food will be stored, at appropriate temperatures and by methods designed to prevent contamination or cross contamination .12. Refrigerated food storage: All foods should be covered, labeled and dated. All foods will be checked to assure that foods (including leftovers) will be consumed by their safe use by dates, or frozen (where applicable), or discarded.
Aug 2023 2 deficiencies
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Pressure Ulcer Prevention (Tag F0686)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview and record review, the Facility did not ensure that Residents with a pressure injury or at risk ...

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 that Residents with a pressure injury or at risk for pressure injuries received necessary treatment and services, consistent with professional standards of practice, to prevent the development of pressure injuries and to promote healing for 2 (R1 & R3) of 3 Residents reviewed for pressure injuries. * R1 was admitted on [DATE] with a sacrum pressure injury. This pressure injury was not comprehensively assessed until 10/10/22 when it was assessed by Wound Doctor-G as unstageable. A treatment for R1's sacrum pressure injury was not ordered until 10/9/22, two days after admission. The Treatment Administration Record does not indicate the treatment was administered on 10/9/22 and 10/10/22. On 10/10/22, the sacrum pressure injury was assessed as 7 x 15 x 0.1 cm with 70% necrotic tissue and 30% granulation. R1 was hospitalized on [DATE]. * R3 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. On 7/28/23, the Registered Nurse (RN) who completed the skin assessment documented coccyx excoriation. There are no measurements or description of the coccyx excoriation. The facility later clarified this area was not the coccyx, rather it was the left buttock. On 7/31/23, 3 days after admission, Registered Nurse/Unit Manager (RN/UM)-C who is the Facility's wound nurse assessed R3 and documented a Stage 3 left buttocks pressure injury, with measurements 1.7 X 1 X 0.1 Stage III 100% granulation. Surveyor noted there had been no measurements or description of the left buttock on admission on [DATE]. On 8/3/23, the pressure injury was 2 X 1.5 X 0.1 stage III. The left buttock pressure injury was healed on 8/17/23. On 8/3/23 R3 was identified with a Stage 3 acquired sacrum pressure injury, 0.5 X 0.3 X 0.2 stage III with 60% granulation and 40% slough. Treatment was completed during wound rounds on 8/3/23 but the treatment was not completed again until 8/5/23. As of 8/24/23 the pressure injury weekly tracker indicates the Sacrum pressure injury as Stage III, length 0.3, width 0.2, depth 0.1 tissue type is granulation, 60% granulation 40% slough. Drainage is serosanguinous& amount of drainage is light. Weekly skin reviews indicated no skin impairments when R3 had pressure injuries. On 8/4/23 a pressure reducing cushion in R3 wheelchair was recommended however as of 8/28/23, R3 was observed on a thin foam cushion in the wheelchair which is not appropriate for a Stage 3 pressure injury. On 8/28/23 at 11:03 am, 11:36 am, 12:38 pm and 12:34 pm, R3 was observed with her heels not being offloaded. Findings include: The Pressure Injuries and Non pressure injury policy & procedure last reviewed/revised 7/20/22 under policy documents, This center will complete a comprehensive assessment to identify risk factors for the development of pressure injuries and put in places measures intended to achieve the goal of prevention of pressure injuries in our residents. For those admitted with, or who subsequently developed a pressure injury or impaired skin integrity, they will receive care, treatment, and services that seek to promote healing, prevent infection, and prevent further development of pressure injuries/impaired skin integrity. The following protocols should guide prevention and treatment efforts, unless specified by a physician otherwise. Under Policy Explanation and Compliance Guidelines documents 1. Upon admission: a. A head-to-toe body evaluation will be completed on every resident upon admission/readmission and will be documented on the Admission/readmission Evaluation UDA. If skin is compromised: i. If pressure injury: Initiate the Pressure Injury Weekly Tracker UDA - one per wound. ii. If non-pressure: initiate the Non-Pressure Injury tracker UDA - one per wound. iii. Ensure primary care physician (PCP) is aware of wounds/location of wounds and current treatment orders. iv. Ensure appropriate treatment orders for each wound area, as needed. v. Ensure resident/responsible party is aware of wound and current treatment plan. vi. Evaluate for pain related to wounds and develop management plan if pain related to wounds is present. 1. R1 was originally admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which include diabetes mellitus, atrial fibrillation, congestive heart failure and morbid obesity. The admission/readmission evaluation dated 10/7/22 documents yes for the question are there any skin impairments. Under site documents; 53) Sacrum, Type is Pressure, Length 6, and Width 15. There is no stage or description of the wound bed documented. This evaluation was completed by LPN (Licensed Practical Nurse)-E. The nurses note dated 10/7/22 documents, Resident new admit arrived via ambulance accompanied by two paramedics from [hospital name] at 1 PM. Here for rehab and strengthening, VS (vital signs) 145/64, 71, 20 96.8, 99% on RA (room air), face is symmetrical, hearing is adequate no use of hearing aides, uses glasses which are present and used, oral mucosa is pink and moist, resident has very little teeth of his own, no dentures used, no noted SOB (shortness of breath) or cough, lung sounds clear, resident has bilateral non pitting edema to hands, hernia to center of abd (abdomen), bruise to right outer elbow, open area to sacrum measuring 15 cm (centimeters) in width and 6 cm in length, [Name] ADON (Assistant Director of Nursing) RN (Registered Nurse) in to assess wound on admission, incontinent of bowel, resident has an indwelling catheter 14 french 10 ml (milliliter), no noted swelling to BLE (bilateral lower extremities), BLE dry and scaly, toenails are thick and discolored, on a regular texture diet CCD/rental, thin liquids, Hoyer transfer, medications verified with MD (medical doctor) and faxed to pharmacy, CBC/BMP (complete blood count/basic metabolic panel) to be done weekly x (times) 4 weeks on Mondays per [Name] NP (Nurse Practitioner), resident is his own person, writer spoke with [Name] wife and informed her of resident arrival. Although this nursing note indicates the ADON was in to assess R1's sacrum injury, Surveyor was unable to locate a comprehensive assessment of R1's sacrum pressure injury by RN-F who was the prior ADON. The paper skin assessment dated [DATE] completed by LPN-E on the back body diagram has a circle around the location of the sacrum with 15 cm written on the top portion of the circle with a line across indicating width and 6 with lines down indicating length. RN-F's first name with the first letter of her last name is documented above this area. RN-F is the prior ADON and no longer employed at the Facility. There is no description of R1's pressure injury on this paper skin assessment. R1's physician orders include with an order date 10/9/22 documents Sacrum: cleanse with normal saline, apply Medi honey f/b (followed by) bordered foam change daily and PRN ( as needed). every day shift for wound care. Surveyor noted this is the first order for treatment to R1's pressure injury. Surveyor reviewed R1's October 2022 TAR (treatment administration record) and noted on the 9th there is a X and the 10th is blank. On 10/10/22, 3 days after R1's admission, Wound Doctor-G assessed R1's sacrum pressure injury. The initial wound evaluation & management summary under history for chief complaint documents Patient presents with a wound on his sacrum. Under Focused Wound Exam (Site 1) documents unstageable (due to necrosis) sacrum full thickness. Etiology is documented as pressure. Wound Size (L (length) x W (width) x D (depth)): documents 7 x 15 x 0.1 cm. Thick adherent devitalized necrotic tissue documents 70% and granulation tissue is documented as 30%. R1 was discharged to the hospital on [DATE]. On 8/28/23 at 12:13 p.m. Surveyor spoke to RN/UM-C who is the Facility's wound nurse. Surveyor informed RN/UM-C R1 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and there wasn't a comprehensive assessment until 10/10/22. RN/UM-C informed Surveyor she wouldn't have any information as her first wound note is dated 11/7/22. RN/UM-C explained she didn't start working at the Facility until the end of October and then stated should say November. On 8/28/23 at 12:26 p.m. Surveyor asked Nursing Home Administrator (NHA)-A if there is anyone Surveyor can speak with regarding R1's pressure injury. NHA-A replied no explaining staff is no longer here. Surveyor noted R1's pressure injury was not comprehensively assessed until 3 days after admission and treatment wasn't ordered until 10/9/22, two days after admission. 2. R3 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which includes nondisplaced bicondylar fracture of right tibia, atrial fibrillation, hypertension, and dementia. The at risk for alteration in skin integrity care plan initiated 7/28/23 & revised 7/29/23 has the following interventions: * Barrier cream to peri area/buttocks/coccyx every shift. Initiated & revised 7/29/23. * Diet and supplements per MD (medical doctor) orders. Initiated 7/28/23. * Encourage fluids. Initiated 7/28/23. * Encourage to reposition as needed; use assistive devices as needed. Initiated 7/28/23. * Float heels as able. Initiated 7/28/23. * Monitor skin under (R (right) knee immobilizer) for breakdown. Initiated & revised 7/28/23. * Observe skin condition with ADL (activities daily living) care daily; report abnormalities. Initiated 7/28/23. * Obtain labs as ordered and notify MD of results. Initiated 7/28/23. * Pressure redistributing device on bed/chair. Air Mattress: Check function and settings every shift. Keep at 150 pounds, Alt (alternate) 20. Initiated 7/28/23 & revised 8/3/23. The admission evaluation dated 7/28/23 under the integrity section answers yes to the question are any skin impairments present. Under site documents; 23) Coccyx, Type is Other (specify) and under the units of measurement section documents excoriated. This admission evaluation was completed by a RN (Registered Nurse). There are no measurements or description of the area. The nurses note dated 7/28/23 documents admitted to room [number] from [hospital's initials] post fall and tibia fx (fracture) immobilizer on right leg. NP (nurse practitioner) [Name] aware of admit-orders and meds (medication) verified will send e-script to pharmacy for tramadol 50 mg (milligrams) every 6 hours PRN (as needed). DNR (do not resuscitate) consent signed, general diet, excoriated butt, up with 1 WBAT (weight bearing as tolerated) on right leg. hx (history of) a fib on coumadin PT/INR (prothrombin time/international normalized ratio) Mon/Thurs (Monday/Thursday) lab sheet faxed, BMP (basic metabolic panel) weekly Mon x (times) 4. monitor for admission. The Braden assessment dated [DATE] has a score of 16 which indicates moderate risk. The pressure injury weekly tracker dated 7/31/23 under the observation/assessment section for pressure injury acquired, admission is answered. Under site documents; 32) Left buttock, Type is Pressure, Length 1.7, Width 1, Depth 0.1 and Stage III (3). Tissue type is granulation tissue with 100% granulation. Drainage is Serous and amount of drainage is documented as light. Surveyor noted a treatment with a start date of 7/31/23 which documents Left upper buttocks: Cleanse with normal saline. Pat dry. Apply medihoney to wound. Cover with dry dressing as needed for wound care. Surveyor noted this is a PRN order and a scheduled treatment which was the same treatment as the PRN treatment was not ordered until 8/1/23. The pressure injury weekly tracker dated 8/3/23 under the observation/assessment section for pressure injury acquired, admission is answered. Under site documents; 32) Left buttock, Type is Pressure, Length 2, Width 1.5, Depth 0.1 and Stage III (3). Tissue type is granulation tissue with 100% granulation. Drainage is Serous and amount of drainage is documented as light. The pressure injury weekly tracker dated 8/3/23 under the observation/assessment section for pressure injury acquired, in house is answered. Under site documents; 53) Sacrum, Type is Pressure, Length 0.5, Width 0.3, Depth 0.2 and Stage III (3). Tissue type is granulation tissue with 60% granulation & 40% slough. Drainage is Serosanguinous and amount of drainage is documented as light. The skin/wound note dated 8/3/23 documents; Pt. (patient) seen by [Wound doctor's name] and wound nurse for multiple pressure wounds. Assessment and evaluation performed by wound MD, pt has a stage three pressure ulcer to her sacrum and left buttocks. Pt spends most of her day sitting in her wheelchair. Pt voiced pain 2/10 but refused pain medication. NOR (new order received). Wounds cleansed, treatment applied, and orders updated. Patient will be seen on next weekly wound round. [Name] updated. Pt. educated on frequently shifting her weight when she is in her chair and side to side repositioning when in bed. Pt has a low air mattress in place. Writer will update therapy dept (department) regarding pressure reducing cushion for wheelchair. The Minimum Data Set (MDS) with an assessment reference date of 8/3/23 has a Brief Interview Mental Satus (BIMS) score of 11 which indicates moderately impaired. R3 is assessed as not having any behavior including refusal of cares. R3 is assessed as requiring extensive assistance with one person physical assist for bed mobility, transfer & toilet use, ambulation only occurred once or twice with one person physical assist, is frequently incontinent of urine & continent of bowel. R3 is assessed as being at risk for pressure injury development, has an unhealed pressure injury with two Stage 3 pressure injuries, present upon admission. The pressure injury Care Area Assessment (CAA) dated 8/11/23 under care plan considerations documents 86 yr (year) old female with non displaced R (right) posterior tibial fx (fracture) with immobilizer in place. Other dx (diagnoses) include A-Fib (atrial fibrillation), RA (rheumatoid arthritis), HTN, (hypertension) and dementia. Resident admitted with 2 stage 3 pressure ulcers to buttocks. Resident being seen by [Name] wound care. Resident at risk for further skin breakdown with Braden risk score of 16. Other risk factors include impaired cognition, need for assistance with transfer/mobility, poor oral intake and incontinence. Based on above review will proceed to care plan. The weekly skin review dated 8/4/23 has none checked for select all impairments that are present. Surveyor noted pressure ulcer/injury is included in the list of impairments. The physician orders include an order with an order date of 8/4/23 which documents, Sacrum cleanse with normal saline, pat dry, apply medihoney to wound cover with dry dressing. Surveyor reviewed R3's August 2023 Treatment Administration Record (TAR) and noted the sacrum treatment was not started until 8/5/23. The resident has a stage 3 pressure ulcer to her sacrum care plan initiated 8/4/23 & revised 8/14/23 has the following interventions: * Administer treatments as ordered and monitor for effectiveness. Initiated 8/4/23. * Encourage Q2hr (every two hour) repositioning. Initiated 8/28/23. * Follow facility policies/protocols for the prevention/treatment of skin breakdown. Initiated 8/4/23. * Inform the resident/family/caregivers of any new area of skin breakdown. Initiated 8/4/23. * Instruct/assist to shift weight in W/C (wheelchair). Initiated & revised 8/4/23. * Pressure reducing cushion in wheelchair. Initiated 8/4/23. * The resident requires supplemental protein, amino acids, vitamins, and minerals as ordered to promote wound healing. Initiated 8/4/23. * Weekly treatment documentation to include measurement of each area of skin breakdown's width, length, depth, type of tissue and exudate. Initiated 8/4/23. Surveyor noted weekly pressure injury assessments for the left buttocks and sacrum. R3's left buttocks healed on 8/17/23. As of 8/24/23 the pressure injury weekly tracker indicates the Sacrum pressure injury as Stage III, length 0.3, width 0.2, depth 0.1 tissue type is granulation, 60% granulation 40% slough. Drainage is serosanguinous& amount of drainage is light. The weekly skin review dated 8/26/23 has none checked for select all impairments that are present. Surveyor noted pressure ulcer/injury is included in the list of impairments. On 8/28/23 at 9:00 a.m. Surveyor observed R3 sitting in a wheelchair in her room. R3 has an immobilizer on her right leg, gripper socks on feet and has a breakfast tray on the over bed table. Surveyor observed R3 is sitting on a pressure relieving cushion but was unable to determine what type. During Surveyor's conversation with R3, Surveyor asked R3 if she had any pressure ulcers. R3 replied yes above my buttocks. Surveyor inquired how she received the pressure injury. R3 explained when she fell and rolled over. R3 fell prior to being admitted to the Facility. Surveyor inquired if they are doing any treatment. R3 stated they are putting cream on. Surveyor inquired just cream. R3 replied no a bandage. Surveyor inquired if the treatment was completed today. R3 replied no and explained they do it early in the evening or in the day when ever they have time. Surveyor asked permission to observe her treatment which R3 gave. On 8/28/23 at 10:06 a.m. the housekeeper on the unit informed Surveyor R3 is in therapy after Surveyor looked in R3's room. On 8/28/23 at 10:56 a.m. Surveyor observed R3 sitting in a wheelchair in her room. Surveyor asked how therapy was. R3 stated tiring and informed Surveyor she wanted to go in bed but needed the bed lowered. Surveyor asked R3 if she had pushed her call light. R3 replied no and then activated the call light. On 8/28/23 at 11:01 a.m. SSC (Social Service Coordinator)-I entered R3's room. SSC-I informed R3 she would leave the light on and have the Certified Nursing Assistants (CNAs) come in. On 8/28/23 at 11:03 a.m. CNA-H and CNA-J entered R3's room, introduced themselves and placed gloves on. R3 stood up from the wheelchair, CNA-H placed a walker in front of R3, R3 was able to take a couple steps and sat on the bed. R3 was assisted with laying in bed on her back. Surveyor observed R3's heels are resting directly on the mattress and are not being offloaded. CNA-H asked R3 if she wanted her bed adjusted and raised the head of the bed. CNA-H & CNA-J removed their gloves, washed their hands, and left R3's room. Surveyor noted neither CNA-H or CNA-J asked or offered to offload R3's heels. On 8/28/23 at 11:06 a.m. Surveyor observed the cushion in R3's wheelchair and noted it is a thin foam cushion with a black top and gray bottom. On 8/28/23 at 11:07 a.m. Surveyor asked RD (Rehab Director)-K about R3's wheelchair cushion and accompanied RD-K to R3's room. RD-K informed Surveyor it's just a foam cushion, referring to R3's wheelchair cushion. Surveyor asked RD-K if he has any manufacturers information for the cushion. RD-K replied probably not but can get it. On 8/28/23 at 11:33 a.m. RD-K informed Surveyor cushions are ordered through medical records, he doesn't have any information on the cushion and if Surveyor needs anything Surveyor should go to Medical Records Coordinator (MRC)-D. On 8/28/23 at 11:36 a.m. Surveyor showed MRC-D R3's wheelchair cushion. MRC-D informed Surveyor this is not a cushion she orders and she orders ROHO cushions. R3, who was laying in bed, then stated the wheelchair came from the VA (Veterans Administration) maybe that's where the cushion came from. Surveyor observed R3's heels continue not to be offloaded and are resting directly on the mattress. On 8/28/23 at 11:46 a.m. Surveyor asked RD-K the process for Residents receiving wheelchair cushions. RD-K informed Surveyor the wound care nurse will say they need some type of special cushion but the nurses can make a recommendation as well. Surveyor asked RD-K if anyone assessed the cushion R3 has in her wheelchair. RD-K replied initially we did but doesn't know since then. Surveyor asked to see this assessment. RD-K informed Surveyor it was probably in a daily note. Surveyor informed RD-K R3 has a Stage 3 pressure injury and was wondering if this foam cushion is appropriate. RD-K informed Surveyor he can look into it. On 8/28/23 at 12:04 p.m. RD-K informed Surveyor RN/UM-C recommended getting a different cushion and all they needed were measurements. RD-K informed Surveyor he took the measurements for them, provided the measurements and they ordered a cushion. Surveyor asked RD-K when he took the measurements. RD-K informed Surveyor he would have to get back to Surveyor. On 8/28/23 at 12:07 p.m. RD-K informed Surveyor he doesn't have an email on when he measured the cushion but RN/UM-C may. On 8/28/23 at 12:19 p.m. Surveyor spoke to RN/UM-C regarding R3's wheelchair cushion. RN/UM-C informed Surveyor the cushion is on backorder, it was suppose to come in 10/25/23. RN/UM-C informed Surveyor she'll have to look and see. RN/UM-C informed Surveyor she and Wound Doctor-G were educating R3 to shift when she was in the wheelchair and in bed. Surveyor asked RN/UM-C when she asked RD-K to take measurements for the cushion and when MRC-D was notified to order the cushion. RN/UM-C informed Surveyor she will look into this and get back to Surveyor. On 8/28/23 at 12:28 p.m. Surveyor observed R3 in bed leaning towards her left side with the head of the bed elevated. Surveyor observed R3's heels are resting directly on the mattress and are not being offloaded. On 8/28/23 at 12:29 p.m. RN/UM-C informed Surveyor Wound Doctor-G saw R3 on 8/3/23. On 8/4/23 she sent MRC-D an email which indicated RD-K measured the cushion for [R3's name] and she needs an 18 times 16 cushion, ROHO, gel or pressure reducing cushion for Stage 3 & up pressure ulcers. On 8/28/23 at 12:33 p.m. Surveyor asked MRC-D when she ordered R3's cushion. MRC-D informed Surveyor on the 8th, says backordered, estimated shipping 8/25. MRC-D informed Surveyor they are passed that and needs to see where the cushion is. On 8/28/23 at 12:34 p.m. Surveyor observed R3's sacrum pressure injury treatment with Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN)-L. There were no concerns with the treatment identified during this observation. After LPN-L completed the treatment at 12:41 p.m., Surveyor asked to see R3's heels. LPN-L placed gloves on and removed R3's gripper socks. Surveyor did not observe any pressure injuries on R3's heels. R3's socks were replaced and LPN-L removed her gloves. Surveyor asked R3 if anyone spoke to her about repositioning in her wheelchair. R3 informed Surveyor the doctor said to try to move on side but it's hard. LPN-L lowered R3's bed down, raised the head of the bed and asked R3 if she wanted covers on. Surveyor observed R3's heels were not being offloaded and LPN-L did not offer or ask R3 about offloading her heels. On 8/28/23 at 2:21 p.m. Surveyor met with RN/UM-C to discuss R3's pressure injuries. Surveyor asked RN/UM-C what prompted her to do an assessment on 7/31/23. RN/UM-C informed Surveyor she assesses all new Resident's skin. R3 came in on 7/28 which was a Friday, she doesn't work the weekends so on 7/31 which is a Monday she assessed R3. Surveyor informed RN/UM-C the pressure injury weekly tracker which she completed on 7/31/23 indicates the left buttocks Stage 3 pressure injury was present on admission but the nurse who completed the skin assessment on 7/28/23 documented for the coccyx excoriation. RN/UM-C informed Surveyor she spoke with the RN who completed the assessment and the area was not the coccyx but the left buttock. Surveyor inquired about the excoriation. RN/UM-C informed Surveyor a lot of nurses don't know about staging and the RN wasn't sure what it was. Surveyor informed RN/UM-C there wasn't a comprehensive assessment of this area until 3 days after R3 was admitted . RN/UM-C informed Surveyor this has been an issue and has spoken to the nurses about it. Surveyor informed RN/UM-C on 7/28/23 there were no measurements or description of the area. RN/UM-C replied I know what you are saying, we are at fault. RN/UM-C looked at her computer and after a couple minutes stated to Surveyor can't find anything, I don't have anything other than what she put. Surveyor inquired why the treatment wasn't started until 8/5/23. RN/UM-C informed Surveyor she did the treatment on 8/3/23 and the order for 8/4/23. Surveyor informed RN/UM-C the start date on R3's August TAR is 8/5/23. Surveyor informed RN/UM-C of the weekly skin review which documents no skin impairments when R3 has pressure injuries. RN/UM-C informed Surveyor this is something she will bring up in their meeting. Surveyor asked RN/UM-C if R3 was identified on 7/31/23 as having a Stage 3 pressure injury why wasn't an appropriate cushion ordered then. RN/UM-C informed Surveyor she didn't know R3 stays in her chair. RN/UM-C explained she was told R3 stays in her chair all day. Surveyor asked RN/UM-C if the Facility has cushions in stock in case a Resident requires a different cushion. RN/UM-C replied don't have cushions here, no. On 8/28/23 at 2:38 p.m. MRC-D informed Surveyor she just put the cushion in R3's wheelchair. Surveyor then went into R3's room and observed a ROHO cushion in R3's wheelchair. R3 is in bed with her heels resting directly on the mattress. Surveyor asked R3 if anyone has spoken to her about elevating her heels. R3 replied no. Surveyor asked if staff ever puts a pillow under her lower legs. R3 informed Surveyor just under the knee on her bad leg. On 8/28/23 at 2:40 p.m. Surveyor asked RN/UM-C if R3's heels should be offloaded. RN/UM-C replied as tolerated. Surveyor informed RN/UM-C Surveyor had asked R3 about if staff has spoken to her about offloading her heels and R3 informed Surveyor no. RN/UM-C informed Surveyor no that's incorrect. RN/UM-C informed Surveyor they have spoken to R3, she can reposition herself and they put a pillow under her legs. Surveyor informed RN/UM-C of the observations of R3's heels not being offloaded and of staff not asking or offering to offload R3's heels. On 8/28/23 at 3:11 Nursing Home Administrator (NHA)-A and Director of Nursing (DON)-B were informed of the above.
CONCERN (F) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Infection Control (Tag F0880)

Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents

Based on observations, interview and record review, the facility did not ensure 1 of 60 employees currently working at the facility were FIT tested for an N95 mask, to prevent the transmission of COVI...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observations, interview and record review, the facility did not ensure 1 of 60 employees currently working at the facility were FIT tested for an N95 mask, to prevent the transmission of COVID-19. * The facility is currently in a COVID-19 outbreak with 22 of the current 79 residents in isolation for COVID-19. In addition 14 staff members had tested positive for COVID-19. CNA (Certified Nursing Assistant)-M did not receive an initial N95 FIT testing upon date of hire (6/28/23) or after they returned to work after COVID-19 illness. Findings include: According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Interim Infection Prevention and Control Recommendations for Healthcare Personnel During the Coronovirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Pandemic, updated 5/8/23, states in part, 2. Recommended infection prevention and control (IPC) practices when caring for a patient with suspected or confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection: Personal Protective Equipment: - HCP (Health Care Professionals) who enter the room of a patient with suspected or confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection should adhere to Standard Precautions and use a NIOSH-approved particulate respirator with N95 filters or higher, gown, gloves, and eye protection (i.e. goggles, or a face shield that covers the frotn and sides of the face). - Respirators should be used in the context of a comprehensive respiratory protection program, which includes medical evaluations, fit testing and training in accordance with the Occupational Safety and Health Administration's (OSHA) Respiratory Protection Standard (29 CFR 1910.134) https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/hcp/infection-control-recommendations.html Surveyor reviewed the Facility's Policy and Procedure titled, N95 FIT Testing with an implementation date of 11/2/20 and a revision date of 11/21/22. The Policy and Procedure reads All staff that work in direct resident care will have an initial and annual fit test for respirator use in accordance with Occupational Safety Health Administration (OSHA) regulations. On 8/28/23, a focused infection control survey was conducted at the facility. Upon arrival, it was noted that the facility was experiencing a COVID-19 outbreak. Surveyor reviewed the facility's COVID-19 line listing for residents. Surveyor noted 22 of the current 79 residents are in isolation at this time for positive COVID-19 testing. Surveyor noted the residents with COVID-19 are mixed throughout the building, and not on a particular unit. On 8/28/23, Surveyor reviewed facility's COVID-19 line listing for staff. Surveyor noted 14 total staff members had tested positive for COVID-19 since facility's COVID outbreak began on 7/30/23. CNA-M was hired by the facility on 6/28/23. CNA-M had tested positive for COVID-19 on 8/11/23. CNA-M returned to work on 8/23/23. On 8/28/23, Surveyor request to review the facility's FIT test listing for employees. Surveyor noted there was no record of CNA-M receiving FIT testing upon hire on 6/28/23. On 8/28/23 at 11:45 AM, Surveyor asked NHA (Nursing Home Administrator)-A who would be responsible for FIT testing employees. NHA-A told Surveyor that Scheduler-N is primarily responsible for FIT testing. Surveyor requested an interview with Scheduler-N at this time. On 8/28/23 at 1:20 PM, Surveyor conducted interview with Scheduler-N. Surveyor asked Scheduler-N how often FIT testing should be conducted for employees. Scheduler-N responded that employees should be FIT tested when they are hired and every year after that. Surveyor asked if Scheduler-N recalled ever conducting FIT testing with CNA-M. Scheduler-N told Surveyor that CNA-M is on their list to be FIT tested. Scheduler-N told Surveyor that since the facility hired a new DON (Director of Nursing) that they have gotten behind on some things, such as FIT testing. Scheduler-N added that CNA-M is not permitted to go into COVID positive resident rooms at this time as CNA-M is not FIT tested. On 8/28/23 at 2:40 PM, Surveyor conducted an interview with RN (Registered Nurse) UM (Unit Manager)-C who functions as the facility's IP (Infection Preventionist). Surveyor asked RN UM-C if they have received training for FIT testing employees at the facility. RN UM-C responded that they have not received training on FIT testing employees at this time. Surveyor asked what the expectation would be for employees at the facility regarding how often they are FIT tested. RN UM-C told Surveyor that they believe employees should be FIT testing upon hire at the facility. Surveyor asked RN UM-C why CNA-M came back to work on 8/23/23 without receiving FIT testing. RN UM-C could not answer Surveyor's question at this time. Surveyor asked why CNA-M is not permitted to go into COVID positive resident rooms at this time as they are currently recovering from COVID. RN UM-C could not answer Surveyor's question at this time. Surveyor noted CNA-M was usually assigned to one unit but has the capacity to go to other parts of the facility. On 8/28/23 at 3:15 PM, Surveyor conducted an interview with NHA-A. Surveyor shared concerns with NHA-A related to CNA-N not receiving FIT testing upon hire on 6/28/23 in accordance with facility's policy and procedure. No additional information was supplied by facility at this time.
Jun 2023 5 deficiencies
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Notification of Changes (Tag F0580)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review the facility did not notify the resident's Activated Healthcare Power of Attorney (AHCPOA)...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review the facility did not notify the resident's Activated Healthcare Power of Attorney (AHCPOA) when the resident had a change of condition requiring transfer to the hospital for 1 (R3) of 3 residents reviewed for notification. *R3 sustained a humerus (upper arm) fracture, and the physician gave orders to send R3 to the hospital. The AHCPOA (Activated Health Care Power of Attorney) was not notified of the fracture nor of transferring R3 to the hospital. Findings include: Facility policy entitled, Change in Condition of the Resident, revised date of 09/20/2022, documented, A facility should immediately inform the resident; consult with the resident's physician; and notify, consistent with his or her authority, the resident's representative(s) when there is an accident involving the resident which results in injury and has the potential for requiring physician intervention .or a need to alter treatment significantly . 4. Notify the resident's family/responsible party as applicable and in accordance with the resident's wishes. Documentation Documentation needs to include, but is not limited to the following: .4. Notification of responsible party-include date, time, what was conveyed, and any comments . Based on interview and record review the facility did not notify the Activated Healthcare Power of Attorney (AHCPOA) when a resident had a change of condition requiring transfer to the hospital for 1 (R3) of 3 residents reviewed for notification. R3 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and had diagnoses including Metabolic Encephalophy, Depression, and Alzheimer's disease. R3 was discharged Against Medical Advice at family insistence on 01/08/23. R3's admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] documented R3 had a Brief Status for Mental Interview (BIMs) of 5 indicating R3 had severe cognitive impairment and R3 required extensive assistance of two staff for transfers. Surveyor reviewed R3's Electronic Medical Record (EMR) and noted the following in progress notes: On 01/06/23, NP-D documented in a progress note, .Patient is sitting in a chair with complaints of pain in the left arm. Patient had a fall the previous day. No fractures or hematoma noted. Will order xray as patient has had previous fractures in the arm . NP-D made an addendum to this note on 01/10/23 which documented, Fall was noted on 1/2/23. Documented by nursing staff on 01/02/23. Patient's daughter stated fall was previous day. History of pain was obtained by daughter during physical exam, and concern of previous fractures, x-ray was obtained. On 01/08/23 at 1:51 AM, a nurse documented, Resident on f/u (follow up) for fall with report of pain to LUE (Left Upper Extremity). [name of x-ray company] phoned unit at 0130 (1:30 AM) to report x-ray results: FRACTURE AND IMPACTION OF LEFT HUMERUS HEAD AND NECK (sic). [Name of physician and company] notified and gave order to send resident out to ED (Emergency Department) for eval and treatment. On 01/08/2023 at 5:33 AM, a nurse documented, ED RN (Registered Nurse) phone SNF (Skilled Nursing Facility) of intent to send resident back to unit in the next 20-30 mins .believes left arm [sic] will likely heal in 6-8 weeks . On 01/08/23 at 7:00 AM, a nurse documented, Resident returned form ED visit . On 01/08/23 at 11:30 AM, a nurse documented, At around 10:30 AM POA [name of POA/daughter] arrived at facility wishing to speak to nurse on duty .POA states she was notified of transfer to hospital by NOC (night) shift and is upset . Surveyor could not locate documentation R3's Activated Healthcare Power of Attorney (AHCPOA) was notified of the transfer to the hospital prior to the facility transferring R3 to the hospital. On 06/27/23 at 11:57 AM, Surveyor spoke with R3's AHCPOA. AHCPOA stated she received a message from the ED physician on Sunday AM (01/08/23) saying R3 had fallen and had a broken arm. Per AHCPOA she never received a call from the facility about R3 having a broken arm or sending R3 to the hospital. AHPOA voiced concern the facility did not contact her with the results of R3's xray and the facility did not contact her prior to R3 being transferred to the hospital. On 06/28/23 at 8:30 AM, Surveyor interviewed Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN)-E. LPN-E was on duty when R3 returned from the hospital on [DATE]. Per LPN-E, R3's AHCPOA came to the facility and was upset R3 was transferred to the hospital without notifying her (AHCPOA). LPN-E stated at the time R3's AHCPOA came to the facility, R3 was already back. LPN-E informed Surveyor R3 was sent out on night shift and she, LPN-E, was not at work when R3 was sent to the hospital. Surveyor asked if a resident's power of attorney should be updated prior to sending a resident to the hospital. LPN stated yes, if the resident has a power of attorney, they should be notified prior to sending the resident to the hospital. On 06/28/23 at 9:02 AM, Surveyor interviewed Medical Records personnel (MR)-C. MR-C was the manager on duty on 01/08/23 and spoke with R3's AHCPOA that day. MR-C stated R3's AHCPOA was upset about not being notifying regarding R3's fractured arm and R3 being sent to the hospital. Per MR-C, ACHPOA stated she should have been notified. Surveyor asked what is the expectation in regards to notifying family when sending a resident to the hospital? MR-C informed Surveyor of course it is expected the power of attorney be notified of a transfer to the hospital. On 06/28/23 at 10:55 AM, Surveyor interviewed Nursing Home Administrator (NHA)-A. Surveyor asked if R3's AHCPOA was notified of R3's fractured arm and subsequent transfer to the hospital. Per NHA-A, R3's ACHPOA was not notified. NHA-A stated she realized the ACHPOA was not notified when reviewing R3's progress notes the previous night. Per NHA-A, last night she spoke with the nurse who sent R3 to the hospital and the nurse told the NHA-A , R3 returned the same day, within a few hours. NHA-A informed Surveyor she told the nurse the family/POA's still need to be updated. Per NHA-A the nurse was new and unaware of the need to notify the ACHPOA of a transfer to the hospital. Surveyor relayed the concern R3's ACHPOA was not notified of the arm fracture nor of the transfer to the hospital. NHA-A stated she understood and no additional information was provided.
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Report Alleged Abuse (Tag F0609)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility did not report an injury of unknown origin to the State Agency for 1 (R3) of ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility did not report an injury of unknown origin to the State Agency for 1 (R3) of 1 residents reviewed for an injury of unknown origin. *On 1/8/23, R3 presented with a fractured humerus (upper arm) and the facility did not report this injury of unknown origin to the State agency. Findings include: The facility policy entitled Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation, revised on 07/15/2022 documents, It is the policy of this facility to provide protections for the health, welfare and rights of each resident by developing and implementing written policies and procedures that prohibit and prevent abuse, neglect, exploitation and misappropriation of resident property . B. Possible indicators of abuse include, but are not limited to: .Physical injury of a resident, of unknown source . VII. Reporting/Response .1. Reporting of all alleged violations to the Administrator, state agency .within specified timeframes: a. Immediately, but no later than 2 hours after the allegation is made, if the events that cause the allegation involve abuse or result in serious bodily injury. R3 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and had diagnoses including Metabolic Encephalophy, Depression, and Alzheimer's disease. R3 was discharged Against Medical Advice at family insistence on 01/08/23. R3's admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] documented R3 had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 5 indicating R3 had severe cognitive impairment. R3 required extensive assistance of two staff for transfers. Surveyor reviewed R3's Electronic Medical Record (EMR) and noted the following documented in progress notes: On 01/02/23 at 5:10 PM, resident in [room number] heard resident yell and a bang, came to desk asking for help. resident laying on back, perpendicular from bed toward door. bed in low position, mat next to bed. gripper socks, dry brief and socks. body check negative except half dollar hematoma to back of head. resident has dementia but stated [sex of resident] going to the bathroom and fell, my head hurts 2/10 pain. walker by bathroom door, bedside table and w/c (wheelchair) by bed. resident last seen in bed at 1600 (4PM) by writer sleeping. CNA (Certified Nursing Assistant) passed water between 2 and 3, resident was dry and in bed. NP (Nurse Practitioner) [name of NP] updated and POA (Power of Attorney)/daughter POA [name of daughter] aware - resident to go to [name of hospital] for evaluation . Surveyor reviewed hospital discharge summary which documented no injuries and resident was sent back to the facility within a few hours. Surveyor reviewed subsequent nursing progress notes from 01/03/23 to 01/06/23 which documented resident had no complaints of pain and no injuries were noted besides a bruise to the back of the head. On 01/06/23, Nurse Practitioner (NP)-D documented in a progress note, .Patient is sitting in a chair with complaints of pain in the left arm. Patient had a fall the previous day. No fractures or hematoma noted. Will order xray as patient has had previous fractures in the arm . NP-D made an addendum to this note on 01/10/23 which documented, Fall was noted on 1/2/23. Documented by nursing staff on 01/02/23. Patient's daughter stated fall was previous day. History of pain was obtained by daughter during physical exam, and concern of previous fractures, x-ray was obtained. On 06/28/23 at 8:46 AM, Surveyor interviewed NP-D. NP-D informed Surveyor she saw R3 on January 6th, 2023, and R3's daughter was in the room and told NP-D R3 was having pain in the left arm. NP-D stated R3's daughter was concerned because R3 had previous fractures in the left arm. Per NP-D she did not notice any type of deformity of the arm, swelling of the arm or any other indicators of a fracture. NP-D ordered the x-ray due to R3's daughter's concerns. Per nursing documentation, the facility ordered the x-ray on 01/06/23, the x-ray company came out on 01/07/23 and the x-ray company phoned the facility with results at 1:30 AM on 01/08/23. A progress note on 01/08/23 at 1:51 AM documented, Resident on f/u (follow up) for fall with report of pain to LUE (Left Upper Extremity). [name of x-ray company] phoned unit at 0130 (1:30 AM) to report x-ray results: FRACTURE AND IMPACTION OF LEFT HUMERUS HEAD AND NECK (sic) . On 06/27/23 at 12:55 PM, Surveyor interviewed Nursing Home Administrator (NHA)-A. NHA stated during the time from R3's fall on 01/02/23 to 01/06/23, R3 was not complaining of any pain. Per NHA-A, NP-D was rounding and R3's daughter told NP-D R3 was in pain. NHA-A stated R3's daughter also told NP-D R3 had multiple previous fractures in the left arm. Per NHA-A R3's family was saying she must have had another fall. Surveyor asked if the facility did an investigation. Per NHA-A the facility would not have known to do another investigation because they were unaware of a fall or injury until the x-ray came back positive. Per NHA-A R3 had an unwitnessed fall on 01/02/23 and returned to the facility with no new orders, and then the facility had an x-ray done once R3 had complaints of pain. NHA-A stated R3 was sent to the hospital after the x-ray came back positive and the hospital sent R3 back to the facility after confirming the fracture. NHA-A stated the hospital did not do anything. Surveyor asked if the fracture was reported to the State agency as an injury of unknown origin? NHA-A stated the facility would not have done anything else because the facility assumed the injury was from the unwitnessed fall on 01/02/23. Per NHA-A, the previous Director of Nursing (DON) mentioned the hospital did not give a clear picture as to whether the fracture was new or old. NHA-A stated R3 had no signs of an acute injury such as redness or swelling of the left arm. Surveyor expressed concerns the facility did not report the fracture as an injury of unknown origin due to the facility not having evidence of where/when the fracture occurred. The facility assumed the fracture occurred during the unwitnessed fall on 01/02/23, however the fracture was not identified until the x-ray was taken on 01/07/23, results of the x-ray recevied on 01/08/23, with the first complaints of pain on 01/06/23. Surveyor asked NHA-A how could the facility be certain the fracture was from the unwitnessed fall if the facility did not investigate what happened during those 4-5 days in between the fall and the x-ray? NHA-A stated maybe the previous DON had something and she would look and get back to Surveyor. On 06/28/2023 at 10:55 AM, Surveyor interviewed NHA-A. NHA-A stated she did not have any additional information on R3's fracture and the fracture was not reported to the State Agency. Surveyor again relayed concerns of the facility not reporting the fracture as an injury of unknown origin.
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Investigate Abuse (Tag F0610)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review the facility did not thoroughly investigate the cause of an injury for 1 (R3) of 1 resident...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review the facility did not thoroughly investigate the cause of an injury for 1 (R3) of 1 resident reviewed for injuries of unknown origin. *On 1/8/23, the results of an xray confirmed R3 had a humerus (upper arm) fracture. The facility assumed the fracture was from a fall that occurred on 1/2/23, however, R3 had been to the emergency room on 1/2/23 and no injury was noted. The facility did not investigate to determine if this fracture (identified 6 days after R3's fall on 1/2/23) was a result of the 1/2/23 fall or if a new incident had occurred after the 1/2/23 fall resulting in this injury of unknown origin. Findings include: The Facility policy entitled Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation, revised on 07/15/2022 documents, It is the policy of this facility to provide protections for the health, welfare and rights of each resident by developing and implementing written policies and procedures that prohibit and prevent abuse, neglect, exploitation and misappropriation of resident property . B. Possible indicators of abuse include, but are not limited to: .Physical injury of a resident, of unknown source . V. Investigation of Alleged Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation A. An immediate investigation is warranted when an allegation or suspicion of abuse, neglect or exploitation . 4. Identifying and interviewing all involved persons, including the alleged victim, alleged perpetrator, witnesses, and others who might have knowledge of the allegation (s) . 6. Providing complete and thorough documentation of the investigation. R3 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and had diagnoses including Metabolic Encephalophy, Depression, and Alzheimer's disease. R3 was discharged Against Medical Advice at family insistence on 01/08/23. R3's admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] documented R3 had a Brief Status for Mental Interview (BIMs) of 5 indicating R3 had severe cognitive impairment and R3 required extensive assistance of two staff for transfers. Surveyor reviewed R3's Electronic medical Record (EMR) and noted the following documented in progress notes: On 01/02/23 at 5:10 PM, resident in [room number] heard resident yell and a bang, came to desk asking for help. resident laying on back, perpendicular from bed toward door. bed in low position, mat next to bed. gripper socks, dry brief and socks. body check negative except half dollar hematoma to back of head. resident has dementia but stated [sex of resident] going to the bathroom and fell, my head hurts 2/10 pain. walker by bathroom door, bedside table and w/c (wheelchair) by bed. resident last seen in bed at 1600 (4PM) by writer sleeping. CNA (Certified Nursing Assistant) passed water between 2 and 3, resident was dry and in bed. NP (Nurse Practitioner) [name of NP] updated and POA (Power of Attorney)/daughter POA [name of daughter] aware- resident to go to [name of hospital] for evaluation . Surveyor reviewed the hospital discharge summary which documented no injuries and resident was sent back to the facility within a few hours. Surveyor noted R3 fell on [DATE]. Between 01/02/23 and 01/06/23, R3's progress notes and post fall assessments document no injury, beside bruise to the back of head, and no complaints of pain. R3 was still working with Occupational and Physical therapy at that time. Surveyor reviewed therapy notes and noted no documentation relating to pain nor limited of range of motion of the left upper extremity. During that time no concerns were brought forward by therapy regarding R3. On 01/06/23, NP (Nurse Practitioner)-D documented in a progress note, .Patient is sitting in a chair with complaints of pain in the left arm. Patient had a fall the previous day. No fractures or hematoma noted. Will order xray as patient has had previous fractures in the arm . NP-D made an addendum to this note on 01/10/23 which documented, Fall was noted on 1/2/23. Documented by nursing staff on 01/02/23. Patient's daughter stated fall was previous day. History of pain was obtained by daughter during physical exam, and concern of previous fractures, x-ray was obtained. On 06/28/23 at 8:46 AM, Surveyor interviewed NP-D. NP-D informed Surveyor she saw R3 on January 6th, 2023, and R3's daughter was in the room and told NP-D R3 was having pain in the left arm. NP-D stated R3's daughter was concerned because R3 had previous fractures in the left arm. Per NP-D she did not notice any type of deformity of the arm, swelling of the arm or any other indicators of a fracture. NP-D ordered the x-ray due to R3's daughter's concerns. Per nursing documentation, the facility ordered the x-ray on 01/06/23, the x-ray company came out on 01/07/23 and the x-ray company phoned the facility with results at 1:30 AM on 01/08/23. A progress note on 01/08/23 at 1:51 AM documented, Resident on f/u (follow up) for fall with report of pain to LUE (Left Upper Extremity). [name of x-ray company] phoned unit at 0130 (1:30 AM) to report x-ray results: FRACTURE AND IMPACTION OF LEFT HUMERUS HEAD AND NECK (sic) . On 06/27/23 at 12:55 PM, Surveyor interviewed Nursing Home Administrator (NHA)-A. NHA stated during the time from R3's fall on 01/02/23 to 01/06/23, R3 was not complaining of any pain. Per NHA-A NP-D was rounding and R3's daughter told NP-D R3 was in pain. NHA-A stated R3's daughter also told NP-D R3 had multiple previous fractures in the left arm. Per NHA-A R3's family was saying she must have had another fall. Surveyor asked if the facility did an investigation to determine whether or not the fracture was from the previous fall or a new injury. Per NHA-A the facility would not have known to do another investigation because they were unaware of a fall or injury until the x-ray came back positive. Per NHA-A R3 had an unwitnessed fall on 01/02/23 and returned to the facility with no new orders, and then the facility had an x-ray done once R3 had complaints of pain. NHA-A stated R3 was sent to the hospital after the x-ray came back positive and the hospital sent R3 back to the facility after confirming the fracture. NHA-A stated the hospital did not do anything. NHA-A stated the facility would not have done an additional investigation because the facility assumed the injury was from the unwitnessed fall on 01/02/23. Per NHA-A, the previous Director of Nursing (DON) mentioned the hospital did not give a clear picture as to whether the fracture was new or old. (Surveyor asked for documentation of this, but did not receive any.) NHA-A stated R3 had no signs of an acute injury such as redness or swelling of the left arm. Surveyor expressed concerns the facility did not have evidence of where/when the fracture occurred: the facility assumed the fracture occurred during the unwitnessed fall on 01/02/23, however the fracture was not identified until the x-ray was taken on 01/07/23, with the first complaints of pain on 01/06/23. Surveyor asked NHA-A how could the facility be certain the fracture was from the unwitnessed fall if the facility did not investigate what happened during those 4-5 days in between the fall and the x-ray? NHA-A stated maybe the previous DON had something and she would look and get back to Surveyor. On 06/28/2023 at 10:55 AM, Surveyor interviewed NHA-A. NHA-A stated she did not have any additional information on the fracture and the facility did not investigate the origin of the fracture. No additional information was provided.
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Deficiency F0806 (Tag F0806)

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 2 of 3 (R5 and R7) residents reviewed for dietar...

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 2 of 3 (R5 and R7) residents reviewed for dietary services, with food accommodations and preferences as listed on the resident's meal tickets. The facility provided surveyors with a 4 week menu cycle along with an additional piece of paper labeled, (corporate name) Always available Menu. Surveyors reviewed the facility's 4 week breakfast menu cycles and noted on 6/27/23 the menu indicated scrambled eggs, choice of cereal and a waffle with syrup. There was no sausage patty listed or yogurt cup listed on the menu. * On 6/27/23, R5 did not receive food items which were on her breakfast meal ticket. R5's breakfast meal ticket indicated she would be receiving a sausage patty, and yogurt, both of which were not on the facility's menu. R5 was not provided with a sausage patty or yogurt as indicated on her meal ticket. When R5 indicated she was still hungry, R5 was provided with a second breakfast tray which included a waffle as well as items she previously informed the Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) that she did not want such as the scrambled eggs and cereal. R5 was not offered any items from the facility's Always available Menu. * On 6/27/23, R7 did not receive food items which were listed on her breakfast meal ticket. R7 did not receive cottage cheese and did not receive a sausage patty/link, nor a waffle. R7 was not provided with a sausage link from the facility's Always available Menu. * On 4/20/23, 5/18/23, 6/15/23 multiple residents at resident council meetings expressed concerns regarding food items, menus and not receiving preferences. Findings include: Surveyor reviewed the facility's Always available Menu which was provided along with the 4 week menu cycles. The Always available Menu documents: Cereals: Crispy Rice, Oatmeal, Cream of Wheat, Cheerios, This N' That: [NAME] or Wheat Toast, Pancakes, Sausage Patties or Links, Fruit, Yogurt, Sweet Roll and Eggs: scrambled, hard boiled, cheese omelet. 1. On 6/27/23 at 9:00 am, Surveyors observed R5 in bed eating her breakfast which was on the over bed table. Surveyors noted R5 ate her french toast but did not eat her scrambled eggs and only about 1/2 of her cold cereal. Surveyors did not observe R5 to receive a sausage patty, a yogurt cup or a fruit of choice on her breakfast tray (as per meal ticket). R5 stated, I did not get any sausage or bacon. I feed my self. I have had enough eggs and enough cereal back in the day. Surveyors noticed that R5 had a Styrofoam cup resting on her chest. R5 stated her right hand was weak due to arthritis. Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) G who entered R5's room stated today was her first day working at the facility. CNA G informed R5 that she (CNA G) would bring a straw for R5. R5 continued to relay that she was hungry, she did not receive bacon which she likes. R5 stated she ate the waffle that was served with syrup and it was good but would have liked 2 pieces. Surveyors observed R5 with 1% low fat milk on her tray. R5 went on to question as to why she received 1% milk and reported, I like regular milk why am I getting low fat milk? CNA G stated she would let the kitchen know that R5 wanted additional food. Surveyor's reviewed R5's breakfast meal ticket dated 6/27/23. The meal ticket indicated: Regular Menu, allergy: Caffeine, extra sausage and bacon when on menu. The meal ticket indicated for breakfast 6/27/23 that R5 would be receiving: Scrambled eggs 2 ounces (oz), Sausage patty 2 oz, Cereal 3/4 cup, Waffle 1 each and syrup, Assorted Yogurt cup-1 each Milk 1 cup Coffee 8 oz, creamer 1 each Juice of Choice 4 oz Fruit of Choice-1/2 cup No caffeine When R5 stated she did not receive a sausage patty, CNA G told R5 that bacon and sausage were not on the menu today, just the waffle and eggs were on the menu. CNA G stated she would let kitchen know that R5 has a preference for sausage and bacon daily. CNA G stated to R5 did you say you were still hungry and R5 responded with yes. CNA G informed another CNA who entered the room that R5 was still hungry and would like another tray. R5 stated she did not want any more eggs or cereal. CNA G and Surveyors left R5's room on 6/27/23 at 9:11 am telling R5 they would return to see what R5 would receive on the additional breakfast tray that would be brought in for her. On 6/27/23 at 9:30 am, Surveyors returned to R5's room. R5 was still awaiting her additional breakfast tray. R5 stated, I never get enough to eat, they know I don't get enough to eat, after I eat I tell them I am still hungry .I think I told someone from the kitchen, they wrote it down but still they do not bring food. Surveyors left R5's room. On 6/27/23 at 9:55 am, Surveyors returned to R5's room and observed R5 to have received another breakfast tray with scrambled eggs, cold cereal, french toast and 1% milk. Surveyors noted R5 continued to receive the scrambled eggs and cold cereal even though R5 previously reported not wanting them. Surveyor noted no sausage patty was provided, nor any yogurt. On 6/27/23 at 11:55 am, R5 informed Surveyors she did not receive the yogurt as listed on her breakfast ticket but instead received cottage cheese on her breakfast tray which she did not like nor ate. On 6/27/23 at 10:30 am, Surveyor reviewed R5's medical record. R5's medical record indicated R5 was admitted on [DATE]. R5's diagnosis included in part, nutritional anemia. Surveyor reviewed R5's physician's orders which indicated in part; 7/29/22 Boost 8 ounces 3 times a day for wound healing, if unavailable may give house supplement with a revision date of 12/20/22. Resident was also noted to receive a multi mineral /calcium vitamin. Surveyor noted R5's weight has been stable at 156 lbs (pounds) from 1/3/23 through 6/2/23. R5's annual Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] indicates R5 has a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) of 13 indicating R5 is cognitively intact. R5 is assessed as eating with supervision with 1 staff physical assistance. Surveyor reviewed a 5/22/23 quarterly nutrition assessment completed by Registered Dietitian which documents in part; Usual body weight 152-162 lbs. Regular diet thin liquids. Food/Beverage/portion preferences: no updated dislikes given by resident gets yogurt at breakfast, cottage cheese with lunch, milk with meals, double portion sandwich when on menu. The nutrition assessment indicates R5 receives nutritional supplements and/or fortified foods, Boost 8 oz TID (720 Kcal 30 g pro) skin condition: Pressure injury (PI), PI stage 3 to sacrum is improving per RN notes Res frequently refuses staff to monitor and treat, no edema present. Pertinent diagnosis: Multiple Sclerosis, Pressure ulcer of sacral region stage 3, hyperlipidemia, unspecified essential (Primary) hypertension. R5 does not have any swallowing or chewing difficulty, is independent with eating, nutritional diagnosis: increased nutrient needs .continue current nutrition care plan. R5's care plan addresses, At risk for nutritional/hydration status change related to increased PRO (protein)/nutrient needs due to altered skin integrity. Res refuses to be weighed at times per her preference. Date initiated: 05/24/2022. Revision on 09/27/2022. Interventions include in part: Honor food preferences initiated 05/24/2022. Surveyors reviewed the facility's 4 week breakfast menu cycles and noted on 6/27/23 the menu indicated scrambled eggs, choice of cereal and a waffle with syrup. There was no sausage patty listed or yogurt cup listed on the menu. Surveyor also reviewed the facility's Always available Menu which was provided along with the 4 week menu cycles. On 6/27/23 at 11:45 am, Surveyors spoke to Dietary Manager (DM) F as to R5's breakfast tray ticket. Surveyor asked what R5 should have received if an item on the breakfast ticket is underlined. DM F indicated if the item is underlined on the meal ticket then the resident should have received the item. Surveyors noted R5's breakfast tray ticket had assorted yogurt cup underlined. R5 reported not receiving yogurt for breakfast on 6/27/23. On 6/27/23 at 12:40 pm, Surveyors shared with DM F R5's concerns regarding R5's breakfast and that R5 stated she did not receive all of the items on her meal ticket such as the sausage patty and the yogurt. DM F stated that sausage and/or bacon were not on the menu today however there is meat on the menu every other day. Surveyor noted the breakfast menu for 6/25/23 through 07/01/23 the facility offered meat (bacon) for breakfast only on 1 of the 7 days of the week which was Friday 6/30/23. Surveyor also noted that even though DM F stated that the sausage patty was not on the menu for 6/27/23 breakfast, it was listed on the Always available Menu as well as on the dietary ticket which Surveyors showed DM F. DM F acknowledged the dietary ticket and the menu did not completely match. DM F informed Surveyors she has not spoken directly to R5 and was not sure if the dietitian has spoken to her. DM F stated no one has come to see her regarding any concerns R5 may be having regarding food items and if they want changes she will make the changes. Surveyor informed DM F that R5 reported she was still hungry. DM F stated the cook made R5 something else. Surveyor informed DM F even though R5 received another waffle, she also received scrambled eggs, and cereal both in which R5 informed CNA G she did not want and did not eat from her first tray. Surveyors informed DM F that R5 also questioned why she was receiving 1% Milk. DM F stated it has now been approximately 4 weeks since the facility has been transitioning to a different food supplier and a different ordering system. DM F stated some of the food items she was previously able to order are now restricted. DM F stated she orders what she can and all of the residents in the facility are served 1% milk or skim milk because that is what the supplier has. DM F stated if the supplier doesn't have it, she orders what she can in regards to milk and she was previously ordering and getting 2% and regular milk for the residents but has not been able to get this due to restrictions. DM F reported if she were not able to get milk she would make powdered milk. DM F stated in regards to [R5] 9 out of 10 times she doesn't eat waffles, she always orders toast, she changes her mind all the time and will throw food on the floor, she changes her mind wants scrambled eggs and then not. On 6/27/23 at 1:05 pm, District Manager for Dietary (I) came into DM F's office. Surveyors shared with District Manager I the above information pertaining to R5 and asked why the breakfast meal ticket did not match the menu. District Manager I reported, the facility was beginning week 4 when the new system rolled in. District Manager I stated they are documenting issues and making a list developing a new upgrade in the meal tracking system. District Manager I stated she would like to dive into the residents Surveyors mentioned and to see if there is a diet order or any restriction on bacon or sausage. Surveyors informed District Manager I that Surveyors did not see any restrictions noted pertaining to bacon or sausage in R5's medical record. District Manager I reported wanting to do some research. On 6/28/23, the facility provided Surveyor with a note indicting R5 had not expressed any food complaints to them. The facility also provided Surveyor with a copy of R5's care plan which indicated R5 was at risk for behavior symptoms related to delusional disorder, depression and that she will often refuse cares, repositioning, wound treatments and weights. Interventions include in part that R5 refuses cares. No additional information was received as to why R5 did not receive the items listed on her breakfast meal ticket which included a sausage patty and yogurt. There is no indication as to why R5 was not provided items from the Always available menu. 2. On 6/27/23 at 9:00 am, Surveyors observed R7 in bed. Her breakfast tray was set in front of her on the bedside table. R7 was observed sleeping. On 6/27/23 at 10:55 am, R7 was still in bed with her breakfast tray in front of her and she had been eating from it. R7 informed Surveyors, they won't bring me cottage cheese or bacon. They won't bring me oatmeal they bring me Cream of Wheat. I ask every day for cottage cheese and they won't bring me any, they don't bring me bacon either, I always have to ask for salt and pepper. At home I always ate cottage cheese, they don't want to buy it, they told my sister if I want cottage cheese and/or oatmeal I would have to buy it and put my name on it, I use the milk just for my cereal. Surveyor noted R7 ate the hard boiled egg that was on her breakfast tray and noted R7 had a cup of coffee. R7 reported, they don't always bring you what is on it (referring to her breakfast meal ticket.) R7 stated, they rarely give me what is on the meal ticket. Last night I did not get anything on the meal ticket. I did not eat dinner. One of the nurses went and got me McDonalds .I give them a lot of money every month, my social security is almost depleted and that's a big problem here, I don't get food. My doctor put me here to gain weight, sometimes there is no knife to cut with and I have to ask for it, I ate my soup with my hands. I save the meal tickets (showing surveyors her meal tickets). They did not give me a sausage patty . I like sausage links. R7 provided Surveyors with her 3/27/23 breakfast meal ticket from her tray. The meal ticket indicated: Allergies: Lactose, Lactose intolerant (only avoids milk, other dairy OK) Scrambled Eggs 2 ounce (oz) Sausage Patty 2 oz Oatmeal Cereal-6 oz Waffle 1 each Syrup 2 oz Cottage Cheese- 1/2 cup Coffee 8 oz Creamer 1 Juice of Choice 4 oz Sugar 1 Packet (Pkt) Salt 1 Pkt Pepper 1 Pkt Fruit of Choice 1/2 cup **** No Eggs 2 slices of toast when on menu Surveyor noted R7's breakfast dietary slip indicates No eggs however Surveyor also noted R7 ate a hard boiled egg for breakfast. R7 stated, I did not get cottage cheese for breakfast even though it is on my (breakfast tray) slip. R7 stated they won't bring me cottage cheese, I don't know why, it's my favorite snack. R7 reported she did not get a waffle this morning, saying I love waffles. Surveyor noted R7 did not receive a cottage cheese or a waffle for breakfast even though it was on R7's breakfast tray ticket. Surveyor also noted the waffle was on the breakfast menu as well. R7 went on to say that she does not get enough food as portions are too small, specifically pasta with R7 holding her fingers in a circle to show a little sized portion of pasta she receives. R7 stated she has been at the facility since September and her Doctor wants her to gain weight. R7 reported she spoke to someone from the Kitchen and believes she told them about wanting cottage cheese, sausage links and/or bacon. R7 stated she would also like more vegetables. R7 stated, It doesn't help talking to the kitchen, I once told them to give me something and they never changed it. On 6/27/23 at 11:45 am, Surveyors spoke to Dietary Manager (DM) F as to R7's breakfast tray ticket. Surveyor asked what R7 should have received if an item on the breakfast ticket is underlined. DM F indicated if the item is underlined on the meal ticket then the resident should have received the item. Surveyors noted R7's breakfast tray ticket had cottage cheese and oatmeal both underlined. R7 should have received these items for breakfast but did not. Surveyor asked DM F if they have run out of cottage cheese. DM F stated, we have more than enough, residents who want it get it .there have been no issues getting cottage cheese. On 6/27/23 Surveyor reviewed R7's medical record. R7's diagnosis in part indicates unspecified severe protein calorie malnutrition, recurrent depression disorder and anxiety disorder. The physician's orders include in part: 1/20/23 regular diet, regular texture, regular thin consistency. 4/17/23 bi weekly weight 1 time day every Mon-Thurs for malnutrition. (indefinite.) 5/22/23 Liquid protein 2 times a day for wound healing. The quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] assesses R7 with a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) of a 10 which indicates R7 is moderately impaired with daily decision making skills. The MDS indicates R7 has trouble falling asleep. Does not have a poor appetite. Has no physical behaviors, does have verbal behaviors towards others. The MDS indicates R7 has no rejection of cares. R7 requires limited assistance with 1 person physical assistance with eating. The MDS assesses R7 to be at nutritional risk for malnutrition. The MDS also indicates R7 is 53 inches and 71 pounds, with no weight loss. Surveyor noted R7's current weight on 6/26/23 is 80 pounds. R7's care plan reflects R7 has an activated Power of Attorney. R7's care plan reflects an At risk for nutritional/hydration status change related to inadequate PO (by mouth/oral) intake due to advanced age, C-diff, CHF. Potential for weight loss related to inadequate PO intake. Interventions initiated on 11/29/22 and included in part: Honor food preferences. Administer medications as ordered, Encourage and assist as needed to consume foods and/or supplements and fluids offered, Record weight per facility protocol/MD orders etc. R7's care plan also addresses a cognitive loss as evidenced by a low BIMs. R7's care plan also addresses an At risk for behavior symptoms related to history TIA, adjustment disorder with mixed anxiety and depressed mood, R7 will become agitated and swear/yell at staff. Will refuse cares, medications, meals, therapy participation. Accusatory behavior as evidenced by unsubstantiated allegations of verbal and physical abuse. Delusional thoughts .paranoid i.e. believing med's, meals are poison. Refusing to take medications, eat meals at times. (initiated 11/30/22 and revision on 12/29/22). Interventions include in part: Administer medications per physician orders, observe for mental/status changes when new medications started or with changes in dosage, psych referral and use consistent approaches when giving care all initiated on 11/30/23. R7's Nutrition assessment dated [DATE] indicates in part: Food/Beverage/portion preferences- cottage cheese at breakfast, enjoys Boost with oatmeal, resident enjoys eggs, dark toast per social services family reports resident enjoys hard boiled eggs, cottage cheese, jello, double portion vegetables likes baked beans, lemonade (not fruit punch), soups. The assessment identifies R7 as having a nutritional problem with a nutritional diagnosis as underweight. On 6/27/23 at 12:40 pm, Surveyors shared concerns with Dietary Manager (DM) F in regards to R7 not receiving all of the food items on her breakfast tray ticket which included cottage cheese, waffle and sausage patty. In addition surveyor noted R7's dietary ticket indicates no eggs however R7's most recent Nutritional Assessment indicates R7 enjoys hard boiled eggs which is what R7 received even though her breakfast ticket for 6/27/23 indicates both scrambled eggs, as well as No eggs. DM F stated R7 changes her mind all the time and will throw items on the floor. DM F stated R7 will say she wants scrambled eggs and then not. DM F indicated she has not spoken directly to R7 however she will be notified of the need for any changes. DM F stated no concerns have been brought to her attention recently. DM F stated approximately 4 weeks ago, the facility switched food supply vendors and is not always able to order what she was previously able to order as there have been some restrictions put in place. DM F indicated the facility is trying to get some of these issues worked out. When Surveyors showed a copy of the breakfast tray ticket DM F had previously provided to surveyors showing sausage patty, cottage cheese and a waffle for R7, DM F stated a sausage patty was not on the menu today. DM F also stated the breakfast dietary ticket does not match the menu. Surveyor noted that while the sausage patty and waffle were not on the menu these items were listed on the Always available Menu. DM F also indicated in addition to the issue of ordering certain food items the breakfast tray tickets were not matching the menus. On 6/27/23 at 1:05 pm, District Manager (I) came into DM F's office. Surveyors shared with District Manager I the above information pertaining to R7 and asked why R7 did not receive all of the food items as indicated on the breakfast tray ticket and why the breakfast tray ticket did not match the menu. District Manager I reported, the facility was beginning week 4 since the new system rolled in. District Manager I stated they are documenting issues and making a list developing a new upgrade in the meal tracking system. District Manager I stated she would like to dive into the residents Surveyors mentioned and to see if there is a diet order or any restriction on bacon or sausage. Surveyors informed District Manager I that Surveyors did not see any restrictions noted pertaining to bacon or sausage in R7's medical record. District Manager I reported wanting to do some research. On 6/27/23, Surveyor reviewed a facility grievance dated 2/10/23 which was registered on behalf of R7 by R7's family member. The statement of concern indicates Resident reports that she is not receiving oatmeal on her breakfast, not having condiments, i.e. jelly, sugar on her tray. The action plan indicates the concern was discussed with DM F who listed oatmeal on R7's ticket for breakfast daily; will ensure staff is following tickets and will have kitchen staff place condiments on tray prior to leaving the kitchen. Surveyor noted the facility followed up with R7 on 2/14 and 2/15/23 and R7 received all requested ticket items and condiments. The grievance was identified as resolved on 2/15/23. Surveyor noted although the grievance was noted to be resolved on 2/15/23, on 6/27/23 R7 did not receive items listed on her breakfast tray ticket, i.e. cottage cheese, waffle, sausage patty. Surveyor reviewed the Resident Council Agenda and Meeting Minutes which documented: 4/20/23 9 Residents in attendance. Concern Tickets do not match trays; inconsistent carts. Progress of Concern- Requests for alternate meals are not always fulfilled. Supply chain issues, certain foods unavailable. In progress. Status of Concern- not resolved- new grievance form completed and attached to initial grievance. 5/18/23 15 Residents in attendance. Concern. Tickets do not match trays; inconsistent carts .in progress. Status of concern is not indicated. New Concerns: Food portions seem smaller . form completed yes Carts run out of condiments and drinks . form completed yes 6/15/23 10 Residents in attendance. Concern. Carts run out of condiments and drinks, knives unavailable, food portions seem smaller, meals are coming out overcooked. Progress of Concern, More positive reviews of food. Still present complaint of small portions. Status of Concern- not resolved-new grievance completed and attached to initial grievance. Surveyor noted while DM F indicated the facility transitioned to a new food supplier approximately 4 weeks ago affecting ability to get some food items and affecting menus etc. Residents have been expressing concerns regarding meal tickets not matching trays since April 20, 2023. Residents have been expressing concern regarding carts running out of condiments and food portions seeming smaller since May 18, 2023. On 6/27/23 Surveyor discussed the concerns involving R5 and R7's food preferences as identified on their breakfast tray ticket was not followed. Administrator A stated R7 is very particular and that the dietitian has met with R7 a lot to review R7's preferences which fluctuate for the day. On 6/28/23 the facility provided additional information which included a copy of the complaint R7's sister brought forth regarding food items and indicating the complaint had been resolved. Surveyor noted R7 continues to have concerns regarding items on the meal tray ticket are not being provided. The facility also provided Surveyor with a copy of R7's care plan which indicates a taget behavior of Resident will become paranoid and refuse meals, medications stating they are poison and making her sick. The facility's information does not provide information as to why the facility is not providing listed items on the meal ticket for R7.
CONCERN (E) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Resident Rights (Tag F0550)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based upon observation, record review, and interview, the facility did not always provide Residents with dignity during meal ser...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based upon observation, record review, and interview, the facility did not always provide Residents with dignity during meal service as the facility was using disposable Styrofoam cups rather than non-disposable dishware. This deficient practice had the potential to affect 4 (R8, R5, R7, and R9) of 4 residents observed drinking from Styrofoam cups. On 6/27/23 4 residents were observed drinking from Styrofoam cups during meals and it was observed that multiple place settings in the main dining room had 2 Styrofoam cups at each place setting prior to the noon meal. The Styrofoam cups in the main dining room were later removed prior to the noon meal for all of the 17 residents who ate in the dining room except for R8 and R9. The Dietary Manager F indicated some Residents did not wish to use the non-disposable glass ware as they were cloudy. Administrator A indicated the facility having an on and off again issue with the water softener in the dishwasher. Findings include: On 6/27/23 at 8:45 am, Surveyors observed the main dining room. R8 was observed to be the only Resident in the dining room as she had just finished eating her breakfast. Surveyors observed 8 tables in the dining room all set up for the next meal with approximately 15 to 17 place settings. There were 2 Styrofoam cups at each setting. On 6/27/23 at 9:00 am, Surveyors observed and interviewed R5 who was eating her breakfast in her room. Surveyors observed a Styrofoam cup resting sideways against R5's upper chest. Surveyor noted there was not enough apple juice to spill out of the Styrofoam cup. R5 stated the Styrofoam cup was hard for her to hold as her right hand was weak with arthritis. Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) G offered to bring R5 a straw for the cup. R5's annual Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] indicates R5 has a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) of 13 indicating R5 is cognitively intact. R5 is assessed as eating with supervision with 1 staff for physical assistance. On 6/27/23 at 10:10 am, Surveyors observed and interviewed R7 who was eating breakfast in bed. Surveyor observed R7 had a Styrofoam cup on her tray. Surveyor asked R7 if she liked using a Styrofoam cup. R7 replied, Not really, it makes things taste funny. R7 indicated she had not been asked if she wanted a regular glass. R7's quarterly MDS dated [DATE] assesses R7 with a BIMS score of 10 which indicates R7 is moderately impaired with daily decision making skills. R7 requires limited assistance with 1 person physical assistance with eating On 6/27/23 at approximately 12:00 pm, Surveyors went back into the main dining room. Surveyor noticed 1 table with 2 residents (R8 and R9) who both had Styrofoam cups. Surveyor noted there were 17 residents eating their meal in the dining room. All of the other residents in the dining room were noted to have non-disposable cups (plastic) cups. Surveyor observed all the Styrofoam cups which had previously been set out were now removed. Surveyor attempted to interview both R8 and R9 as to why they were using Styrofoam cups. R8 was not interviewable and did not respond to Surveyor's questions. R8's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] assessed R8's Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score was 3 indicating R8 is severely cognitively impaired for daily decision making skills. R8 has a diagnosis of dementia. R8 requires supervision and the assistance of 1 staff for eating. Surveyor asked R9 if he liked drinking from a Styrofoam cup. R9 was not responding to Surveyors questions in accordance to questions posed but then stated, sure. R9 was not able to articulate as to why he was drinking from the Styrofoam cup. R9's quarterly MDS dated [DATE] assessed R9 as having a BIMS score of 5 which indicates R9 is severely cognitively impaired for daily decision making skills. R9 has a diagnosis of dementia. R9 requires supervision with 1 person assist with eating. On 6/27/23 at 12:30 pm, Surveyors went into the kitchen. Surveyor asked Dietary Staff H if the dishwasher was working today. Dietary Staff H stated yes it was working today. Surveyor asked Dietary Staff H if she had previously set up the dining room and Dietary Staff H stated she and another Dietary Staff member had set up the dining room. Surveyor then asked Dietary Staff H why the dining room was set up with 2 Styrofoam cups at each table setting earlier this morning. Dietary Staff H then stated the dining room had already been set up and was not able to answer as to who set it up. On 6/27/23 at 12:40 am, Surveyors spoke to the Dietary Manager (DM) F who indicated the dish wash machine was working today. Surveyor asked why both R5 and R7 along with R8 and R9 were drinking from Styrofoam cups. Surveyor also indicated the dining room had initially been set up with 2 Styrofoam cups at each table place setting however prior to lunch the facility changed the Styrofoam cups to the facility's plastic glasses. DM F reported that the non disposable plastic glassware was cloudy looking and that some Residents do not liking drinking from these plastics glasses. DM F stated sometimes, it all depends. DM F was not able to identify how they determined which Residents would get a Styrofoam cup versus the non disposable plastic glasses. On 6/27/23 at 1:05 pm, the facility's District Manager over dietary entered DM F's office as Surveyors were interviewing DM F. Surveyor asked District Manager I as to why the facility was using Styrofoam disposable cups. District Manager I stated she would defer this question back to DM F. On 6/27/23 at 3:00 pm, during the daily exit conference with Administrator A, and [NAME] President of Success (VPS) J, Surveyor asked Administrator A about the use of Styrofoam disposable dish ware. Administrator A stated the the facility was having on and off issues with the water softener in the dishwasher and some residents prefer Styrofoam. Administrator A stated the facility was in the process of leasing a dishwasher. On 6/27/23 Surveyor was informed the dishwasher was working. On 6/28/23, the dishwasher was observed to be working. Surveyor noted that even with the dishwasher working the facility used Styrofoam disposable cups on 6/27/23.
Oct 2022 14 deficiencies 1 IJ
CRITICAL (J)

Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) - the most serious Medicare violation

Pressure Ulcer Prevention (Tag F0686)

Someone could have died · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 2.) R13 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. R13's admission MDS (Minimum Data Set) dated 6/17/22 indicates that they require...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 2.) R13 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. R13's admission MDS (Minimum Data Set) dated 6/17/22 indicates that they require total assistance with activities of daily living including bed mobility. R13 is rarely to never understood. R13 was noted to be at high risk for pressure injuries. On 9/14/22 at 3:50 PM Surveyor observed R13's feet resting directly on their mattress. On 9/14/22 at 9:50 AM, Surveyor observed R13's feet resting directly on their mattress. On 9/14/22 at 12:35 PM, Surveyor observed R13's feet resting directly on their mattress. On 9/14/22 at 3:00 PM, Surveyor observed R13's feet resting directly on their mattress. On 9/15/22 at 8:35 AM, Surveyor observed R13's feet resting directly on their mattress. On 9/15/22 at 10:40 AM, Surveyor observed R13's feet resting directly on their mattress. On 9/15/22 at 1:05 PM, Surveyor observed R13's feet resting directly on their mattress. Surveyor reviewed R 13's skin integrity care plan dated 7/17/22 reads Resident is at risk for skin integrity condition, or pressure sores r/t: Diabetes, PVD, end-stage renal, History of pressure sores, Impaired mobility, Incontinence, Thin/Fragile skin. R13's skin integrity care plan interventions include prevalon boots while in bed with an initiation date of 7/27/22. R13's CNA Kardex indicates R13 is to wear prevalon boots while in bed. On 9/19/22 at 2:30 PM, Surveyor shared concerns related to observations of R13's feet resting directly on their mattress on 9/14/22 and 9/15/22. No additional information was provided to Surveyor at this time. Based on interview and record review, the facility did not ensure Residents (R) without a Pressure Injury (PI) do not develop pressure injuries, and receive appropriate care, treatment, & preventative measures to promote healing for 2 (R18 & R13) of 8 Residents reviewed for pressure injuries. *An unavoidable skin integrity care plan was developed for R18 on 09/02/20, which was R18's admission date. On 07/13/21, R18 was identified with a Stage 3 coccyx pressure injury. On 07/15/21, the facility developed a pressure ulcer actual or at risk care plan. R18's coccyx pressure injury healed on 07/20/21. On 08/18/21, the weekly skin review documents a Stage 2 sacrum pressure injury. On 08/19/21, the pressure injury weekly tracker documents a Stage 3 coccyx pressure injury with measurements of 4.6 x 2.5 x 0.1 The facility did not clarify R18's at risk for unavoidable skin integrity condition or pressure sores intervention of encouraging frequent repositioning in bed and chair when R18 required extensive assistance with one person physical assist for bed mobility. The facility did not revise R18's pressure ulcer actual or at risk care plan after R18 developed the stage 3 coccyx pressure injury. This care plan did not include repositioning until 06/16/22. On 09/07/21, R18's coccyx pressure injury declined to unstageable. There was no revision to either at risk for unavoidable skin integrity condition or pressure sores or pressure ulcer actual or at risk care plan until 05/27/22. On 11/29/21, R18's coccyx pressure injury with measurements of 2 x 2 x 0.4 is identified as a Stage 4. WD (Wound Doctor) R's recommendations of limit sitting to 60 minutes; off-load wound; reposition per facility protocol; turn side to side and front to back in bed every 1-2 hours if able, were not implemented into R18's plan of care or clarified with WD R and R18's care plans were not revised to include turn and reposition every 1-2 hours until 06/16/22. On 11/29/21, WD R ordered treatment of: wash with soap and water, dry, apply Dakins soaked gauze to wound bed, apply bordered gauze, change twice daily and as needed. This pressure injury treatment was not started until 12/02/21, three days later. On 06/06/22, R18's coccyx pressure injury was identified as being infected and Doxycycline (an antibiotic) 100 mg (milligrams) twice daily was ordered. On 06/20/22, WD R recommended R18 be sent out to the ER (emergency room) for debridement under GA (general anesthesia), due to necrotizing fasciitis. R18 was hospitalized from [DATE] to 06/25/22. On 09/15/22 & 09/20/22, Surveyor observed R18 in bed with the air mattress off. The facility's failure to revise R18's skin integrity care plan when R18 developed a Stage 3 coccyx pressure injury on 08/19/22, not revising the care plan after the pressure injury declined to unstageable on 09/07/21, and not clarifying encourage frequent repositioning when R18 required extensive assistance with bed mobility and the progression of the coccyx pressure injury to a Stage 4 on 11/29/21, created a finding of Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) which began on 11/29/21. Surveyor notified Nursing Home Administrator (NHA) A & ADON (Assistant Director of Nursing) D of the immediate jeopardy on 09/21/22 at 2:05 p.m. The immediate jeopardy was removed on 09/22/22. The deficient practice continues at a scope and severity of D (potential for harm/isolated) related to the example involving R13 and as the facility continues to implement its action plan. *R13's heels were not off-loaded according to the plan of care. Findings include: The Pressure and Non-pressure Injuries policy & procedure with an original effective date of 08/2/21 documents under Policy: This center will complete a comprehensive assessment to identify risk factors for the development of pressure injuries and put in place measures intended to achieve the goal of prevention of pressure injuries in our residents. Under procedure documents: Complete the Braden scale to assess risk of developing a PI (pressure injury). It consists of six categories: sensory perception, moisture, activity, mobility, nutrition, and friction/shear. A Braden Scale assessment tool will be completed: i. Upon admission/re-admission ii. Weekly for 3 more weeks in addition to initial assessment. iii. Upon a significant Change in Condition iv. Quarterly with the MDS (minimum data set) schedule v. As needed. Under the Care Plan section documents: A Comprehensive Skin Integrity Care Plan is based on resident history, review of Skin Assessment, Braden Scale Scoring, Nutritional Assessments, resident and family interviews, and staff observations. Consider the area of risk, as well as overall risk assessment score of the Braden Scale. Communicate identified risk factors and interventions to direct care staff. 2. Develop interventions based on individual Risk Factors including, but not limited to, weight, presence of edema, overall health status/comorbidities, use of medical devices, presence of acute infection, end-of life/hospice, resident choice/preferences, or medications that may impact healing. a. In the context of the resident's choices, clinical condition, and physician input, the resident's care plan should establish relevant goals and approaches to stabilize or improve co-morbidities, such as attempts to minimize clinically significant blood sugar fluctuations, and other interventions aimed at limiting the effects of risk factors associated with pressure injuries. Alternatively, center staff and practitioner should document clinically valid reasons why such interventions were not appropriate or feasible. For a resident to exercise his or her right appropriately to make informed choices about care and treatment or to decline treatment, the center and the resident (or if applicable, the resident representative) must discuss the resident's condition, treatment options, expected outcomes, and consequences of declining treatment or interventions. Centers should document this discussion in the Risk vs Benefit UDA in the electronic medical record. The care plan should be updated to reflect the resident's choice and what interventions will be in place to minimize risk to the resident. R18 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Diagnoses include diabetes mellitus (DM), Parkinson's Disease, and hypertension. R18 was admitted to hospice on 06/17/21. The at risk for unavoidable skin integrity condition or pressure sores r/t lymphedema, edema, DM care plan initiated 09/02/20 & revised 06/27/22 has the following interventions: * Apply pressure reduction chair cushion on wheelchair and pressure reduction mattress on the bed. Ensure cushion is properly placed, clean and dry. Initiated 09/20/20 and revised & canceled on 07/28/22. * Assess skin for redness or pressure related changes with each care encounter. Report any changes immediately. Initiated 09/02/20 & revised 07/28/22. * Conduct pressure injury skin assessments (i.e. Braden scale) as indicated. Initiated 09/02/20. * Encourage frequent repositioning in bed and chair. Initiated 09/02/20 & revised 09/30/20. * Encourage to float heels off the surface of the bed. Initiated 09/30/20. * Head to toe assessment by licensed nurse performed weekly at minimum. Initiated 09/02/20. * Keep resident clean and dry. Use barrier cream after good peri-care. Apply proper incontinent products as indicated. Initiated 09/02/20 & revised 07/19/21. * Place washcloth (palm guards) between hands check placement every shift. Initiated 12/10/21 & revised 07/28/22. * Unavoidable statement signed by MD (medical doctor). Initiated 05/27/22. * Apply alternating pressure air mattress to bed if indicated. Assure proper inflation check frequently. Initiated & revised 07/28/22. * Avoid friction/shearing while repositioning: if Resident is unable to assist use at least 2 staff members, use lift sheet, bed should be as flat as possible with lifting. Initiated 07/28/22. * Prevalon boots on while in bed and as tolerated by resident. Initiated 08/03/22. The significant change MDS (minimum data set) with an assessment reference date of 06/24/21 documents R18 has short term & long term memory problems and is severely impaired in cognitive skills for daily decision making. R18 requires extensive assistance with one person physical assist for bed mobility, transfer, eating, & toilet and does not ambulate. R18 is coded as always being incontinent of urine and frequently incontinent of bowel. R18 is at risk for pressure injuries and is coded as not having any pressure injuries. The pressure injury CAA (care area assessment) dated 06/24/21, under analysis of findings documents: Significant change in status assessment. Resident signed onto hospice services. Diagnoses include; Parkinson's, DM2 (diabetes mellitus) with Neuropathy, HLD (hyperlipidemia), HTN (hypertension), Lymphedema, UTI (urinary tract infection). Always incontinent of bladder and frequently incontinent of bowel during the look back period. Staff provides incontinence cares. Incontinent briefs in place. Takes diuretic which can contribute to urgency and frequency. Staff to provide incontinence care in timely manner to maintain clean dry skin. Staff to assess skin integrity. Staff to assist with repositioning while in bed and/or chair. The wound evaluation tracker dated 07/13/22 for the question, When was the wound identified? documents 07/13/2021. Under current wound status/additional comments documents, New acquire stage III (3) pressure injury to coccyx. 0.4 x (times) 0.4 x 0.1 in dimensions. 100% granular tissue. No drainage, no s/s (signs/symptoms) of infection, surrounding tissues are warm, dry and intact. No pain with cleansing. New wound care orders received. Applying air mattress through hospice care. Hospice nurse in to eval. (evaluate). POA (power of attorney) [name] updated. [Name] NP (Nurse Practitioner) updated. A treatment to wash, dry, apply foam dressing with directions to change every 72 hours and as needed was implemented on 07/14/21 and continued until the treatment was discontinued on 09/08/21. A pressure ulcer actual or at risk care plan was initiated on 07/15/21. The Braden Scale assessment dated [DATE] has a score of 15 which indicates at risk. Surveyor noted the next Braden was completed 07/02/22. The pressure ulcer actual or at risk care plan initiated 07/15/21 & revised 08/03/22 documents interventions of: * Air mattress - monitor for proper setting/function q (every) shift and prn (as needed) (keep at 150 pounds). Initiated 7/15/21 & revised 7/28/22. * Complete Braden scale per Living Center Policy. Initiated 7/15/21. * Conduct weekly skin inspection. Initiated 7/15/21. * Do not massage over bony prominence. Initiated 7/15/21. * Nutritional and hydration support. Initiated 7/15/21. * Prevalon boots on while in bed and as tolerated by resident. Initiated 7/19/21 & revised 8/3/22. * Provide pressure reducing wheelchair cushion. Initiated 7/15/21. * Provide pressure reducing/relieving mattress. Initiated 7/15/21. * Provide thorough skin care after incontinent episodes and apply barrier cream. Initiated 7/15/21. * Skin assessment to be completed per Living Center Policy. Initiated 7/15/21. * Treatments as ordered. Initiated 7/15/21. * Weekly wound assessment. Initiated 7/15/21. * Turn and reposition Q (every) 1-2 hours. Initiated 06/16/22. The social service note dated 07/16/21 documents: Writer met with husband this date. Aware of change in transfer status; Res currently requires hoyer lift with staff due to decreased strength/difficulty standing. Support provided to husband. No concerns noted at this time. SS (social service) will cont (continue) to follow. The wound evaluation tracker dated 07/20/21 under current wound status/additional comments documents: Wound is now closed. Continue to monitor weekly for re-opening with wound rounds. Surrounding tissues are warm, dry, and intact. The nurses note dated 08/18/21 documents: CNA called writer to room to report open area, pressure injury to top crease of buttocks. Writer cleansed area with saline and covered with Mepilex. Resident skin warm and dry. No active bleeding noted, no s/s (signs/symptoms) of infection noted. Call out to MD (medical doctor) to update. Call out to POA (power of attorney) to update. All aware. Will monitor. The weekly skin review dated 08/18/21 documents: Sacrum Stage 2 pressure injury in top crease of buttocks. Surveyor noted there are no measurements or description of wound bed for this weekly skin review. The pressure injury weekly tracker dated 08/19/21 documents: Coccyx, Pressure, with measurements of 4.6 x 2.5 x 0.1. Stage III (3), 100% granulation. The nurses note dated 08/19/21 documents: Follow up O/A (open area) to crease in buttocks. O/A (open area) measured today by unit manager. Treatment changed and C/D/I (clean dry intact). Skin warm and dry. Resident in bed resting at this time. Will monitor. The nurses note dated 08/20/21 documents: IDT (interdisciplinary team) reviewed new pressure injury to coccyx. Resident with stage 3 4.6 x 2.5 x 0.1 cm pressure injury to coccyx. Resident often sitting in Broda chair with limited mobility to reposition off of one spot d/t (due to) disease process. Resident with air mattress in place and protective foam dressing. Reposition side to side q 2 hours and as patient tolerates while in bed. POA, ADON, and MD aware and dressing order received. Will follow with weekly wound rounds. The Facility did not clarify R18's at risk for unavoidable skin integrity condition or pressure sores intervention of encourage frequent repositioning in bed and chair when R18 required extensive assistance with one person physical assist for bed mobility. The Facility did not revise R18's pressure ulcer actual or at risk care plan after R18 developed the stage 3 coccyx pressure injury. This care plan did not include repositioning until 06/16/22. The pressure injury weekly tracker dated 08/24/21 for the coccyx pressure injury documents measurements as 4.0 x 3.0 x 0.1, Stage III (3) and the wound bed described as 100% granulation. The pressure injury weekly tracker dated 08/31/21 for the coccyx pressure injury documents measurements as 4.0 x 3.0 x 0.1, Stage III (3) and the wound bed described as 100% granulation. The pressure injury weekly tracker dated 09/07/21 for the coccyx pressure injury documents measurements as 4.0 x 3.0 x 0.1. The stage is unstageable and the wound bed is 75% slough and 25% granulation. Under comments, documents slough scattered throughout wound bed, new order received for santyl. Surveyor noted there was no revision to either at risk for unavoidable skin integrity condition or pressure sores or pressure ulcer actual or at risk care plan until 05/27/22. R18's treatment was changed on 09/09/21 with directions to wash with 1/2 strength Dakins, dry, apply santyl to wound bed, apply foam dressing and change every day and as needed. This treatment was discontinued on 11/23/21. The nutrition note dated 09/09/21 documents: Last weight was 152.9# (8/9), has order for d/c (discontinue) weights per hospice. Has S-DTI (suspected deep tissue injury) to L (left) heel (unchanged per 9/7 wound tracker) and PI unstageable to coccyx (worsening per 9/7 wound tracker). Estimated needs are 1738-2085 kcal (kilocalorie's) (25-30 kcal/kg(kilogram)) and 70-83 g (grams) PRO (protein)(1-1.2 g/kg). Intake is 73% avg (average) plus snacks of a regular diet. Meal intake provides approximately 1791 kcal and 70 g PRO. Has order for 2 cal supplement 4 oz BID (twice daily) (480 kcal and 20 g PRO), per MAR (medication administration record) res (resident) drinks 50-100% of supplement. Meeting estimated needs. No new nutrition interventions recommended at this time. Goal is comfort cares. Will continue to monitor/follow-up PRN. The pressure injury weekly trackers dated 09/14/21 & 09/21/21 for coccyx pressure injury documents measurements as 4.0 x 3.0 x 0.1. Stage is unstageable and wound bed is 100% slough. The quarterly MDS with an assessment reference date of 09/24/21 documents R18 has short & long term memory problems and is severely impaired in cognitive skills for daily decision making. R18 is dependent with two plus person physical assist for bed mobility & transfer, does not ambulate, requires extensive assistance with one person for eating, and is dependent with one person physical assist for toilet use. R18 is always incontinent of urine and bowel. R18 is at risk for developing pressure injuries and is coded as having 1 Unstageable pressure injury. The pressure injury weekly tracker dated 09/28/21 for coccyx pressure injury documents measurements as 2.7 x 2.0 x 0.1. Stage is unstageable and wound bed is 25% granulation and 75% slough. The pressure injury weekly tracker dated 10/05/21 for coccyx pressure injury documents measurements as 2.0 x 1.5 x 0.1. Stage is unstageable and wound bed is 50% granulation and 50% slough. The pressure injury weekly tracker dated 10/12/21 for coccyx pressure injury documents measurements as 2.0 x 1.1 x 0.1. Stage is unstageable and wound bed is 90% granulation and 10% slough. The pressure injury weekly tracker dated 10/19/21 for coccyx pressure injury documents measurements as 2.0 x 1.0 x 0.1. Stage is Stage III (3) and wound bed is 100% granulation. The pressure injury weekly tracker dated 10/26/21 for coccyx pressure injury documents measurements as 1.8 x 1.0 x 0.1. Stage is Stage III (3) and wound bed is 100% granulation. The NP (nurse practitioner) note dated 10/28/21 documents no new open areas on skin noted. Under plan, includes pressure offloading. The pressure injury weekly tracker dated 11/02/21 for coccyx pressure injury documents measurements as 1.5 x 1.0 x 0.1. Stage is Stage III (3) and wound bed is 100% granulation. The pressure injury weekly tracker dated 11/08/21 for coccyx pressure injury documents measurements as 1.0 x 1.0 x 0.1. Stage is Stage III (3) and wound bed is 100% granulation. The pressure injury weekly tracker dated 11/15/21 for coccyx pressure injury documents measurements as 1.0 x 1.0 x 0.1. Stage is Stage III (3) and wound bed is 95% granulation and 5% necrotic. Under comments documents same as previous week. Small amount of necrotic tissue noted towards wound margin. Scant serous drainage noted. No pain. Surveyor noted there was no MD notification on this pressure injury weekly tracker. Surveyor noted there was no revision to either at risk for unavoidable skin integrity condition or pressure sores or pressure ulcer actual or at risk care plan until 05/27/22 and the treatment was not changed until 11/24/21. The pressure injury weekly tracker dated 11/22/21 for coccyx pressure injury documents measurements as 1.3 x 1.2 x 0.2. Stage is unstageable and wound bed is 25% granulation and 75% slough. Surveyor noted there was no revision to either at risk for unavoidable skin integrity condition or pressure sores or pressure ulcer actual or at risk care plan until 05/27/22. R18's treatment was changed with a start date of 11/24/21 with direction to wash coccyx pressure injury with 1/2 strength Dakins, dry, apply medihoney to wound bed, apply foam dressing change every day and as needed. This treatment was discontinued on 12/01/21. The nutrition note dated 11/23/21 documents Using 11/3 weight res (resident) triggers for 6.3% weight loss over 1 month and 10.7% weight loss over 3 months. Weight loss likely r/t (related to) varied intake at times and overall decline in condition, on hospice. Weight is PRN per hospice. Per wound trackers on 11/15 res has shearing to R (right) butt and PI stage 3 to coccyx (unchanged). Intake is 71% avg plus snacks of a regular diet x 7 days. Meal intake provides approximately 1754 kcal and 68 g PRO. Has order for 2 cal supplement 4 oz BID (twice daily) (480 kcal, 20 g PRO, Per MAR drinking avg 68% of supplement). Estimated needs are 1586-1904 kcal (25-30 kcal/kg) and 76-95 g PRO (1.2-1.5 g/kg). Meeting estimated needs. BMI is 26.4 (overweight but optimal for geriatric population). Potential for weight fluctuations r/t fluid shifts d/t (due to) diuretic tx. Potential for weight loss r/t decline in condition. Goal is comfort cares. Will monitor/follow-up PRN. The MD note dated 11/23/21 includes pressure offloading and wound cares as ordered. The pressure injury weekly tracker dated 11/29/21 for coccyx pressure injury documents measurements of 2.0 x 2.0 x 0.4. Stage is Stage 4 and wound bed is 60% granulation and 40% slough. On 11/29/21, WD (wound doctor) R assessed R18's coccyx pressure injury. The initial wound evaluation & management summary dated 11/29/21 for site (1) documents: Stage 4 pressure wound sacrum full thickness with measurements of 2 x 2 x 0.4 cm (centimeters). Under surgical excision debridement procedure for indication for procedure documents. Remove necrotic tissue and establish the margins of viable tissue. Under dressing treatment plan for primary dressing(s) documents: Sodium hypochlorite solution (Dakins) apply twice daily for 30 days: soaked gauze. Secondary dressing(s) documents: Gauze island w/bdr (with border) apply twice daily for 30 days. For plan of care reviewed and addressed under recommendations documents: Limit sitting to 60 minutes; off-load wound; reposition per facility protocol; Turn side to side and front to back in bed every 1-2 hours if able. Surveyor noted R18's care plans were not revised to include turn and reposition every 1-2 hours until 06/16/22. The treatment to R18's coccyx pressure injury to wash with soap and water, dry, apply Dakins soaked gauze to wound bed, apply bordered gauze, change twice daily and as needed was not started until 12/02/21, three days later. This treatment was discontinued on 12/07/21. Surveyor noted WD R assessed R18's coccyx pressure injury weekly with the exception of the week of 05/01/22 to 05/07/22 and 07/03/22 to 07/09/22. The pressure injury weekly tracker dated 12/06/21 for coccyx pressure injury documents measurements of 1.5 x 2.2 x 0.5. Stage is Stage 4 and wound bed is 60% granulation and 40% slough. WD R's wound evaluation & management summary dated 12/06/21 under dressing treatment plan for primary dressing(s) documents: Leptospermum honey apply once daily for 30 days and secondary dressing(s) documents: Gauze island w/bdr apply once daily for 23 days. The Facility started a treatment to wash with soap and water, dry, apply medihoney to wound bed, apply bordered gauze, change daily and as needed on 12/08/22, two days later. This treatment was discontinued on 12/17/21. WD R continues to recommend limit sitting to 60 minute; off-load wound; reposition per facility protocol; turn side to side and front to back in bed every 1-2 hours if able. Surveyor noted R18's care plans were not revised to include turn and reposition every 1-2 hours until 06/16/22. Surveyor noted there is no indication the facility clarified WD R's recommendation if there were questions regarding WD R's recommendations on repositioning for R18. The pressure injury weekly tracker dated 12/13/21 for coccyx pressure injury documents measurements of 2.0 x 2.5 x 0.5. Stage is Stage 4 and wound bed is 60% granulation and 40% slough. On 12/17/21 the treatment was changed from the day shift to the evening shift. The pressure injury weekly tracker dated 12/20/21 changes the pressure injury site to sacrum. Measurements are 1.8 x 2 x 0.7. Stage is Stage 4 and wound bed is 60% granulation and 40% slough. Under additional intervention/plan documents: slowly improved no s/s of infection. The pressure injury weekly tracker dated 12/27/21 for the coccyx pressure injury documents measurements are 1.8 x 2.8 x 1.2. Stage is Stage 4 and wound bed is 60% granulation and 40% slough. WD R's wound evaluation & management summary dated 12/27/21 includes the same measurements as the Facility's pressure injury weekly tracker. Under wound progress documents: Deteriorated. Under dressing treatment plan for primary dressing(s) documents: Collagen gel/paste apply once daily for 30 days; Alginate calcium apply once daily for 30 days and secondary dressing(s) documents Gauze island w/bdr apply once daily for 30 days. The Facility started the treatment to wash with soap and water, dry, apply silvakollagen to wound bed, cover with calcium alginate followed by bordered gauze change daily and as needed on 12/29/21, two days later. This treatment was discontinued on 01/19/22. WD R continues to recommend limit sitting to 60 minutes; off-load wound; reposition per facility protocol; turn side to side and front to back in bed every 1-2 hours if able. Surveyor noted R18's care plans were not revised to include turn and reposition every 1-2 hours until 06/16/22. The pressure injury weekly tracker dated 01/03/22 for the coccyx pressure injury documents measurements of 2.0 x 3.0 x 1.5. Stage is Stage 4 and wound bed is 30% granulation, 40% slough, & 30% necrotic. Under comments documents continue treatment x 1 more week if continues to deteriorate then change larger in size moderate drainage no s/s of infection wound doctor debrided necrotic/slough tissue as able 30% necrotic. The pressure injury weekly tracker dated 01/10/22 for the coccyx pressure injury documents measurements of 2.5 x 2.4 x 1.5. Stage is Stage 4 and wound bed is 40% granulation, 40% slough, & 20% necrotic. The physician progress note dated 01/13/22 under plan includes every two hours turning and skin & back care. The pressure injury weekly tracker dated 01/17/22 for the coccyx pressure injury documents measurements of 2.5 x 2.4 x 1.5. Stage is Stage 4 and wound bed is 40% granulation, 40% slough, & 20% necrotic. WD R's wound evaluation & management summary dated 01/17/22 includes the same measurements as the Facility's pressure injury weekly tracker. Under wound progress documents no change. Under dressing treatment plan for primary dressing(s) documents Alginate calcium apply once daily for 9 days; Leptospermum honey apply once daily for 30 days and secondary dressing(s) documents Gauze island w/bdr apply once daily for 9 days. The Facility started the treatment to wash with soap and water, dry, apply medihoney to wound bed, cover with calcium alginate followed by bordered gauze change daily and as needed on 01/19/22, two days later. This treatment was discontinued on 02/01/22. The pressure injury weekly tracker dated 01/24/22 for the coccyx pressure injury documents measurements of 2.5 x 2.4 x 2.0. Stage is Stage 4 and wound bed is 50% granulation, 30% slough, & 20% necrotic. The pressure injury weekly tracker dated 01/31/22 for the coccyx pressure injury documents measurements of 2.5 x 2.0 x 2.0. Stage is Stage 4 and wound bed is 50% granulation, 30% slough, & 20% necrotic. WD R's wound evaluation & management summary dated 01/31/22 includes the same measurements as the Facility's pressure injury weekly tracker. Under wound progress documents improved. Under dressing treatment plan for primary dressing(s) documents Sodium hypochlorite solution (Dakins) apply twice daily for 30 days: pack the wound with a wet gauze, wet to dry dressing and secondary dressing(s) documents Gauze island w/bdr apply twice daily for 23 days. The Facility started the treatment to wash with soap and water, dry, lightly pack with Dakins soaked gauze, cover with bordered gauze twice daily and as needed on 02/01/22. This treatment was discontinued on 02/15/22. The pressure injury weekly tracker dated 02/07/22 for the coccyx pressure injury documents measurements of 3.0 x 3.0 x 2.5. Stage is Stage 4 and wound bed is 30% granulation, 30% slough, & 40% necrotic. Under comments documents worsening. No s/s of infection. New wound treatment started last week. Improvement to wound bed noticed. Larger in size. WD R's wound evaluation & management summary dated 02/07/22 continues to recommend limit sitting to 60 minute; off-load wound; reposition per facility protocol; turn side to side and front to back in bed every 1-2 hours if able. Surveyor noted R18's care plans were not revised to include turn and reposition every 1-2 hours until 06/16/22. The pressure injury weekly tracker dated 02/14/22 for the coccyx pressure injury documents measurements of 3.0 x 3.0 x 2.5. Stage is Stage 4 and wound bed is 50% granulation, 30% slough, & 20% necrotic. Under comments documents Size remains same. Tissue to wound bed improving significantly since prior week. More granular tissue present with less amount of slough/necrotic tissue. Surrounding tissue is warm, dry and intact. No s/s of infection. Debrided with wound doctor. New treatment ordered. WD R's wound evaluation & management summary dated 02/14/22 includes the same measurements as the Facility's pressure injury weekly tracker. Under wound progress documents improved. Under dressing treatment plan for primary dressing(s) documents Leptospermum honey apply once daily for 30 days; Alginate calcium apply once daily for 30 days and secondary dressing(s) documents Gauze island w/bdr apply twice daily for 9 days. The Facility started the treatment to cleanse, dry, apply medihoney to wound bed, cover with calcium alginate then bordered gauze daily and as needed with a start date of 02/16/22, two days later. This treatment was discontinued on 02/21/22. The pressure injury weekly tracker dated 02/21/22 for the coccyx pressure injury documents measurements of 4.5 x 3.5 x 3. Stage is Stage 4 and wound bed is 10% granulation, 30% slough, & 60% necrotic. Under comments documents Wound is larger in size with worsening tissue noted to wound bed. New treatment ordered. Wound debrided by wound doctor. Surrounding tissue is warm, dry and intact. No pain noted to area. WD R's wound evaluation & management summary dated 02/21/22 includes the same measurements as the Facility's pressure injury weekly tracker. Under wound progress documents deteriorated. Under dressing treatment plan for primary dressing(s) documents Metronidazole gel apply once daily for 30 days; Sodium hypochlorite solution (Dakins) apply twice daily for 30 days and secondary dressing(s) documents Gauze island w/bdr apply twice daily for 30 days. The Facility started the treatment to cleanse, dry, apply Metronidazole cream to wound bed for AM shift followed by Dakins soaked gauze. Change twice daily and as needed with a[TRUNCATED]
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0557 (Tag F0557)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, interview and record review the Facility did not treat 1 (R18) of 3 Residents reviewed with dignity and respect. Findings include: R18's diagnoses includes diabetes mellitus, Par...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview and record review the Facility did not treat 1 (R18) of 3 Residents reviewed with dignity and respect. Findings include: R18's diagnoses includes diabetes mellitus, Parkinson's Disease, and hypertension. R18's Annual MDS (minimum data set) with an assessment reference date of 6/30/22 documents a BIMS (brief interview mental status) score of 00 which indicates severe cognitive impairment. R18 requires extensive assistance with one person physical assist for bed mobility, is dependent with two plus persons for transfers, does not ambulate, and is dependent with one person physical assist for toilet use. R18 is coded as always incontinent of urine and bowel. On 9/15/22, at 3:44 p.m. Surveyor observed CNA (Certified Nursing Assistant)-L with gloves on, remove the pillow from under R18's right side, remove the sheet from R18 and informed R18 she is going to change her bed. CNA-L removed R18's pressure relieving boots & pants, removed her gloves, stated she needed to get a fitted sheet and left R18's room. CNA-L did not cover R18 with a sheet prior to leaving the room leaving R18 wearing a shirt and an incontinence product. CNA-L returned to R18's room a couple minutes later, placed gloves on and placed the fitted sheet partially on R18's bed. CNA-L removed R18's shirt, washed R18's upper body, and unfastened R18's incontinent product. At 3:54 p.m., CNA-L indicated she needed to get another aide, covered R18 with a bath blanket, removed her gloves and left R18's room. At 4:00 p.m., CNA-L returned to R18's room, placed gloves on, removed the bath blanket, pulled the soiled product out from under R18 and threw the soiled incontinence product in the garbage and placed the sheet on the floor. At 4:02 p.m., CNA-M entered R18's room. CNA-L removed the dressing from R18's coccyx stating it's saturated. CNA-M informed CNA-L she was going to let the nurse know & left R18's room. CNA-L washed R18's buttocks and placed the incontinence product under R18's right side. At 4:05 p.m., CNA-L informed R18's she's almost done. Surveyor observed R18 has not been covered with a sheet/blanket since CNA-L returned at 4:00 p.m. At 4:09 p.m., CNA-L washed R18's frontal perineal area, pulled the incontinence product between R18's legs and fixed the bottom sheet. CNA-L placed a pillow under R18's head, emptied the wash basin, added fresh water, and washed under left arm R18's. Surveyor noted R18 has not been covered and is wearing only an incontinence product. At 4:18 p.m., CNA-M entered R18's room, picked up the soiled items from the floor and placed the linen in a bag, removed her gloves and placed gloves on. CNA-M informed CNA-L she needs to have boots on and placed the pressure relieving boots at the end of the bed. At 4:22 p.m., CNA-L & CNA-M positioned R18 towards the left of the bed and rolled to the right. CNA-L then washed R18's back. At 4:23 p.m., DON (Director of Nursing)-B entered R18's room with treatment supplies which DON-B started to open. At 4:25 p.m. DON-B stated let's get a gown on her and a gown was placed on R18 covering R18. On 9/20/22, at 9:05 a.m. Surveyor asked DON-B during cares if staff has to leave the room or they are finished washing portions of the Resident's body, should staff cover a Resident. DON-B replied yes and informed Surveyor she thinks this would be common sense. Surveyor informed DON-B of the observation on 9/15/22. DON-B informed Surveyor she would follow up and educate.
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, interview, and record review, the facility did not ensure the environment was safe, clean, comfortable, an...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility did not ensure the environment was safe, clean, comfortable, and homelike for 1 (R19) of 19 sampled residents. R19's room had medications and debris in the air conditioning unit below the window that had been present for an indeterminate amount of time. Findings include: R19 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses of colon cancer, cerebral palsy, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, malnutrition, and legal blindness. R19's admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 9/6/2022 indicated R19 had severe cognitive impairment with a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 5 and needed limited to extensive assistance with activities of daily living. The Cognitive Care Area Assessment (CAA) with the admission MDS assessment stated R19 had intact vision with corrective lenses. On 9/14/2022, at 9:49 AM, R19 was observed in his room in a wheelchair. R19 had garbled speech and did not fully comprehend Surveyor's questions. Surveyor observed the air conditioning unit in R19's room. The air conditioning unit was located below the window and had slotted vents approximately half an inch apart, about the width of a finger. Surveyor observed a small peach-colored pill and a smaller white pill in the vent portion of the air conditioning unit that was in touching range along with other crumb-like debris. Surveyor had been made aware medications were observed in the air conditioning unit in July 2022. In an interview on 9/19/2022, at 1:30 PM, Surveyor asked Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN)-U how often resident rooms are cleaned. LPN-U stated they are cleaned daily by the housekeeping staff. Surveyor asked LPN-U if anyone had complained of air conditioning units not being clean. LPN-U stated no one had ever complained about that to LPN-U. Surveyor asked LPN-U if anyone had told any staff members about medications in the air conditioning unit in R19's room. LPN-U stated LPN-U was not aware of any report about medications. Surveyor and LPN-U went into R19's room and observed the two medications in R19's air conditioning unit. LPN-U got a spoon and removed the white pill and when attempting to remove the peach pill, the peach pill disintegrated into a powder. LPN-U cleaned up the powder and disposed of the white pill. LPN-U was not able to fully identify the types of medications the two pills were, but stated they were not R19's pills. On 9/19/2022, at 3:10 PM, Surveyor shared with Nursing Home Administrator (NHA)-A and Director of Nursing (DON)-B the observations of pills in R19's air conditioning unit. NHA-A stated LPN-U had shared that finding with administration earlier and stated the pills should not have been there and the air conditioning units should have been cleaned. No further information was provided at that time.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0604 (Tag F0604)

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 (R73) of 1 resident reviewed was properly asses...

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 (R73) of 1 resident reviewed was properly assessed for physical restraints. R73 did not have an assessment for an abdominal binder that was to be on at all times. Findings include: R73 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that include: Cerebral Palsy, Lennox-Gastaut Syndrome and dysphagia. R73's MDS (Minimum Data Set) assessment with an ARD (Assessment Reference Date) of 08/31/2022 indictes R73 is rarely/never understood, is totally dependent on staff for all ADLs (Activities of Daily Living) including eating, and section K is marked none of the above for swallowing disorders and tube feeding is not checked. R73 is receives continuous tube feeding related to dysphagia and episodes of nausea/vomiting. R73's Care Plan, dated 08/31/2021 and revised on 02/24/2022 with a target date of 09/18/2022 documents, Need for feeding tube/potential for complications of feeding tube use. Interventions include, abdominal binder in place to prevent displacement (of feeding tube). This intervention was initiated on 07/20/2022. Surveyor reviewed R73's medical record and noted an active physician's order documenting, Abdominal binder on at all times. Check placement q (every) shift for prevent pulling out G(gastrostomy)-tube. This order was dated 07/26/2022. Surveyor noted a discontinued physician order stating, Abdominal binder at all times. May remove for showers and skin checks every shift Ensure G(Gastrostomy)-Tube is well secured under binder to prevent resident from pulling it out. Assess skin during flushes and as needed. This order had a start date of 06/01/2022 and a discontinued date of 06/29/2022. Surveyor could not locate a current physician order to assess skin under the abdominal binder. Surveyor noted R73's medical record documented R73 was sent to the hospital at least six times from January 2022 to June 2022 due to dislodgement of feeding tube. R73 had an after visit summary from [name of hospital] dated 05/31/2022, which documents: Remove binder twice a day to clean and check g-tube. Surveyor could not find any documentation prior to 05/31/2022 relating to the use of an abdominal binder. On 09/14/22, at 9:30 AM, Surveyor noted CNA(Certified Nursing Assistant) care card on the back of R73's room door which documented, abd (abdominal) binder on at all times. Surveyor reviewed R73's medical record for an assessment for the use of the abdominal binder, which surveyor could not locate. Surveyor observed R73 wearing the abdominal binder on the following dates and times: On 09/14/22, at 1:10 PM, R73 was lying in bed on back, abdominal binder in place On 09/14/22, at 3:32 PM, R73 was lying in bed and had abdominal binder in place On 09/19/22, at 7:52 AM, R73 was dressed, sitting in Broda chair and had abdominal binder in place On 09/20/22, at 8:01 AM, R73 was lying in bed with abdominal binder in place On 09/21/22, at 7:54 AM, R73 was dressed, sitting in Broda chair with abdominal binder in place On 09/15/22, at 2:02 PM, Surveyor interviewed R73's nurse, LPN (Licensed Practical Nurse)-G. LPN-G informed surveyor that R73 did not come to the facility with the abdominal binder and LPN-G was unsure of when R73 received the abdominal binder. LPN-G told surveyor even though R73 wears the abdominal binder, R73 can still pull out the feeding tube. On 09/19/22, at 1:30 PM, Surveyor interviewed R73's nurse, LPN-G. LPN-G told Surveyor the tube feeding site is cleaned daily and R73 should have the abdominal binder on at all times due to R73 pulling out the feeding tube. On 09/21/22, at 9:05 AM, Surveyor interviewed LPN-P. LPN-P told surveyor she checks R73's skin every shift and washes the abdominal binder when needed and there should be order for that. On 09/21/22, at 8:37 AM, Surveyor interviewed DON (Director of Nursing)-B. DON-B informed Surveyor R73 had the abdominal binder implemented due to R73 pulling out the feeding tube; which per DON-B R73 has been transferred to the hospital multiple times for pulling out the G-Tube. Per DON-B the binder does not have to be on super tight and prior to implementing the abdominal binder, the facility tried covering the tube feeding site with a dressing, keeping the area covered with a shirt/gown/blanket and tried keeping R73 engaged in other activities. DON-B informed Surveyor the nurses should be checking R73's skin under the abdominal binder daily. Surveyor asked if R73 can remove the abdominal binder themselves. DON-B told Surveyor R73 could remove the abdominal binder if R73 got hold of the end of the binder since R73 likes to play with things that are felt. DON-B confirmed that R73 would not be able to remove the abdominal binder on command. Surveyor asked DON-B if any type of restraint/device assessment was done prior to implementing the abdominal binder and if there was a physician's order for nurses to do a skin check under the abdominal binder, because surveyor could not locate a current skin check order. DON-B was not aware of any assessment but would check R73's medical record. After Surveyor spoke with DON-B, a physician's order for checking skin under the abdominal binder every shift was entered into R73's medical record and a risk vs benefit assessment for the abdominal binder was completed. On 09/21/22, at 2:02 PM, Surveyor asked ADON (Assistant Director of Nursing)-D and NHA (Nursing Home Administrator)-A for a copy of the facilities policy on device/restraints relating to R73's abdominal binder. Surveyor was told by facility that no policy exists on abdominal binders. On 9/21/22 Surveyor informed NHA-A and DON-B of the concern the facility did not complete a restraint/device assessment for the use of an abdominal binder on R73 prior to the implementation of the binder and the facility did not identify when the binder would be removed and the skin under the binder would be cleaned and assessed.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0657 (Tag F0657)

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 a comprehensive care plan was reviewed and revised to incorpor...

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 a comprehensive care plan was reviewed and revised to incorporate all aspects of the resident's medical status for 1 (R21) of 19 sampled residents. R21 was taking an anticoagulant medication and the comprehensive care plan did not include the effects of the medication or the interventions to ensure R21 did not have bleeding concerns from the medication. Findings: The facility policy and procedure entitled Comprehensive Care Planning dated 8/23/2021 states: . 4. Care plans are modified between care plan conferences when appropriate to meet the resident's current needs, problems, and goals. 5. The Care Plan should be reviewed and may need to be revised for the following reasons: a. Significant change in the resident's condition. b. A change in planned interventions. c. Goals are met and new goals are established to meet current resident needs and/or goals. d. New diagnosis, new medications, or abnormal labs. R21 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses of cerebral infarction due to an embolism, dysphagia, hemiplegia and hemiparesis following cerebral infarction, breast cancer, and depression. R21's admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE], indicated R21 was cognitively intact with a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 13 and requires extensive assistance for all activities of daily living. R21 was admitted to the hospital on [DATE] and returned to the facility on 4/25/2022. On 4/25/2022, R21 had an order for Apixaban 5 mg (milligrams) twice daily to prevent blood clots. Surveyor reviewed R21's Care Plan. R21's Care Plan did not address the use of an anticoagulant medication. Surveyor reviewed R21's Medication Administration Record (MAR). R21's MAR did not address monitoring R21 for signs of bleeding due to the use of an anticoagulant medication. R21 was admitted to the hospital on [DATE] and returned to the facility on 5/3/2022. On 5/3/2022, R21 had an order for Apixaban 5 mg twice daily to prevent blood clots. Surveyor reviewed R21's Care Plan. R21's Care Plan did not address the use of an anticoagulant medication. Surveyor reviewed R21's Medication Administration Record (MAR). R21's MAR did not address monitoring R21 for signs of bleeding due to the use of an anticoagulant medication. R21 was admitted to the hospital on [DATE] and returned to the facility on 6/6/2022. On 6/6/2022, R21 had an order for Apixaban 5 mg twice daily to prevent blood clots. Surveyor reviewed R21's Care Plan. R21's Care Plan did not address the use of an anticoagulant medication. Surveyor reviewed R21's Medication Administration Record (MAR). R21's MAR did not address monitoring R21 for signs of bleeding due to the use of an anticoagulant medication. On 6/6/2022, a Baseline Care Plan was hand-written and put in R21's hard chart. The Baseline Care Plan indicated R21 was at risk for bleeding and should be monitored related to the use of apixaban. Surveyor did not find this Baseline Care Plan carried over to the comprehensive Care Plan in R21's electronic medical record. In an interview on 9/19/2022, at 3:22 PM, Surveyor asked Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON)-D what the facility process was for developing a comprehensive Care Plan for residents. ADON-D stated a new admission will have a Baseline Care Plan implemented that addresses falls, pain, skin conditions, activities of daily living, and bowel and bladder, and then medications are reviewed and added to the Care Plan such as a history of using anticoagulants or anything like that. Surveyor shared with ADON-D that R21 had been taking apixaban since readmission on [DATE] and Surveyor did not see a care plan related to R21's anticoagulant use or monitoring for bleeding in R21's MAR. ADON-D reviewed R21's electronic medical record and agreed she could not locate a Care Plan or monitoring for R21's anticoagulant use. ADON-D stated she would revise R21's Care Plan to include the use of anticoagulant medication and would add monitoring for bleeding to the MAR. In an interview on 9/20/2022, at 10:14 AM, MDS Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN)-W stated the nurses on the unit and the Unit Managers initiate the resident Care Plans. MDS LPN-W stated if the MDS triggers a Care Plan that is not already in place, the MDS nurse will initiate the Care Plan and tell the Unit Manager the specific Care Plan was added for the resident and the Unit Manager would need to go in and individualize the interventions. On 9/20/2022, at 4:35 PM, Surveyor shared with Nursing Home Administrator (NHA)-A the concern R21 did not have a Anticoagulant Care Plan or monitoring for bleeding when R21 had been taking apixaban since 4/25/2022. No further information was provided at that time.
CONCERN (D)

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

Quality of Care (Tag F0684)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

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

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility did not ensure residents received treatment and care in accordance with professional standards of practice for non-pressure injuries for 2 (R19 and R18) of 19 sampled residents. *R19 was admitted on [DATE] with a wound to the left inner buttocks that was not comprehensively assessed until 9/18/2022, eighteen days after admission. The wound was categorized as a pressure injury with a treatment on admission, but the wound was not measured and the wound base was not described until 9/18/2022 where it was determined to be a non-pressure wound. *R18 had contractures to the hands and interventions of washcloths to the fists to prevent puncture wounds from the nails were observed to not be in place. Findings include: The facility policy and procedure entitled Pressure and Non-pressure Injuries dated 8/2/2021 states: PROCEDURE: 1. Upon admission: a. A head-to-toe body evaluation will be completed on every resident upon admission/readmission and will be documented on the Admission/readmission Evaluation UDA (User Defined Assessment). If skin is compromised: i. If pressure Injury: Initiate the Pressure Injury Weekly Tracker UDA - one per wound ii. If non-pressure: initiate the Non-Pressure Injury Tracker UDA - one per wound. iii. Ensure primary care physician (PCP) is aware of wound/location of wounds and current treatment orders iv. Ensure appropriate treatment orders for each wound area, as needed v. Ensure resident/responsible party is aware of wounds and current treatment plan vi. Evaluate for pain related to wounds and develop management plan if pain related to wounds is present. 2. Weekly: a. Complete a head-to-toe skin check and document findings on the Skin Review - Weekly (facility form). b. Assess current wounds at least every seven days, or more frequently as needed (e.g., decline in wound, presence of infection, wound healed). 1) R19 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses of colon cancer, cerebral palsy, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, malnutrition, and legal blindness. R19's admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 9/6/2022, indicated R19 had severe cognitive impairment with a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 5 and needed limited to extensive assistance with activities of daily living. The MDS coded R19 as being frequently incontinent of urine and always incontinent of bowel and had no wounds to the skin. The Cognitive Care Area Assessment (CAA) with the admission MDS assessment documented R19 had intact vision with corrective lenses. The Pressure Injury CAA stated the Braden on 8/31/2022 scored a 12 indicating high risk for pressure injury and on admission has abrasion, bruising, open area to sacrum - see admn (admission) skin asmt (assessment) for details, at potential risk remains r/t (related to) impaired mobility, incontinence, impaired skin integrity. Surveyor noted the MDS Section M: Skin Conditions indicated R19 did not have any skin impairment but the Pressure Injury CAA documented R19 had an open area to the sacrum on admission. R19's hospital Discharge summary dated [DATE] had no documentation of skin impairment. On 8/31/2022, on the facility Admission/readmission Evaluation form, nursing documented R19 had a pressure injury to the sacrum. The wound did not have any measurements, wound base description, or staging of the pressure injury. On 8/31/2022, on R19's Skin Assessment body diagram, nursing hand-wrote on the form two circles, one circle on the right inner buttock and one circle on the left inner buttock. O/A was hand-written above the two circles indicating Open Areas. On 8/31/2022, on R19's Baseline Care Plan form, nursing hand-wrote in the Skin Care Needs section of the form R19 had a pressure injury to the sacrum with a skin treatment in the Treatment Administration Record. On 8/31/2022, at 6:11 PM in the progress notes, nursing charted R19 was admitted to the facility; no edema was noted. Nursing charted R19 had an open area to the sacrum and treatment orders were received. The nurse that completed R19's admission assessment and documentation on 8/31/2022 was unavailable for interview. On 8/31/2022, R19's treatment order documented: cleanse sacrum wound with normal saline, pat dry, apply Medihoney and bordered foam daily. No documentation was found indicating R19's responsible party was notified of the open area to the sacrum. R19's care plan documents: At Risk for Alteration in Skin Integrity, initiated on 8/31/2022 with the following interventions: -Barrier cream to peri area/buttocks as needed. -Encourage fluids. -Encourage to reposition as needed; use assistive devices as needed. -Float heels as able. -Observe skin condition with daily cares; report abnormalities. -Pressure redistributing device on bed/chair. -Provide preventative skin care routinely and as needed. -Use pillows/positioning devices as needed. On 9/2/2022, R19's Care Conference Summary form, nursing documented nursing had no concerns. No documentation was found regarding R19's skin integrity. On 9/2/2022, on the Skilled Nursing Facility (SNF) Initial Visit note, Nurse Practitioner (NP)-H documented R19 had no rashes and no lesions on exposed skin. No documentation was found indicating NP-H was aware of R19's documented wound to the sacrum. On 9/3/2022, at 6:10 PM, in the progress notes, Registered Nurse (RN)-BB charted R19 had a pressure area to the sacrum with a Medihoney treatment. On 9/7/2022 on the Skin Review - Weekly, Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON)-D documented R19 did not have any skin impairments. Surveyor noted R19 continued to receive a treatment to the sacrum. On 9/7/2022, at 6:10 PM, in the progress notes, RN-BB charted R19 had a pressure area to the butt with a treatment of normal saline and Medihoney with a border foam dressing. On 9/7/2022, on the SNF Progress Note, NP-H documented R19 had no rashes and no lesions on exposed skin. No documentation was found indicating NP-H was aware of R19's wound to the sacrum. On 9/8/2022, at 12:02 PM, in the progress notes, Registered Dietician (RD)-F documented R19 had no skin issues noted and no edema present. On 9/8/2022, at 6:10 PM, in the progress notes, RN-BB charted R19 had a pressure area to the butt with a treatment of normal saline and Medihoney. On 9/8/2022, on the SNF Progress Note, NP-H documented R19 had no rashes and no lesions on exposed skin. No documentation was found indicating NP-H was aware of R19's wound to the sacrum. On 9/9/2022, at 6:10 PM, in the progress notes, RN-BB charted R19 had a pressure ulcer to the left butt with a treatment of Medihoney with a border foam dressing. On 9/10/2022, at 2:34 PM, in the progress notes, nursing charted R19 had a pressure ulcer to the left butt. On 9/11/2022, at 7:16 PM, in the progress notes, nursing charted R19 had a no skin conditions or treatments. On 9/12/2022, at 7:16 PM, in the progress notes, RN-BB charted R19 had a pressure ulcer to the coccyx with a treatment of Mepilex to the coccyx. On 9/13/2022, at 7:16 PM, in the progress notes, nursing charted R19 had a pressure area to the coccyx with a treatment of Mepilex. On 9/13/2022, on the SNF History and Physical, the physician documented R19 had no rashes and no lesions on exposed skin. No documentation was found indicating the physician was aware of R19's wound to the sacrum. On 9/14/2022, at 5:16 PM, in the progress notes, nursing charted R19 had Mepilex to the coccyx. On 9/14/2022, at 9:49 AM, R19 was observed his room in a wheelchair. R19 had garbled speech and did not fully comprehend Surveyor's questions. Surveyor observed R19 had a cushion in the wheelchair and a regular mattress on the bed, not an air mattress. On 9/15/2022, at 3:33 PM, in the progress notes, Social Services documented a care conference was held with R19 and R19's activated Power of Attorney (POA). No documentation was found stating R19's POA was aware of R19's wound to the coccyx/sacrum. On 9/16/2022, at 11:47 AM, in the progress notes, nursing documented R19 was being monitored for a left buttock wound/excoriation. On 9/17/2022, at 3:53 AM, in the progress notes, nursing documented R19 was being monitored for left buttock wound/excoriation. On 9/17/2022, R19's treatment was changed from Medihoney to the sacrum to cleanse the left buttock with normal saline, apply Medihoney and manuka zinc to the peri wound and cover with a foam border dressing. On 9/17/2022, at 5:16 PM, in the progress notes, RN-BB charted R19 had a Stage 2 pressure injury to the left butt with a treatment of Medihoney and Mepilex. On 9/17/2022, at 6:53 PM, in the progress notes, nursing documented R19 was being monitored for a left butt wound and treatment was in place. On 9/18/2022, at 3:35 AM, in the progress notes, nursing documented R19 was being monitored for a left buttock wound and treatment was provided per plan of care. On 9/18/2022, on the Non-Pressure Weekly Tracker form, Director of Nursing (DON)-B documented R19 had a wound to the left perineum that was present on admission. The wound was described as moisture-associated skin damage and measured 0.7 cm (centimeters) x (by) 0.2 cm x 0.1 cm with 100% granulation. DON-B documented the wound was improving with the area smaller in size and R19's POA was at bedside and updated on the wound. This was the first comprehensive assessment of the wound since R19's admission, eighteen days prior. No measurements had been documented prior to this assessment and Surveyor noted DON-B documented the wound was smaller in size with no comparison measurement. The Merriam-Webster Dictionary states the definition of the perineum to be: an area between the thighs that marks the approximate lower boundary of the pelvis and is occupied by the urinary and genital ducts and rectum; also: the area between the anus and the posterior part of the external genitalia. Surveyor noted the described location of the wound as the perineum does not correlate with the previous charting of the wound to be at the coccyx, sacrum, or left buttock. On 9/18/2022, at 5:16 PM, in the progress notes, RN-BB documented R19 had an excoriated butt with a treatment of Medihoney to the left butt. On 9/18/2022, at 5:47, PM in the progress notes, nursing documented R19 was being monitored for excoriation on the butt and a treatment was in place. On 9/19/2022, at 5:53 AM, in the progress notes, nursing documented R19 was being monitored for excoriation to the left buttocks and treatment was provided per plan of care. On 9/19/2022, at 11:17 AM, in the progress notes, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN)-U documented R19 was being monitored for excoriation to the buttock and the dressing was clean, dry, and intact and the surrounding skin was intact. In an interview on 9/19/2022, at 2:11 PM, Surveyor asked RN-BB how long she had worked at the facility. RN-BB stated she started about two weeks ago and received training on the facility policies and procedures at that time. Surveyor asked RN-BB about R19's skin integrity. RN-BB stated R19 had an excoriated area and an area that was more reddened and open. RN-BB stated at previous job, she would stage the pressure injury, but this facility does not want anyone to stage the wound until the wound team looks at the wound. Surveyor asked RN-BB who the wound team consisted of. RN-BB stated DON-B and Wound Physician (WP)-R is the wound team and they round on Mondays for most of the residents with wounds, but not all of them. Surveyor asked RN-BB to describe R19's wound. RN-BB stated the first time RN-BB saw the wound, R19 had an open area on the left butt cheek with a red wound base that had Mepilex to the open area. RN-BB stated R19 had really sensitive skin with blotches and redness. RN-BB stated the PM shift does the wound treatment on even days and the treatment was Medihoney and border foam. Surveyor asked RN-BB if the wound had any slough in the base. RN-BB stated no, just red tissue. Surveyor clarified with RN-BB the location of the wound. RN-BB denied the wound was on the coccyx or sacrum; RN-BB stated the wound was on the left butt cheek. RN-BB thought R19's hospital record documented an open area but could not remember if they said it was from pressure or not. Surveyor asked RN-BB if an air mattress would be part of the facility protocol for a resident with a pressure injury. RN-BB was not aware of a policy for an air mattress. Surveyor asked RN-BB what the facility procedure was for completion of a skin assessment for a newly admitted resident. RN-BB stated the admitting nurse would measure and describe the wound; a sheet is filled out with skin charting on the head-to-toe assessment. RN-BB stated a treatment is always put in place and when the wound team sees the resident, they would stage the wound if it was a pressure injury. On 9/19/2022, at 3:39 PM, Surveyor observed R19 in bed. R19 had been placed in bed so the treatment could be done on the left buttock. Surveyor observed an air mattress had been placed on the bed since the last observation on 9/15/2022. Surveyor asked LPN-U and DON-B when the air mattress had been placed on the bed. LPN-U stated she did not know. DON-B stated she did not know, but probably today. Surveyor observed DON-B and LPN-U complete the treatment to R19's wound. LPN-U rolled R19 to the side and no dressing was observed to be in place over the wound. LPN-U stated she had put a dressing on R19 the previous night and it must have fallen off. No dressing was observed in the bed or in R19's incontinence product. The wound was located on the inner upper left buttock and measured approximately 1 cm x 1 cm with a red wound base. DON-B applied Medihoney to the wound base, zinc to the peri wound, and covered the area with a foam dressing. DON-B stated the wound was from excoriation, not pressure and was linear in appearance and has shrunk in size. In an interview on 9/20/2022, at 9:35 AM, Surveyor asked RD-F if RD-F was aware R19 had an open area to the skin. RD-F stated the 9/7/2022 Weekly Skin Assessment had no skin issues documented. RD-F stated if the skin check had said an open area, RD-F would have asked further questions. RD-F stated they usually talk about wounds at their meetings so RD-F can monitor the resident and add supplements. RD-F stated she was unaware of R19 having any skin issues. RD-F stated R19 was not on the list for residents with pressure injuries. RD-F stated normally RD-F would have gotten supplements in place due to increased protein needs. RD-F stated R19 was eating pretty good so R19 may be meeting nutritional needs. RD-F stated she would add yogurt, cottage cheese, or Prostat depending on the assessment. In an interview on 9/20/2022, at 10:09 AM, Surveyor asked MDS LPN-W why the admission MDS dated [DATE] did not have any skin integrity concerns marked in Section M of the MDS. MDS LPN-W stated another nurse did the assessment and that nurse works remotely so MDS LPN-W could not say what documents the nurse looked at to code the assessment that way. Surveyor shared with MDS LPN-W that R19 had a treatment ordered to the wound on admission. MDS LPN-W was unaware of R19's skin status. MDS LPN-W stated the admitting nurse puts pressure on the admission assessment and then MDS LPN-W waits until DON-B determines what the wound actually is. In an interview on 9/20/2022, at 3:16 PM, Surveyor asked Medical Doctor (MD)-O if MD-O was aware of R19's wound. MD-O stated MD-O would check to see if the wound MD was involved. Surveyor shared with MD-O the concern NP-H did not document any observation or status of R19's wound. MD-O stated the NP does not always document on a wound every time they see a resident; the NP will focus on one or two things with each visit. Surveyor asked MD-O when MD-O would expect to see a comprehensive assessment of a wound. MD-O stated a comprehensive assessment should be done within 24 hours. In an interview on 9/20/2022, at 3:51 PM, Wound Physician (WP)-R stated WP-R would be seeing R19 for the first time that afternoon. Surveyor asked WP-R if a copy of the report of today's assessment would be available for Surveyor in the morning. WP-R stated a copy would be ready for Surveyor. On 9/21/2022, at 7:28 AM, Nursing Home Administrator (NHA)-A provided Surveyor with WP-R's initial assessment of R19's wound from 9/20/2022. The assessment documented the wound was caused by moisture-associated skin damage and was located on the left buttock. The wound measured 0.7 cm x 0.4 cm x 0.1 cm with 100% granulation tissue. The treatment continued as previously prescribed. In an interview on 9/21/2022, at 8:17 AM, DON-B stated 9/18/2022 was the first time DON-B saw R19's wound. Surveyor asked DON-B why DON-B did not see R19 on wound rounds prior to 9/18/2022. DON-B thought she had seen R19 on 9/1/2022 or 9/2/2022 and R19 did not have a wound on the buttocks, it was red and dry. DON-B stated R19 had a bordered foam in place, so DON-B did not change anything. DON-B stated they did wound rounds on 9/5/2022 but could not remember seeing R19 at that time. Surveyor asked DON-B why nothing was charted by DON-B when DON-B made the observation of R19's wound. DON-B could not say why no charting was completed. DON-B stated nurses were educated they are not to stage a wound because DON-B saw someone had charted R19 had a pressure injury. DON-B stated they can describe the wound and measure the wound, but they cannot stage the wound. DON-B stated the NP looked at R19 with DON-B on 9/17/2022 and that was when they added zinc to the treatment. Surveyor asked DON-B why no measurements were completed until 9/18/2022. DON-B stated DON-B should have charted earlier. Surveyor asked DON-B how DON-B is notified of a resident with a skin concern. DON-B stated nursing staff can contact DON-B in any way to let DON-B know there is a skin condition. DON-B stated the next day at morning meeting they talk about wounds and DON-B will look at the new admissions the next day. DON-B stated they use a spread sheet that says which residents have a skin issue and that list is re-evaluated at the stand down meeting at the end of the day. DON-B stated the admitting nurse had told DON-B R19 did not have any wounds other than dry skin. DON-B stated the nurse was educated to not stage or call a wound pressure. Surveyor asked DON-B if RD-F was notified of R19's altered skin integrity. DON-B stated RD-F would have asked DON-B if R19 had a pressure injury and DON-B would have said no. Surveyor asked DON-B why DON-B documented the wound was located on the left perineum. DON-B stated the hospital documented R19 had a wound to the left perineum. (Surveyor reviewed the hospital documentation and did not locate any documentation of a wound to R19's skin.) DON-B stated when DON-B looked at R19's skin on 9/1/2022 or 9/2/2022, R19 did not have an open area close to the anus. Surveyor asked DON-B if the wound that this Surveyor observed with DON-B on 9/19/2022 was the same area that had an open wound on admission. DON-B stated yes, that was the same area. Surveyor shared with DON-B the definition of perineum and DON-B agreed the wound was not on the perineum. In an interview on 9/21/2022, at 10:18 AM, Surveyor asked ADON-D about R19's Skin Review - Weekly dated 9/7/2022 that ADON-D completed. ADON-D stated ADON-D had helped R19 to the toilet a day or two after admission and did not see any open areas at that time. Surveyor asked ADON-D if a comprehensive assessment was completed at that time. ADON-D stated no, an assessment was not done by ADON-D. ADON-D stated when she assisted R19 to the toilet, that was the only time ADON-D saw R19's backside. ADON-D stated normally the nurses on the floor do the assessment and the nurse must have called in so ADON-D was helping out so filled out the form only after toileting R19. In an interview on 9/21/2022, at 10:41 AM, NP-H stated the NP on-call was notified of R19's skin on admission. NP-H stated NP-H looked at R19's skin last week and confirmed the treatment orders were appropriate. Surveyor verified with NP-H the location of R19's wound. NP-H stated the wound was on the upper left buttock and not the perineum. On 9/21/2022, at 2:18 PM, Surveyor shared concerns with Nursing Home Administrator (NHA)-A regarding R19's skin. R19 was admitted on [DATE] and the admission assessment skin diagram had two circles on the left and right upper buttocks. No measurements or wound descriptors were documented. A treatment was obtained at that time to the sacrum and treatments were done daily. The admission MDS did not code the wound, the dietician was unaware R19 had any skin integrity issues, and the wound was not comprehensively assessed until 9/18/2022, eighteen days after admission, where it was determined the wound etiology was moisture-associated skin damage. Prior to that assessment, the wound had been considered pressure and had conflicting locations: sacrum, coccyx, butt, left butt, left buttock, and perineum. No further information was provided at that time. 2) R18's diagnoses includes diabetes mellitus, Parkinson's Disease, and hypertension. The pressure ulcer actual or at risk care plan initiated 7/15/21 & revised 8/3/22 includes an intervention of place washcloths (palm guards) between hands check placement every shift. Initiated 12/10/21 & revised 7/28/22. R18's Annual MDS (minimum data set), with an assessment reference date of 6/30/22, documents a BIMS (brief interview mental status) score of 00 which indicates severe cognitive impairment. The CNA (Certified Nursing Assistant) [NAME], dated 9/14/22, documents under the skin section: place washcloths (palm guards) between hands check placement every shift. On 9/14/22 at 9:07 a.m., Surveyor observed R18 in bed with the head of the bed elevated high. CNA-K is sitting on the right side R18's bed feeding R18. Surveyor observed R18 does not have washcloths or palm guards in her hands. On 9/14/22, at 10:46 a.m., Surveyor observed R18 in bed on her back with the head of the bed elevated holding onto a two handled cup. R18 does not have either washcloths or palm guards in her hands. On 9/15/22, at 7:29 a.m., Surveyor observed R18 in bed on her back with the head of the bed elevated slightly. Surveyor observed R18 does not have either washcloths or palm guards in her hands. On 9/15/22, at 8:29 a.m., Surveyor observed R18 in bed on her right side with the head of the bed elevated slightly. Surveyor observed R18 does not have either washcloths or palm guards in her hands. On 9/19/22, at 9:16 a.m,. Surveyor observed R18 in bed on her back with the head of the bed elevated high. R18 is holding onto a two handled cup, there is a washcloth in R18's right hand but the left hand does not have anything. On 9/21/22, at 8:32 a.m., Surveyor met with DON (Director of Nursing)-B to inquire about the washcloths or palm guards in R18's hands. DON-B explained R18 developed wounds which have healed from her nails being quite long and were digging into her hands. DON-B informed Surveyor they trimmed her nails and now place gauze or washcloth as the palm guard went to be washed. Surveyor informed DON-B of the observations of R18 not having any device in her hands per her care plan.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0687 (Tag F0687)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, interview, and record review the Facility did not ensure proper foot care for 1 (R74) of 1 Residents reviewed for foot care. * R74's toenails were very long and in need of trimmi...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and record review the Facility did not ensure proper foot care for 1 (R74) of 1 Residents reviewed for foot care. * R74's toenails were very long and in need of trimming. Findings include: R74's diagnoses includes down syndrome and anxiety disorder. On 9/15/22 from 7:49 a.m. to 8:04 a.m. Surveyor observed morning cares & transfer for R74 with CNA (Certified Nursing Assistant)-E and ADON (Assistant Director of Nursing)-D. During this observation at 7:45 a.m. CNA-E stated to R74 ok [first name of R74] going to pick you out an outfit, showed R74 the outfit she chose asking R74 if it's okay. CNA-E then removed R74's socks. Surveyor checked R74's feet noting there are no open areas but R74's toe nails are extremely long on both feet. On 9/19/22 at 7:32 a.m. during R74's record review Surveyor noted a podiatry consult dated 6/22/22 which documented patient uncooperative refused treatment today. On 9/19/22 at 1:58 p.m. Surveyor spoke to DON (Director of Nursing)-B regarding R74. Surveyor informed DON-B during an observation on 9/15/22 Surveyor observed R74's toe nails are extremely long on both feet, did note a podiatry consult dated 6/22/22 which indicated R74 was uncooperative but did not note any follow up as to what is the plan for R74's toe nails. DON-B informed Surveyor R74 is more cooperative if she knows the person and thinks the next time the podiatrist is at the Facility she will have someone who R74 knows be in there with her.
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 3 (R6, R13, R74) of 6 residents reviewed who are...

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 3 (R6, R13, R74) of 6 residents reviewed who are at risk for falls received the necessary services and supervision to prevent an injury from a fall or conduct through fall investigations. * The facility did not thoroughly investigate to determine a root cause analysis of R6's fall on 7/27/22. R6 sustained a hematoma to their face and were sent to the emergency room for evaluation. R6 is assessed to be at high risk for falls. R6's care plan and CNA (Certified Nursing Assistant) [NAME] indicates the use of a low bed and floor mat. On 9/14/22 and 9/15/22, Surveyor observed R6 in bed with no floor mat in place. On 9/15/22 Surveyor observed R6 in bed with the bed in high position. * R13 was at risk for falls and was observed by Surveyor in a bed in a high position. * R74 sustained a fall on 1/21/22 when R74 was transferred with a Hoyer lift with 1 assist. R74's care plan directed staff to transfer R74 with the use of a Hoyer lift with 2 staff assist. On 1/21/22 the CNA did not follow R74's care plan using the assist of 2 staff members. Findings include: 1. R6 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses of congestive heart failure, and atrial fibrillation. R6's Significant Change MDS (Minimum Data Set) dated 6/8/22 documents R6's BIMS (Brief Interview for Mental Status) score of 07, indicating R6 is moderately cognitively impaired for daily decision making. R6's MDS documents that R6 requires extensive assistance of 2 staff for bed mobility and transfers. R6 is at high risk for falls. On 9/14/22 at 08:50 AM, Surveyor observed R6 in a low bed with no floor mat in place. On 9/14/22 at 11:15 AM, Surveyor observed R6 in a low bed with no floor mat in place. On 9/14/22 at 02:02 PM, Surveyor observed R6 in a low bed with no floor mat in place. On 9/15/22 at 10:46 AM, Surveyor noted R6's Bed in a high position with no floor mat next to the bed. No staff were present in the room. Surveyor reviewed R6's CNA [NAME] which reads low bed to be in place and floor mat to be in place. On 7/27/22, R6 was found on the floor on the left side of her bed with a hematoma to the left side of their forehead. R6 was taken to the emergency room for evaluation. Surveyor reviewed R6's fall care plan dated 3/17/22 includes the following interventions: bed in low position, when in bed place floor mat next to left side of bed, review information on past falls in attempt to determine causes of falls for prevention and to minimize injuries. Surveyor did not note any care plan revisions after R6's 7/27/22 fall. On 9/14/22 Surveyor requested the facility's fall investigation for R6's 7/27/22 fall including staff statements and root cause analysis. On 9/15/22 at 8:00 AM, NHA (Nursing Home Administrator)-A told Surveyor there were no staff statements obtained after R6's fall and that there was no root cause analysis or new care plan interventions implemented after R6's fall. Surveyor shared concerns related to facility's investigation of R6's fall and lack of care plan updates. No additional information was supplied to Surveyor at this time. 2. R13 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. R13's MDS (Minimum Data Set) dated 6/17/22 indicates R13 requires total assistance with activities of daily living including bed mobility. R13 is rarely to never understood. R13 is at high risk for fall. On 9/14/22 at 3:50 PM, Surveyor observed R13's bed in an elevated position. On 9/14/22 at 9:50 AM, Surveyor observed R13's bed in an elevated position. On 9/14/22 at 12:35 PM, Surveyor observed R13's bed in an elevated position. On 9/14/22 at 3:00 PM, Surveyor observed R13's bed in an elevated position. Surveyor reviewed R13's CNA [NAME]. CNA [NAME] reads low bed to be in place, Surveyor reviewed R13's fall care plan dated 7/29/22 includes the following interventions: Place bed in low position, place call light within reach, anticipate and meet the residents needs. Encourage the resident to always call for assistance. Surveyor asked DON (Director of Nursing) -B if a resident is at risk for falls if they should have their bed in a low position. DON-B responded Yes. On 9/15/22 at 2:00 PM, Surveyor shared concerns with NHA (Nursing Home Administrator)-A related to observations of R13's bed not being in a low position as per their fall safety care plan. No additional information was supplied to Surveyor at this time. The Using a Portable Lift policy and procedure with an effective date of December 2016 under purpose documents, The purpose of this procedure is to help lift residents using a manual lifting device. Under procedure for general guidelines documents Two (2) nursing assistants or nurses or therapists are required to perform this procedure. 3. R74's diagnoses includes down syndrome and anxiety disorder. The physical functioning deficit care plan initiated 8/25/21 & revised 9/30/21 includes an intervention of transfer assistance of 2 mechanical lift. Medium sling (purple) initiated 8/26/21 & revised 4/29/22. The quarterly MDS (minimum data set) with an assessment reference date of 11/30/21 documents R74 has short & long term memory problems and is severely impaired for cognitive skills for daily decision making. R74 requires extensive assistance with two plus person physical assist for transfers. The nurses note dated 1/21/22 documents, Writer called into resident's room after CNA (Certified Nursing Assistant) reported that Hoyer collapsed/tilted while transferring resident causing resident to grab onto sling. Writer walked into resident's room and noted resident sitting on the floor with neck and head up against CNA leg for support. Resident has soft neck collar on AAT (at all times) for previous cervical fracture. No s/s (signs/symptoms) of pain or discomfort at this time. CNA explained that while transferring resident, she fell out of Hoyer and onto bed but slid out of bed onto floor. Bed in lowest position; close to the floor. Resident unable to explain, resident non verbal. Skin warm and dry. No injuries noted at this time. Call out to NP (Nurse Practitioner); NOR (new order received) cervical spine X-ray x (times) 1. Call out to POA (power of attorney). POA updated. DON (Director of Nursing) updated. No new apparent injuries noted at this time. Will monitor. 98.0 18 65 130/75. The fall investigation dated 1/21/22 under incident description for nursing description documents, Writer called into room after resident let go of the grab bar causing Hoyer machine to tilt. CNA was present at time and was able to lower safely onto the floor. No apparent injuries noted. For Resident description documents Resident unable to give description. Under notes dated 1/21/22 documents IDT (interdisciplinary team) discuss fall Lift Education and policy reviewed with CNA. A 1:1 competency check with DON completed with CNA involved in incident r/t (related to) transferring resident with Hoyer lift by self and not having a 2nd person to assist. X-ray results negative. Surveyor noted the CNA did not follow R74's plan of care when she attempted to transfer R74 with a Hoyer lift by herself. The nurses note dated 1/22/22 documents Resident's Vitals are normal. No c/o (complaint of) of pain/discomfort. Neuro check is WDL (within defined limits) to her baseline. Dressing changed to her Right posterior thigh. The nurses note dated 1/23/22 documents Patient being monitored after having a witnessed fall/slide out of Hoyer sling on 1/21. No outward signs of pain at rest; some tensing noted when turning patient. No new obvious injuries r/t fall noted at this time such as skin discoloration/redness. On 9/19/22 at 11:27 a.m. Surveyor asked Administrator-A if anyone else other than CNA-C was educated. Administrator-A replied no.
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 of 1 (R325) residents reviewed for urinary inco...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility did not ensure 1 of 1 (R325) residents reviewed for urinary incontinence received appropriate treatment and services to restore continence to the extent possible. * R325 was admitted into the facility with urinary incontinency. The facility did not initiate a 3 day voiding pattern diary as part of their assessment to assist in determining what type of toileting program R325 may benefit from and in order to restore continence to the extent possible. R325's Bladder/Incontinence Evaluation with an effective date of 9/17/22 indicated a treatment program of scheduled toileting/habit training, which is not reflected on R325's care plan. Instead, R325's most recent care plans/cardx dated 9/8/22 and 9/20/22 indicate staff should provide incontinence care as needed, provide assistance with toileting and check and change every 2 -3 hours. R325 was not provided with a toileting program based upon individual needs in order restore continence to the extent possible. Findings include: On 9/20/22, Surveyor reviewed the facility's Incontinence Prevention Program policy not dated. The Incontinence Prevention Program policy states in part, Upon admission, complete admission Nursing Evaluation. If any box other than continent is checked, begin a Urinary Continence Evaluation. Based on the results of the Evaluation of Continence, identify if the resident is motivated and cognitively appropriate for a toileting program 4. If No refer to additional programs: Types of Toileting Programs: Prompted Voiding (Bladder Retraining) . Habit Training/Schedule Toileting . Routine Toileting (ADL based) . All 3 of the above programs include guidelines stating, determine voiding intervals through use of the 3 day voiding diary . On 9/19/22, at 1:35 pm, Surveyor observed R325 in bed. Surveyor questioned R325 if she had been taken to the bathroom recently. R325 stated that's where I want to go. Surveyor noted R325 did not have her call light on. Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) T came into the room and R325 informed CNA T she wanted to go to the bathroom. R325 also stated she was wet. CNA T responded with that's OK I will change you and applied a gait belt around R325 to take her to the bathroom. R325 refused taking her wheelchair to the bathroom as she stated, I can't wait .it's coming out. CNA T ambulated R325 with her front wheeled walker to the toilet, and removed R325's wet brief. CNA T removed the wet bed linens and replaced them with clean sheets. CNA T informed Surveyor that while she was not specifically assigned to R325 today, the nurse (Licensed Practical Nurse/LPN U) thought R325 may have needed something and therefore CNA T went in to check on R325. Upon leaving R325's room, Surveyor interviewed LPN U who stated when R325 returned from the hospital earlier today at 9:30 am. LPN U had changed R325 as she was wet upon her return. Surveyor asked LPN U if R325 had any changes with incontinence. LPN U reported sometimes R325 will say when she has to go to the bathroom, she is check and change, she's been the same since being here. On 9/19/22, at 2:00 p.m., Surveyor interviewed R325's assigned CNA V who stated she started work this morning at 6 am. CNA V reported R325 came back from the hospital at around 9:00-9:30 am and the nurse changed her. CNA V stated she then changed R325 at around 10:30 am and again at 12:30 pm. CNA V stated she has worked with R325 over the last 3 days and that sometimes she uses her call light otherwise, if she sees us she will call out to us. On 9/19/22, Surveyor reviewed R325's medical record. A hospital Discharge summary dated [DATE] noted discharge diagnosis included but not limited to; delirium underlying dementia, generalized weakness, suspected community acquired pneumonia and urinary retention resolved, chronic kidney disease stage 2, etc. The hospital discharge summary referenced R325 retaining urine requiring straight cath and as having a urinary tract infection. On 9/19/22, Surveyor reviewed R325's care plan with a focus area of Urinary incontinence related to impaired mobility initiated on 9/8/22 and with revision on 9/8/22. The care plan goals were, will be free from skin break down and will be maintained in as clean and dry dignified state as possible and lastly, Will have no complications due to incontinence initiated on 9/8/22. Interventions dated 9/8/22 consist of: Apply skin moisturizer/barrier creams as needed Provide Assistance with toileting Provide incontinent care Report changes in amount, frequency, color or odor of urine, Report changes in skin integrity found during daily cares Report S&S (signs and symptoms) of UTI (Urinary Tract Infection) such as flank pain, c/o (complaint/of) burning/pain, fever, hematuria, change in mental status Use absorbent products as needed. Surveyor reviewed a Bladder/Incontinence Evaluation with an effective date of 9/17/22 which indicated impaired mobility and severe cognitive impairment as risk factors for bladder incontinence, is currently incontinent of bladder, daytime frequency (greater than 8 times during waking hours), contributing diagnosis Alzheimer's Disease/Dementia. Summary and Program Placement Decision- Based on the above assessment, the resident is most likely experiencing the following type of incontinence: Stress and urge are checked. Under Treatment Program, Schedule toileting/habit training is checked. The facility's Incontinence Prevention Program policy, not dated, defines in part; Habit Training/Schedule Toileting- Habit training is a scheduled bladder management program designed according to the patient's/resident's individual voiding pattern . There is no indication as part of the Bladder/Incontinence evaluation that a 3 day voiding diary was included as part of the assessment to determine what type of toileting program R325 might benefit from and to develop an individualized incontinence care plan. On 9/20/22, at 9:40 am, Surveyor interviewed LPN U as to whether R325 can use her call light. LPN U stated the family tends to use it, we re-educate her but she is forgetful, she is a heavy wetter too, even with toileting. She (R325) will call you when she has to have a BM (bowel movement), you'll hear her and she'll say she has to go. Surveyor asked LPN U if the facility uses a 3 day voiding diary to establish any patterns for R325's incontinence. LPN U stated the CNAs fill out a 3 day voiding pattern. LPN U looked into a binder on the unit and stated there wasn't one for [R325] and when admitted a 3 day voiding diary would have been done .this is the rehab unit so toilet every 2 hours up here where people are more continent and alert, they will turn on their lights. LPN U stated she was not sure where the summary of the results of the 3 day voiding would be. LPN U stated initially there is a baseline care plan and we do what we can see and know after therapy evaluates her .the Director of Nursing (DON) and the Assistant Director of Nursing do the care plans. LPN U thought maybe the MDS (Minimum Data Set) nurse may have the 3 day voiding diary. Surveyor reviewed R325's baseline care plan and there is no reference to R325's toileting/continence care needs. On 9/20/22, at 7:01 am, Surveyor observed R325 up in her chair in her room. Surveyor observed R325 leaning to her left with a pillow behind her and another pillow on her left side. R325 was able to recall Surveyor from the day before. R325 started saying maybe she'd better go (referring to having to go to the bathroom). CNA X offered to take R325 to the bathroom and reported taking R325 earlier this morning to the bathroom as well. On 9/20/22, at 7:20 am, Surveyor asked R325 as to whether staff take her to the bathroom enough. R325 stated yes, that's all you have to do is ask. Surveyor asked R325 if she knew how to use the call light and R325 pointed to the call light and said all you have to do is push this if you have to go. Although R325 was able to point to the call light and provide instructions on it's use, Surveyor noted R325 had not turned on her call light both times R325 had informed Surveyor of needing to go to the bathroom. On 9/20/22, Surveyor reviewed R325's admission MDS with an ARD (Assessment Reference Date) date of 9/13/22. The MDS indicated R325 came from an acute care hospital, had adequate hearing, clear speech, usually understood and understands others. R325's Brief Interview for Mental Status score was 4 indicating R325 had severe cognitive impairment for daily decision making skills. The MDS indicated R325 requires extensive assist with toileting and personal hygiene. R325's balance is not steady when moving off the toilet. The MDS indicated R325 is frequently incontinent of bladder and bowel and a toileting program has not been tried for either bladder or bowel. The Care Area Assessment (CAA) Worksheet dated 9/17/22 indicates status: In Progress however the urinary incontinence and indwelling catheter section of the CAA has been completed and signed as being completed by MDS RN Y on 9/17/22. The CAA Worksheet indicates an actual problem/need being triggered related to needing assistance with toileting and is incontinent of bladder. The CAA worksheet indicates; Modifiable factors contributing to transitory urinary incontinence is restricted mobility. Other factors contributing to incontinence is urinary urgency and need for assistance in toileting. Type of incontinence is not checked. Medications-diuretics can cause urge incontinence. Resident and family are agreeable with current plan of care. Care plan considerations, urinary incontinence-functional status will be addressed in the care plan and the overall objective for care planning of this problem is to avoid complications. The impact of this problem/need on the resident and the rationale to care plan is: Resident requires assistance with toileting and is incontinent of bladder. Therapy is working with resident to improve toileting function. Goal is to ensure resident will be dry, clean, odor free and comfortable. Nursing staff will continue to offer and assist with toileting and provide incontinent care as needed will proceed POC (plan of care.) Surveyor noted R325 has an order dated 9/8/22 for Furosemide/Lasix (diuretic) 20 mg (milligrams) 1x (time) a day for edema, which may contribute to urge incontinence as mentioned in the CAA worksheet. There is no indication, as part of the Care Area Assessment, that a 3 day voiding diary was included as part of the assessment to determine what type of toileting program R325 may benefit from as well as developing an individualized incontinence care plan. Surveyor received a CNA cardx (sheet of instructions) for R325 dated 9/20/22 which indicated Toileting check and change every 2-3 hours, toileting assistance of 1. On 9/20/22, at 9:50 am, Surveyor interviewed the MDS-LPN W who stated R325's MDS was not done yet in that Social Services still needs to complete the Care Area Assessment (CAAS) and section E. LPN W stated RN Y, who is a float MDS nurse, is the one who signed off on the 9/13/22 ARD and that she helps out remotely with MDS. Surveyor asked LPN W when would the facility initiate a toileting program. LPN W stated she would go off of what is charted regarding coding incontinence and then would go ask the staff. LPN W stated if there is no indication in the record to show that a toileting program is being done then we document No on the MDS. The Nurse would initiate a toileting program or who ever admits the resident. LPN W stated she initiates the 3-day voiding diary for annual MDS's, significant changes and quarterly MDS. On 9/20/22, at 10:55 am Surveyor asked LPN U if she initiated a toileting program for R325 upon admission. LPN U looked at Director of Nursing (DON) B who was standing nearby. DON B stated after we establish continence and incontinence then the MDS nurse will ask management to put a plan in place. On 9/20/22, at 10:55 am Surveyor along with DON B and Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON) D went into ADON D's office where R325's incontinence care plan was discussed. Surveyor was informed R325 is assist of 1 for toileting. At times R325 refuses toileting and other times she may already be wet. Surveyor was informed they (the facility) would be initiating a Bowel and Bladder record if one had not been done. DON B and ADON D informed Surveyor they were going to start looking for it (3 day voiding diary), and that typically the B&B (Bowel and Bladder) record is on a paper and filled out by the CNAs who complete it and are then kept in the binder. Surveyor was informed R325's cardx indicated check and change and did not reflect a toileting program. On 9/20/22, at 2:00 pm, Surveyor met with Director of Rehab Z who was aware of R325. Director of Rehab Z stated R325 is receiving Physical Therapy, Occupational Therapy and Speech Therapy. Director of Rehab Z reported R325 is quite confused and it is hard getting her to do anything functional. Director of Rehab Z indicated R325 is up all night. Director of Rehab Z reported working with R325 earlier this morning on range of motion. Director of Rehab Z stated at times therapy gets involved with assessing incontinence care depending on need and was aware different types of toileting programs such as scheduled toileting etc. Surveyor informed Director of Rehab Z that Surveyor did not locate a 3 day voiding diary for R325. Surveyor informed Director of Rehab Z that R325's incontinent care plan was not individualized to reflect a toileting program based off of a comprehensive assessment (inclusive of a 3 day voiding diary) in order for R325 to receive incontinence services to restore continence to the extent possible.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0692 (Tag F0692)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility did not ensure residents maintained acceptable parameters of nu...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility did not ensure residents maintained acceptable parameters of nutritional status such as usual body weight for 2 (R50 and R53) of 5 residents reviewed for nutrition. * R50 had severe weight loss of 27.8 pounds, a 14.4% loss, in twelve days that was not identified by the facility or Registered Dietician, and no notification was made to the physician or Nurse Practitioner. * R53 had a weight loss of 10.3 pounds, a 6.7% loss, in one month, with no re-weight to establish the validity of the weight loss, and no notification was made to the physician or Nurse Practitioner. Findings: The facility policy and procedure entitled, Weight Assessment and Intervention dated 2/24/2022 states: 1. The nursing staff will measure resident weights on admission, the next 2 days, and weekly for 3 additional weeks thereafter. 2. If no weight concerns are noted after the initial 3 days and 3 weeks after, routine weights will be measured monthly thereafter, unless ordered more frequently by the physician. 3. Weights will be recorded in the individual's electronic health record. 5. Team members will follow a consistent approach to weighing and use an appropriately calibrated and functioning scale (e.g., wheelchair scale or bed scale). 6. Any weight change of five (5) pounds or more since the last weight assessment will be retaken for confirmation. 7. The Dietitian will review the monthly weights to follow individual weight trends over time. Weight trends will be evaluated by the interdisciplinary team whether or not the criteria for significant weight change has been met. 8. The threshold for significant weight change will be based on the following criteria [where percentage of body weight change = (usual weight - actual weight) / (usual weight) x 100]: a. 1 month - 5% weight change is significant; greater than 5% is severe. b. 3 months - 7.5% weight change is significant; greater than 7.5% is severe. c. 6 months - 10% weight change is significant; greater than 10% is severe. 10. The nursing staff will notify the individual or responsible party, physician and RDN (Registered Dietician) or designee of any individual with an unintended significant weight change. 1. R50 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses of fracture to the right lower fibula, anemia, diabetes, encephalopathy, and chronic kidney disease. R50's admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] indicated R50 had severe cognitive impairment with a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 4 and needed extensive assistance with activities of daily living but was able to eat independently. The Nutrition Care Area Assessment (CAA) associated with this MDS stated R50 had too high of a BMI (Body Mass Index); R50 and the dietician were aware and would work toward trending down the BMI. The goal was to ensure R50 would not have a significant weight change or complications from the trending down. On 8/11/2022, R50 had an order for hydrochlorothiazide (a diuretic) 25 mg daily for hypertension. On 8/11/2022 on the Hospital Summary, R50's discharge weight was 193 pounds. On 8/11/2022 on admission, the facility documented R50 weighed 193.2 pounds. On 8/11/2022, R50 had an order to obtain daily weights for three days starting on 8/12/2022 and then weekly times three weeks starting on 8/18/2022; the order stated to obtain a re-weight if there was a change of 5 pounds since the last weight. On 8/12/2022 in the Treatment Administration Record (TAR), the space for R50's weight was blank. On 8/13/2022 in the TAR, a 9 was entered where the weight should have been recorded. A 9 was code for other/see progress notes. No entry regarding weight was made in the progress notes on 8/13/2022. On 8/14/2022 in the TAR, a 2 was entered where the weight should have been recorded. A 2 was code for drug refused. No entry regarding the refusal of weight was documented in R50's medical record. On 8/16/2022 at 11:42 AM in the progress notes, Registered Dietician (RD)-F documented R50 weighed 193.2 pounds on 8/11/2022 on admission, R50's weight history was unknown, and R50 had no edema present. RD-F documented R50's current diet order remained appropriate for management with potential weight fluctuations related to fluid shifts due to diuretic. RD-F documented RD-F met with R50 and R50's family and R50's family brings in food for R50 and R50 was eating okay per family. RD-F documented gradual weight loss was desirable due to BMI of 34.2 (obese). RD-F documented RD-F would monitor and follow up as needed with R50. A Nutritional Care Plan was initiated on 8/16/2022 with the following interventions: -Administer medications as ordered. -Administer vitamins/mineral supplements as ordered. -Encourage and assist as needed to consume foods and/or supplements and fluids offered. -Honor food preferences. -Obtain labs as ordered and notify physician of results. -Provide diet as ordered. -Record weight per facility protocol/physician orders. -Review weights and notify Dietician, Physician, and responsible party of significant weight change. On 8/18/2022 in the TAR, the space for R50's weight was blank. On 8/25/2022 in the TAR, R50 weighed 193.2 pounds. On 9/1/2022 in the TAR, a 2 was entered where the weight should have been recorded. A 2 was code for drug refused. No entry regarding the refusal of weight was documented in R50's medical record. On 9/6/2022, R50 weighed 165.4 pounds. This was a weight loss of 27.8 pounds, or 14.4%, in 12 days. No documentation was found after 9/6/2022 that the physician or dietician was notified of R50's severe weight loss. On 9/9/2022, R50 weighed 166.8 pounds. On 9/13/2022 at 11:32 AM in the progress notes, RD-F documented a weight warning from 9/9/2022 of R50's weight of 166.8 pounds and 13.5% weight loss in the last month. RD-F documented the weights from 8/11/2022 of 193.2 pounds, 9/6/2022 of 165.4 pounds, and 9/9/2022 of 166.8 pounds. RD-F documented RD-F was unsure the weight change was accurate and would continue to weigh R50 per physician orders and facility policy to establish a weight trend. RD-F documented R50's BMI was 29.5 (overweight) and the weight decrease was desirable. RD-F documented RD-F checked in with R50 that day and had discussed R50 with the interdisciplinary team (IDT) previously. The IDT reported family continued to bring in food for R50 and the intake tracker indicated R50 was eating approximately 50-75% of meals plus snacks. RD-F documented the goal was weight stability and would continue to monitor R50 and follow up as needed. No documentation was found indicating R50's physician or Nurse Practitioner was notified of R50's severe weight loss. On 9/14/2022 at 10:35 AM, Surveyor observed R50 in bed. R50's family member was at the bedside. R50 did not speak English and a family member was at R50's bedside to help staff interpret for R50. Surveyor asked R50 if R50 had any recent weight loss or decrease in appetite. R50's family member was not sure of R50's weight status. On 9/14/2022, R50 was sent to the hospital to have an intravenous line inserted for fluids and antibiotic for a urinary tract infection. R50 was admitted to the hospital at that time. In an interview on 9/19/2022 at 3:26 PM, Surveyor asked Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON)-D if ADON-D was aware of R50's weight loss. ADON-D stated the facility was having issues with scales not being calibrated and had someone come in to calibrate the scales. ADON-D thought R50 had been sent out to the hospital before they had another weight on the recalibrated scales. ADON-D stated the facility realized the scales were not accurate and told Maintenance-AA and Maintenance-AA recalibrated the scales at that time. Surveyor asked ADON-D when Maintenance-AA was notified of the scale concern. ADON-D pulled up email and stated the email was sent out on 9/2/2022. ADON-D stated R50's weight on 8/25/2022 was not correct, but the following weights were correct. Surveyor shared with ADON-D R50's admission weight of 193.2 pounds was comparable to the hospital discharge weight of 193 pounds on the same date, 8/11/2022. Surveyor shared the concern R50's weights on 9/6/2022 and 9/9/2022 were after the scales were calibrated and there was a significant weight loss from R50's admission on [DATE]. ADON-D agreed the weight difference was significant. Surveyor asked ADON-D if the hospital could be contacted to get a current weight. ADON-D stated the hospital would be contacted. On 9/19/2022 at 4:04 PM, ADON-D reported the hospital was contacted and R50's current weight that morning was 164 pounds. On 9/19/2022 at 2:00 PM in the progress notes, ADON-D charted ADON-D spoke with a nurse at the hospital and R50's weight as of 9/19/2022 AM was 165 pounds. In an interview on 9/20/2022 at 9:37 AM, Maintenance-AA stated three scales were recalibrated on 9/1/2022 and a fourth scale had to be repaired with a new part; the new part was installed on 9/2/2022 and the scale was calibrated at that time. Surveyor asked Maintenance-AA if all the scales were currently calibrated. Maintenance-AA stated all four scales in the building were calibrated and good to use. In an interview on 9/20/2022 at 9:50 AM, Surveyor asked RD-F how weights were reviewed for R50. RD-F stated the facility talked as a team at one of the meeting to get a reweight for R50 because of the large weight loss. RD-F stated family was bringing in food for R50 and the kitchen had done a good job of finding out preferences for R50. RD-F stated the actual weight loss may not be accurate because of the admission weight being on a broken scale and RD-F did not believe it was a reliable weight loss. Surveyor shared with RD-F R50's hospital discharge weight on 8/11/2022 was 193 pounds, the same as the facility admission weight on the same date. RD-F stated RD-F wanted to monitor further to see if the weight loss was accurate. Surveyor asked RD-F if any supplements were added due to the potential weight loss. RD-F stated no supplements were added because they were monitoring R50 to make sure R50 was eating well. RD-F referred to the nutrition progress note and stated edema was unknown. RD-F stated because it was such a large weight loss, the scale was more to blame than not eating. Surveyor shared with RD-F the scales were calibrated before the weights were obtained on 9/6/2022 and 9/9/2022. RD-F stated RD-F did not anticipate such a great loss. Surveyor asked RD-F if the physician was notified of the weight loss. RD-F stated RD-F did not notify the physician of the weight loss. In an interview on 9/20/2022 at 2:23 PM, Surveyor asked Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN)-U if the computer charting system alerted LPN-U of a significant difference in R50's weight on 6/6/2022 when LPN-U entered R50's weight. LPN-U stated no alert or warning came up when R50's weight was entered and maybe LPN-U entered the wrong weight. Surveyor showed LPN-U R50's weight on 9/9/2022 that was comparable to the 9/6/20222 weight. LPN-U stated LPN-U was not aware R50 had a weight loss and did not notify anyone because LPN-U was unaware there was a weight loss. In an interview on 9/20/2022 at 3:16 PM, Surveyor reviewed R50's weights with Medical Doctor (MD)-O and asked if MD-O had been notified of R50's severe weight loss. MD-O stated that was a lot of weight to lose. MD-O stated the Nurse Practitioner may have been notified, but MD-O had not been notified. On 9/20/2022 at 11:24 PM in the progress notes, nursing charted R50 was readmitted to the facility from the hospital. On 9/20/2022, R50 weighed 156.2 pounds. In an interview on 9/21/2022 at 8:41 AM, Surveyor asked Director of Nursing (DON)-B when a re-weight would be expected for a resident with a great increase or decrease in weight. DON-B stated the expectation would be to have the weight taken the next day. In an interview on 9/21/2022 at 9:03 AM, ADON-F stated ADON-F talked to Nurse Practitioner (NP)-H about R50's weight loss and NP-H provided a note regarding R50's weight. ADON-D provided the note dated 9/20/2022 to Surveyor: In discussion with ADON, discrepancy in weight, 8/25/2022 patient's weight was 193.2, weight on 9/6/2022 165.4. Patient is eating, patient is eating food brought from home. Per family and patient, no loss of appetite. Discussed with ADON in regards to recalibrating scale as scale has been off. Patient does not seem to appear to have lost weight. Will reweigh patient once scale is recalibrated. Also different scales are used may show different weights. In an interview on 9/21/2022 at 10:37 AM, NP-H stated R50's weight on 9/6/2022 was discussed with the facility staff regarding a weight loss. NP-H stated the family brought in food and R50 did not look like R50 was losing weight. NP-H stated the scale needed to be recalibrated. NP-H stated NP-H talked to R50 and R50 was eating just fine. Surveyor shared with NP-H R50's hospital discharge weight on 8/11/2022 and the facility admission weight on 8/11/2022 were equivalent at 193 pounds. Surveyor shared with NP-H the scales were recalibrated on 9/1/2022 and 9/2/2022 so the 9/6/2022 weight of 165.4 pounds was taken after the recalibrations. Surveyor asked NP-H if the facility staff told NP-H about R50's reweight on 9/9/2022 of 166.8 pounds. NP-H stated there was no discussion about R50's re-weight on 9/9/2022 and NP-H was not aware the weight loss was actual. Surveyor shared with NP-H the hospital weight on 9/19/2022 was 164 pounds which correlated with the previous weights taken at the facility. On 9/21/2022 at 1:04 PM in the progress notes, nursing charted R50's recent admission weight on 9/20/2022 was 156.2 pounds which was a 6.4% weight loss since the last weight on 9/9/2022 of 166.8 pounds, a loss of 10.6 pounds. NP-H was notified of the change. On 9/21/2022 at 1:15 PM in the progress notes, RD-F documented an email was reviewed from NP-H regarding supplements for R50 and suggested trying magic cup twice daily. RD-F documented RD-F would monitor acceptance of supplements and adjust recommendations accordingly. On 9/21/2022 at 2:18 PM, Surveyor shared the concern with Nursing Home Administrator (NHA)-A and DON-B R50 had a severe weight loss that was not identified by facility staff or Registered Dietician and notifications were not made to the physician or Nurse Practitioner to address the weight loss. No further information was provided at that time. 2. R53 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and has diagnoses that include displacement of the greater trochanter of the right femur, CAD (coronary artery disease), HTN (hypertension) and dementia. R53's MDS (Minimum Data Set Assessment), with an ARD (Assessment Reference Date) of 08/10/2022 documented R53 has a BIMS (Brief Interview for Mental Status) of 3, indicating that R53 is cognitively impaired; R53 needs limited assist of one for eating, and section K documents a weight of 153lbs (pounds). R53's care plan documents, At Risk for Nutritional/Hydration Status Change r/t(related to) Dementia, Dysphagia which is dated 08/09/2022, revised on 08/11/2022 and has a target date of 11/30/2022. Goals for this care plan include: Will maintain weight as evidenced by no significant wt (weight) changes (>/= 5% in 30 days, >/= 7.5% in 90 days, or >/= 10% in 180 days). Interventions for this care plan include: Record weight per facility protocol/MD (medical doctor) orders. Review weights and notify RD (registered dietician), MD(medical doctor), and responsible party of significant weight change R53's current physician's order for weights states: WEIGHT - daily (for) 3 days, weekly (for) 3, monthly (Obtain re-weight if change of 5 lbs (pounds) since last weight) one time a day for monitoring for 3 Days AND one time a day every Fri for monitoring for 3 Weeks AND one time a day every 1 month(s) starting on the 1st for 1 day(s) for monitoring Surveyor reviewed R53's medical record and noted the following weights documented: 9/01/2022 at 22:14(10:14pm) 144.7 lbs (pounds) using the wheelchair scale 8/19/2022 at 06:33AM 154.4 lbs (pounds) using the wheelchair scale 8/12/2022 at 07:54AM 153.0 lbs (pounds) using the wheelchair scale 8/07/2022 at 12:55PM 153.2 lbs (pounds) using the wheelchair scale 8/05/2022 at 18:17(6:17PM) 152.4 lbs (pounds) using the wheelchair scale 8/04/2022 at 18:46(6:46PM) 153.0 lbs (pounds) using the wheelchair scale 8/04/2022 at 18:45(6:45PM) 155.0 lbs (pounds) using the wheelchair scale Surveyor noted a 9.7 lb weight loss (a 6.28%) weight loss from 08/19 to 09/01 (in 13 days). On 09/14/22 at 12:54 PM, surveyor observed R53 sitting in a wheelchair in room and appeared to have just finished lunch. R53 was accompanied by wife who is also R53's HCPOA(Healthcare Power of Attorney) and daughter whom confirmed R53 had finished eating lunch and surveyor noted R53 had eaten 75%-100%. On 09/14/22 at 01:19 PM R53's HCPOA told surveyor R53 has lost about 10lbs (pounds) since admission to the facility and R53 has been on a pureed diet for a long time. Per HCPOA, R53 can feed self, though it might be difficult with the Styrofoam container. (The facility had been using Styrofoam containers due to a broken dishwasher. This issue had been addressed by the facility and was in the process of being fixed). R53's HCPOA told surveyor she assists R53 with lunch daily in R53's room, but for breakfast and dinner R53 eats in the dining room. On 09/15/22 08:33 AM, DON (Director of Nursing)-B told surveyor R53 can feed self but needs encouragement. On 09/15/22 08:38 AM, Surveyor observed R53 sitting in a wheelchair eating breakfast, which was served in a Styrofoam container, in a dining room with other residents and staff members present. R53 was feeding self with no apparent issues. On 09/19/22 at 12:29 PM, surveyor observed R53 sitting in a wheelchair in room accompanied by HCPOA. R53 ate 75-100% of lunch. On 09/20/22 at 09:50 AM, R53 told surveyor breakfast was good, but not enough. On 09/20/22 at 10:00 AM, Surveyor interviewed RD (Registered Dietician)-F. RD-F told surveyor she has been in this building since 2019 and weights are monitored via the weights and vitals tab in Point Click Care (the facilities charting system). This tab will prompt RD-F when there is 3% weight change from the last weight, however, RD-F told surveyor she is looking for the significant/severe weight changes of 5% over a month, 7.5% over 3 months and 10% over 6 months. RD-F told surveyor per Northshore policy reweighs are supposed to be done if there is a 5 lb (pound) weight change from the last weight, but other weight changes are discussed as a team and the team will decide if a reweigh is needed. On 09/20/22 at 10:15 AM, Surveyor asked if RD-F was aware that R53 had an 10 lb (pound) weight loss from 08/14/22 to 09/01/22, which is a 6.28% weight loss in less than one month. RD-F told surveyor R53 was talked about as a team, put on the list to be reweighed and should be reweighed. Surveyor stated the last documented weight for R53 was 19 days ago and questioned RD-F as to whether a reweigh should have already been obtained. RD-F told surveyor a reweigh was expected by now. Surveyor told RD-F R53 had told surveyor that breakfast was good, but not enough. On 09/20/22 at 11:23 AM, RD-F told surveyor R53 was reweighed today for 146.9 lbs(pounds), a progress note was entered addressing the weight loss, and an order for weekly weights for four weeks was entered. RD-F told surveyor R53 will be given larger portions at mealtimes with the goal of weight stability and R53's wife asked about diet upgrade which RD-F will follow up with speech therapy. RD-F also told surveyor that the new weight puts R53's weight loss at 4.86%, not as severe as the prior weight. Surveyor noted the following progress note entered into R53's medical record on 09/20/2022 at 11:00AM by RD-F: Nutrition/Dietary Note Note Text: Wt (Weight) hx (History) is: 146.9#(pounds) on 9/20 144.7#(pounds) on 9/1 154.4#(pounds) on 8/19 155# (pounds) on 8/4 Reweight today confirms weight has decreased some. Weight decrease may be r/t (related to) scale recalibration at the beginning of September. Using 9/20 weight, weight is down 4.9% over 1 month, not a significant weight change. Intake is 76% avg plus occasional snacks of a dysphagia puree diet with nectar thick liquids. Meal intake provides approximately 1832 kcal (kilocalories) and 72 g(grams) PRO (protein). Has order for magic cup BID (twice a day) (580 kcal(kilocalories), 18 g(grams) PRO(protein)), per MAR(medication administration record) eating supplement 100%. Estimated needs are 1669-2003 kcal(kilocalories) (25-30 kcal/kg(kilocalories/kilogram)) and 67 g(grams) PRO(protein) (1 g/kg(gram/kilogram)). Meeting estimated needs with PO(by mouth) intake. Met with wife. Wife reports he eats good and enjoys the magic cup. She states at times he seems like he could eat more food. Discussed possibility of large portions, wife is agreeable to try. Wife was wondering about a potential diet upgrade, will relay to SLP (speech language pathologist). (SLP states diet texture is needed r/t (related to) cognition, but she will eval(evaluate) and follow-up with wife). Wife reports historically res was 170-180#(pounds) as a normal weight and lost a significant amount of weight while hospitalized prior to admission in facility. Overall wife feels clothes are a little looser, but it is unclear if that is from weight loss previous to facility. Recommending weekly weight x (times) 4 to monitor weight trend. On 09/20/22 at 02:19 PM, surveyor interviewed LPN (Licensed Practical Nurse)-G and confirmed that LPN-G entered R53's 09/01/22 weight. LPN-G told surveyor CNAs (certified nursing assistants) weigh the residents and if there is a discrepancy of 5 lbs (pounds) or more the weight is redone to ensure it is accurate. LPN-G told surveyor the dietician would be notified of any discrepancy and LPN-G stated (I) don't recall notifying anybody about R53's weight on 09/01/22 and R53 was not reweighed at that time. On 09/21/22 at 08:41 AM, DON-B told surveyor reweights should be obtained the same day, if not the next day. On 09/21/22 at 10:44 AM, NP (Nurse Practitioner)-H told surveyor, (I) do not believe (I) was updated regarding R53's weight loss from 08/19-09/01. At this time NP-H checked records, and confirmed she was not updated regarding R53's weight loss.
CONCERN (D)

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

Tube Feeding (Tag F0693)

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 that residents who are fed by enteral means receiv...

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 that residents who are fed by enteral means received the appropriate treatment and services to prevent complications of enteral feeding, including risk for dehydration for 1 of 2 (R13) residents reviewed for enteral feeding. R13's continuous tube feeding was observed disconnected from R13's PEG (percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy) tube and lying on the floor. Findings include: R13 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with Metabolic Encephalopathy, Diabetes Mellitus and protein calorie malnutrition. R13's MDS (Minimum Data Set) dated 6/17/22 indicates that they require total assistance with activities of daily living including bed mobility. R13 is rarely to never understood. R13 receives all medications and nutrition through a gastrostomy tube. On 9/14/22 at 09:35 AM, R13 was observed in bed with a continuous tube feeding running at 55 cc/hr connected to R13's gastrostomy tube. Surveyor noted the tube feeding bag was unlabeled. On 9/14/22 at 3:06 PM, Surveyor noted R13's continuous tube feeding was disconnected from R13's gastrostomy tube running at 55 cc/hr with a puddle of formula dripping on the floor next to R13's bed. On 9/14/22 at 3:10 PM, Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA)-M entered R13's room and did not address the puddle of formula on the floor. CNA-M turned off R13's tube feeding pump and left R13's room. On 9/14/22 at 3:21 PM, Surveyor asked CNA-M where they could find the unit nurse. CNA-M told Surveyor I don't know .I think he is agency .he might be doing a treatment somewhere. 09/14/22 at 3:30 PM, Surveyor found Agency Nurse-CC. Agency Nurse-CC told Surveyor that they had only been working at the facility for a couple of days and was not very familiar with the residents. Surveyor showed Agency Nurse-CC to R13's room. Surveyor asked Agency Nurse-CC if they were aware that R13's tube feeding had become disconnected. Agency Nurse-CC told Surveyor that they were not aware of this and did not know R13 was on a continuous tube feeding. Surveyor asked Agency Nurse-CC if CNAs should be telling nurse right away if a problem with a resident's tube feeding pump or if it becomes disconnected. Agency Nurse-CC responded Yes. Surveyor asked Agency Nurse-CC if tube feeding should be labeled with a residents name. Agency Nurse-CC responded Yes. On 9/14/22 at 3:35 PM, Surveyor interviewed CNA-M. Surveyor asked CNA-M what they should do if a resident's tube feeding pump is beeping or the tubing becomes disconnected. CNA-M responded that they would tell a nurse. Surveyor asked why they had not informed Agency Nurse-CC that R13's tube feeding had become disconnected. Surveyor did not receive a response from CNA-M. On 9/15/22 at 8:00 AM, Surveyor shared concerns with NHA-A related to R13's continuous tube feeding being disconnected, CNA-M not notifying R13's nurse of this occurrence and the unlabeled tube feeding formula bag. No additional information was supplied to Surveyor at this time.
CONCERN (D)

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

Respiratory Care (Tag F0695)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on interview and record review the Facility did not ensure a CPAP (continuous positive airway pressure) machine (which delivers a stream of oxygenated air to the person's airway) was ordered, ca...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview and record review the Facility did not ensure a CPAP (continuous positive airway pressure) machine (which delivers a stream of oxygenated air to the person's airway) was ordered, care planned, and cleaned for 1 (R25) of 1 Residents reviewed with CPAP machines. There is no physician order for R25's CPAP, there is no evidence R25's CPAP is being cleaned and there is no care plan. Findings include: The CPAP (continuous positive airway pressure) Therapy policy reviewed/revised 6/24/2022 under Policy Explanation and Compliance Guidelines documents 1.) Verify physician orders 2.) Assemble equipment at bedside. 3.) Observe universal precautions and wash your hands. 4.) Place system close to where the patient will be sleeping on a clean dry surface. 6.) Insert the oxygen adaptor and tubing if supplemental O2 (oxygen) is ordered. 7.) Place mask/pillows with headgear on patient and adjust to a proper fit. 8.) Ensure a proper fit and adjust as necessary. If excessive air leaks around the eyes and nose, adjust the headgear. Resize mask for excessive leaks or to increase patient comfort. 9.) If ordered, connect humidifier to CPAP unit. Fill humidifier with distilled or sterile water. 10.) If ordered, adjust ramp to prescribed time 29. R25's diagnoses includes morbid obesity and obstructive sleep apnea. Surveyor reviewed R25's care plans and noted the following care plans: * Physical functioning deficit initiated 1/12/21 & revised 4/12/21. * At risk for falls initiated 1/12/21 & revised 5/6/22. * Infection actual or at risk initiated & revised 8/9/22. * Pain or potential for pain initiated & revised 1/12/21. * At risk for adverse effects r/t (related to) use of antidepressant medication, mood stabilizer, and Antianxiety initiated 1/7/21 & revised 8/6/21. * At risk for skin integrity initiated & revised 1/12/21. * At risk for nutritional/hydration status initiated 1/12/21 & revised 4/12/22. * Alteration in blood glucose initiated 7/17/21 & revised 4/12/22. * Prefers not to attend group activities initiated 1/8/21 & revised 8/4/22. * Resident does not show potential for discharge to community initiated 1/13/22. * Resident's advance directive initiated 1/7/21. * Use of bilateral side rails initiated & revised 8/17/22. * At risk for injury related to physical restraint initiated 2/22/22 & revised 8/17/22. * Alteration in visual acuity initiated & revised 1/19/21. * At risk for behavior symptoms initiated & revised 6/21/22. * Alteration in elimination of bowel and bladder functional incontinence initiated 1/12/21. * HX (history) suicidal risk initiated & revised on 1/7/21. * Unsettled relationships/conflicts initiated & revised 6/21/22. * Inappropriate sexual behaviors initiated 9/15/22. Surveyor was unable to locate a respiratory care plan for R25's CPAP. On 9/14/22 at 9:11 a.m. Surveyor observed R25 in bed on her back with the head of the bed elevated watching TV. Surveyor observed a CPAP machine on the dresser to the left of R25's bed and asked R25 if she uses the CPAP. R25 informed Surveyor she uses the CPAP at night and if she naps. On 9/14/22 at 2:20 p.m. Surveyor observed R25 in bed on her back wearing the CPAP with two transfer bars up on the bed. On 9/14/22 at 3:17 p.m. Surveyor reviewed R25's physician orders and was unable to locate an order for the use or maintenance of R25's CPAP. On 9/15/22 at 10:07 a.m. Surveyor observed R25 in bed on her back with the head of the bed elevated wearing the CPAP. After Surveyor entered R25's room, R25 removed the CPAP informing Surveyor she was waiting for a brief change. On 9/19/22 at 7:21 a.m. Surveyor observed R25 in bed on her back with the head of the bed elevated, two transfer bars up and wearing the CPAP. After Surveyor entered R25's room, R25 removed her CPAP. Surveyor asked R25 how she was. R25 informed Surveyor her blood sugar was low and they gave her orange juice. Surveyor informed R25 Surveyor wanted to look to see the manufacturer of her CPAP machine was. Surveyor noted the manufacturer is Resmed airsense 10. R25 informed Surveyor the water chamber has a crack as it fell. On 9/19/22 at 10:15 a.m. Surveyor reviewed R25's September 2022 MAR (medication administration record) and TAR (treatment administration record) and did not note any documentation regarding cleaning R25's CPAP machine. According to the website www.resmed.com for the user guide under the section for cleaning documents You should clean the device weekly as described. Refer to the mask user guide for detailed instructions on cleaning your mask. 1. Wash the water tub and air tubing in warm water using only mild detergent. Do not wash in a dishwasher or washing machine. 2. Rinse the water tub and air tubing thoroughly and allow to dry out of direct sunlight and/or heat. 3. Wipe the exterior of the device with a dry cloth. On 9/19/22 at 10:30 a.m. Surveyor asked LPN (Licensed Practical Nurse)-G where Surveyor would be able to locate an order for R25's CPAP. LPN-G looked at R25's electronic medical record and informed Surveyor he's not seeing it either. Surveyor informed LPN-G Surveyor wasn't able to locate any orders regarding cleaning R25's CPAP. LPN-G informed Surveyor he doesn't see any CPAP orders in here. On 9/19/22 at 10:34 a.m. Surveyor asked DON (Director of Nursing)-B if R25 uses her CPAP. DON-B replied yes. Surveyor informed DON-B Surveyor is unable to locate any orders for the CPAP including how/when the CPAP should be cleaned and a care plan for the CPAP. DON-B looked at R25's electronic medical record and then stated to Surveyor I don't see anything myself. Surveyor asked who would develop the CPAP care plan. DON-B informed Surveyor nursing, herself or the manager. Surveyor asked DON-B if there is a manager on R25's unit. DON-B informed Surveyor technically she is the manager now. Surveyor asked DON-B if she was aware R25's water chamber has a crack. DON-B replied no. On 9/20/22 Surveyor noted with a start date of 9/19/22 C-PAP Mask, first shift remove mask and rinse canister with warm water & dry on side of sink in the morning for COPD (chronic obstructive pulmonary disease)/Sleep apnea and C-PAP Mask at bedtime related to COPD, sleep apnea. Second shift to fill canister with distilled water. Make sure mask is on and machine is powered ON at bedtime for COPD/Sleep apnea. On 9/20/22 Surveyor noted at risk for respiratory impairment care plan had been developed with an initiated & revised date of 9/19/22. Interventions documented are: * Administer medications as ordered initiated & revised 9/19/22. * CPAP per MD (medical doctor) orders initiated 9/19/22. * Evaluate lung sounds and VS (vital signs) as needed. Report abnormalities to MD initiated 9/19/22. * Obtain pulse ox as ordered and report abnormal findings initiated 9/19/22.
CONCERN (D)

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

Laboratory Services (Tag F0770)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interview, the facility did not always follow through on obtaining physician ordered labs for 1 of 1 ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interview, the facility did not always follow through on obtaining physician ordered labs for 1 of 1 resident reviewed for lab services. On 1/13/22, R73's physician ordered weekly basic metabolic panel (BMP) labs. The facility did not consistently follow through on obtaining the BUN lab. Surveyor noted missing BMP labs for 1/13, 1/20, 1/27, 2/3, 2/10, 2/17, 3/10, 3/17, and 3/24/22 Findings include: The facility policy, entitled Laboratory Services dated December 2016 states, Lab Results: Lab results will be reported to the physician; Abnormal lab tests will be sent to the physician; The physician will be notified as soon as possible upon receipt of the panic/critical lab value. The facility policy, entitled Hydration, dated 01-2017 states, Sufficient fluid means the amount of fluid needed to prevent dehydration (output of fluids far exceeds fluid intake) and maintain health. The amount needed is specific for each resident and fluctuates as the resident's condition fluctuates (i.e., increase fluids if resident has fever or diarrhea) 5. Monitoring/revision: . x. Abnormal laboratory values ( .sodium .blood urea nitrogen (BUN) .) 6. Documentation: . e. Document physician/family notifications and any responses . R73 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that include: Cerebral Palsy, Lennox-Gastaut Syndrome and dysphagia. R73 is on continuous tube feeding related to episodes of nausea/vomiting and dysphagia. R73's Care Plan, dated 08/31/2021 and revised on 02/24/2022, with a target date of 09/18/2022 states: Need for feeding tube/potential for complications of feeding tube use and has interventions that include, Administer tube feeding formula, hydration, and flushes per orders. R73's Care Plan, dated 09/08/2021 and revised on 02/24/2022, with a target date of 09/18/2022 states: Risk for Alteration in Hydration r/t (related to) tube feeding, dependent on staff. Interventions include, Obtain lab results as ordered and notify MD (medical doctor) of results. R73's MDS (Minimum Data Set) assessment with an ARD (Assessment Reference Date) of 08/31/2022 indicted that R73 is rarely/never understood, is totally dependent on staff for all ADLs (Activities of Daily Living) including eating, and section K is marked none of the above for swallowing disorders and tube feeding is not checked in section K0510. Per R73's medical record, R73 was diagnosed with Covid-19 on 12/30/2021. On 1/4/2022 at 11:07AM, a nurses progress notes documents: Writer took patients vitals, VS (vital signs) 77/53, 90, 16, 98.4, 88% on RA(room air), writer updated NP-N (name of NP), NP-N (name of NP) in building and evaluated pt (patient), NP-N (name of NP) would like pt (patient) to be sent out to be evaluated and treated for hypoxia and hypotension, Writer called (name of) ambulance at 9:37AM to transport pt (patient) to (name of hospital) main .(name of )ambulance here to transport pt out to ER at 10:04AM. R73 was sent to (name of hospital) on 01/04/2022 related to hypotension and hypoxia. Lab work drawn at the hospital on 10:45AM on 01/04/2022 included a BMP (Basic Metabolic Panel) which documented a sodium level of 156, which is greater than defined limits of 135-154 meq/l (milliequivalents) and a BUN (Blood Urea Nitrogen) of 50 which is greater than defined limits of 7-20 mg/dL. Per hospital records, R73 was diagnosed with hypernatremia/dehydration and acute kidney injury, both of which resolved with fluid resuscitation. R73 was discharged back to the facility on [DATE]. Hospital discharge instructions recommended rechecking BMP (Basic Metabolic Panel) to ensure adequate free water intake and no return of hypernatremia. R73 was readmitted into the facility on 1/9/22. R73's physician's orders upon return to the facility on 1/9/22 include: 1. BMP (basic metabolic panel) weekly on Thursdays starting 01/13/2022, one time a day every Thursday for lab monitoring; this order has a discontinued date of 06/29/2022 2. Enteral Feed Order: six times a day Flush feeding tube with 200 cc (cubic centimeters) of water q (every) 4 hours. This order has a start date of 10/11/2021 and a discontinued date of 06/06/2022. R73's physician's order for enteral water flushes, upon return to the facility on January 9, 2022 continued to be the same order as prior to the hospitalization: six times a day Flush feeding tube with 200 cc (cubic centimeters) of water q (every) 4 hours. This order had a start date of 10/11/2021 and a discontinued date of 06/06/2022. R73 was seen by NP (Nurse Practitioner)-N on 01/11/2022. NP-N documents in a Provider Progress note: .Hypernatremia due to poor free water intake, resolved with fluid resuscitation, encourage increased PO (by mouth)/G (gastrostomy)-tube intake of fluids, Monitor BMP (Basic Metabolic Panel) weekly .AKI (Acute Kidney Injury) Due to hypovolemia; improved with IVF (intravenous fluids), Monitor with weekly BMP (Basic Metabolic Panel). R73 continues with the physician order for Enteral Feed Order: six times a day Flush feeding tube with 200 cc (cubic centimeters) of water q (every) 4 hours. R73 had a monthly physician monthly progress note dated 02/21/2022 that documented: check BMP, CBC (complete blood count), TSH (thyroid stimulating hormone) .Hypernatremia due to poor free water intake .labs have not been drawn, however-check BMP (basic metabolic panel), CBC (complete blood count), TSH (thyroid stimulating hormone) .AKI (Acute Kidney Injury) due to hypovolemia .labs continue to not be drawn. Surveyor reviewed R73's medical record and noted laboratory results from 02/24/2022, which was a BMP. No laboratory results were noted prior to 02/24/2022, even though R73's physician ordered BMP weekly starting on 1/13/22 (Surveyor noted missing BMP labs for 1/13, 1/20, 1/27, 2/3, 2/10, and 2/17/22). Surveyor interviewed LPN (Licensed Practical Nurse)-P, on 09/19/22 at 12:35 PM, regarding the facility's process for obtaining/reporting laboratory results. LPN-P told surveyor facility staff access lab results via the lab's website. The labs are printed and then given to the NP (Nurse Practitioner) to review. The lab results are then sent to medical records. LPN-P did not think lab results would be scanned into the computer. On 09/19/22 at 01:48 PM, Surveyor asked DON (Director of Nursing)-B for R73's laboratory results from January 2022-June 2022, specifically BMP results. Surveyor was given BMP results from 02/24/2022, 03/03/2022, 03/31/2022, 04/06/2022 (lab report documented patient declined/refused), 04/14/2022, 04/21/2022, 04/28/2022, 05/01/2022 (lab report documented patient declined/refused), 05/05/2022, 05/11/2022 (lab report documented patient declined/refused), 05/12/2022(lab report documented patient declined/refused), 05/15/2022 (lab report documented patient declined/refused), 05/19/2022, 05/26/2022 and 06/02/2022. Surveyor did not receive the weekly BMP labs prior to 2/24/2022 or after 2/24/22 for 3/10, 3/17, 3/24/22. On 02/24/2022, a nutrition assessment by RD-F documents, . labs .NA (sodium) 156 (referencing the last 90 days when R73 was in the hospital) .No concerns with hydration .Fluids provided via TF (tube feeding) and flushes at this time. R73's sodium levels remained within the defined limits of 135-145 MEq/L until 05/26/2022 when the laboratory reported a sodium level of 150. R73's BUN on 05/26/2022 was reported at 36, which is greater than defined limits which of 7-20 mg/dL. During review of R73's medical record, surveyor noted R73 was sent to the emergency room on [DATE] and 05/31/2022 related to dislodgement of R73's gastrostomy tube. Surveyor did not note any documentation in R73's medical record that R73's physician was aware of R73's basic metabolic panel results from 05/26/2022 which reported an abnormal sodium of 150 and a BUN of 36. On 09/22/2022 at 09:48, Surveyor interviewed NP-N. NP-N told surveyor while she was at the facility, she would usually check the lab results and update the facility staff with any new orders. Per NP-N either the floor nurse would be updated in person, via phone, or the director of nursing would be updated via email. NP-N told surveyor she was aware of R73's sodium level on 05/26/2022 and a repeat sodium was ordered, but R73 was sent to the hospital back and forth during that time and NP-N believed that was why the repeat sodium was not drawn. NP-N told surveyor for a sodium level of 150, she would have ordered a repeat lab for the next day or two. NP-N told surveyor that she could not remember if the repeat lab order was documented and that she could not check because the company that NP-N worked for in May 2022 was bought out by (name of current company). NP-N did not have access to the records prior to (name of current company). NP-N told surveyor she was not sure if the 05/26/2022 lab results were called to her by the facility or if she had checked on the lab results herself. Surveyor asked NP-N if there were any additional water flushes ordered for R73 between 05/26/2022 and 06/02/2022, since R73 already had an elevated sodium on 05/26/2022 was sent to hospital twice in that time period, which may have resulted in a decrease in water flushes. NP-N told surveyor she did not order any additional water flushes and was not terribly concerned with a sodium of 150 since R73 had been stable up to that point. NP-N told surveyor she was shocked to see a sodium level of 159 on 06/02/2022 and subsequently sent R73 to the hospital. Even though NP-N was made aware of the 5/26/22 lab, Surveyor noted the facility did not have documentation of notifying NP-N of the abnormal laboratory results nor documentation of what NP-N would like done related to the abnormal laboratory.
CONCERN (E)

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** 5. R20 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses of fracture of the ankle, diabetes, anemia, and chronic kidney dise...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 5. R20 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses of fracture of the ankle, diabetes, anemia, and chronic kidney disease requiring dialysis. R20's admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] indicated R20 was cognitively intact with a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 15. In an interview on 9/14/2022 at 2:11 PM, R20 stated the food served at the facility was cold and did not taste good. R20 stated the previous day R20 had ordered egg salad and what R20 got was one piece of bread with a pile of egg salad on the bread with way too much mayonnaise. R20 stated R20 had diarrhea after eating the egg salad on bread. R20 stated R20 could not call it a sandwich since there was only one slice of bread. Based on food complaints from R38, R35, R33, R24, & R20, during the Resident Council meeting with Surveyors, 8 of 11 Residents raised their hands to indicate the food is not hot, and testing lunch food items on 9/19/22, the Facility did not ensure Resident's food was palatable for 13 of 72 residents who receive their meals from the kitchen. Findings include: 1. On 9/14/22 at 9:51 a.m., Surveyor asked R38 how his breakfast was? R38 replied it was alright. Surveyor asked how the food usually is? R38 informed Surveyor it's so-so and the food is hit or miss. Surveyor asked R38 when he receives his meals is the food hot? R38 informed Surveyor it wasn't hot this morning. 2. On 9/14/22 at 10:08 a.m., Surveyor asked R35 how the food is at the Facility? R35 informed Surveyor lately the food has been crappy. R35 informed Surveyor in the beginning, whoever was cooking the food was good, but now the food is greasy. R35 indicated last night they were served tater tot casserole which was greasy. 3. On 9/15/22, Surveyor reviewed prior Resident's council meeting minutes. Surveyor noted the 3/18/22 minutes listed under new concerns is Temperature of food is cold when served/delivered. The 4/13/22 Resident council meeting minutes are checked for not resolved for the concern temperature of food is cold when served/delivered. The 6/26/22 Resident council meeting minutes is checked for not resolved for the concern - Residents are still dissatisfied with menu options high frequency for mashed potatoes, canned fruit, dry/tough protein. The 8/18/22 Resident council meeting minutes under new concerns, include Proteins too tough; more variety. On 9/15/22 at 10:36 a.m. Surveyors conducted a Resident Council meeting with 11 Residents. During the meeting, at 10:56 a.m., R33 informed Surveyor they are receiving their food 15 or 20 minutes late, it's cold, and now they are getting their meals in take out boxes. R33 stated one time for breakfast all she received was a roll and nothing else. Surveyor asked Residents if they were also having concerns with their food not being hot and to raise their hands if they had this concern. 8 of the 11 Residents attending the meeting raised their hands. R28 then informed Surveyors one time she received puree food which tasted like dog food. 4. On 9/19/22 at 11:57 a.m., Surveyor observed the food truck arrive on the 200 unit. On 9/19/22 at 11:58 a.m., Surveyor observed Activities I starting to pass out trays to Resident's rooms from the food truck. Surveyor asked Activities I which Resident would be the last tray served from the food truck. Activities I informed Surveyor R3 would be. Surveyor informed Activities I Surveyor will be taking R3's tray at the time it would be served to him and requested someone call the kitchen so R3 wouldn't have to wait for his lunch. On 9/19/22 at 12:13 p.m., Surveyors received R3's lunch tray which was served in a Styrofoam container due to the dish machine being out of order. The temperature of the coffee was 135 degrees and tasted hot. The mashed potatoes were 117.5 degrees, were tasty but were warm, not hot. The turkey with gravy was 105.3 degrees and was cool to the taste. The carrots were 103 degrees and were cool. The roll was soft and the cake was moist. On 9/19/22 at 12:25 p.m., Surveyor asked R24 if her lunch was hot today. R24 informed Surveyor it wasn't ice cold then stated, I can say it's luke warm, some days it's cold. On 9/19/22 at 3:29 p.m., Surveyor asked DM (Dietary Manager) J if she has received complaints regarding the food not being hot. DM J replied yes, we have had a couple and explained some of the Residents who receive room trays. DM J informed Surveyor when the food leaves the kitchen it is hot, you would think the Residents would get it hot but you never know. Surveyor asked DM J how she ensures Resident's food is served hot. DM J informed Surveyor she makes sure she looks at the temperatures, the temperature is 180 degrees, the food is served on hot plates and she makes sure the plate warmer is on and temperature is taken for all food in the serving table. Surveyor asked about the room trays which are currently being served in a Styrofoam container. DM J informed Surveyor the food temperature should be maintained and when they serve the food it is hot not cold. Surveyor informed DM J Surveyor took temperatures and tasted R3's lunch meal and noted the food was not hot but warm or cool. On 9/19/22 at 4:41 p.m. Administrator A was informed of the above.
Understanding Severity Codes (click to expand)
Life-Threatening (Immediate Jeopardy)
J - Isolated K - Pattern L - Widespread
Actual Harm
G - Isolated H - Pattern I - Widespread
Potential for Harm
D - Isolated E - Pattern F - Widespread
No Harm (Minor)
A - Isolated B - Pattern C - Widespread

Questions to Ask on Your Visit

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

Our Honest Assessment

Strengths
  • • Licensed and certified facility. Meets minimum state requirements.
Concerns
  • • Multiple safety concerns identified: 2 life-threatening violation(s). Review inspection reports carefully.
  • • 36 deficiencies on record, including 2 critical (life-threatening) violations. These warrant careful review before choosing this facility.
  • • $14,433 in fines. Above average for Wisconsin. Some compliance problems on record.
  • • Grade F (24/100). Below average facility with significant concerns.
Bottom line: Trust Score of 24/100 indicates significant concerns. Thoroughly evaluate alternatives.

About This Facility

What is Maple Ridge Health Services's CMS Rating?

CMS assigns MAPLE RIDGE HEALTH SERVICES an overall rating of 2 out of 5 stars, which is considered below average nationally. Within Wisconsin, this rating places the facility higher than 0% of the state's 100 nursing homes. A rating at this level reflects concerns identified through health inspections, staffing assessments, or quality measures that families should carefully consider.

How is Maple Ridge Health Services Staffed?

CMS rates MAPLE RIDGE HEALTH SERVICES's staffing level at 1 out of 5 stars, which is much below average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 47%, compared to the Wisconsin average of 46%. RN turnover specifically is 64%, which is notably high. RNs provide skilled clinical oversight, so turnover in this role can affect medical care quality.

What Have Inspectors Found at Maple Ridge Health Services?

State health inspectors documented 36 deficiencies at MAPLE RIDGE HEALTH SERVICES during 2022 to 2025. These included: 2 Immediate Jeopardy (the most serious level, indicating potential for serious harm or death) and 34 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 Maple Ridge Health Services?

MAPLE RIDGE HEALTH SERVICES is owned by a for-profit company. For-profit facilities operate as businesses with obligations to shareholders or private owners. The facility is operated by NORTH SHORE HEALTHCARE, a chain that manages multiple nursing homes. With 80 certified beds and approximately 72 residents (about 90% occupancy), it is a smaller facility located in MILWAUKEE, Wisconsin.

How Does Maple Ridge Health Services Compare to Other Wisconsin Nursing Homes?

Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Wisconsin, MAPLE RIDGE HEALTH SERVICES's overall rating (2 stars) is below the state average of 3.0, staff turnover (47%) is near the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (3 stars) is at the national benchmark.

What Should Families Ask When Visiting Maple Ridge Health Services?

Based on this facility's data, families visiting should ask: "What changes have been made since the serious inspection findings, and how are you preventing similar issues?" "Can you walk me through typical staffing levels on day, evening, and night shifts?" "Can I visit during a mealtime to observe dining assistance and food quality?" "How do you handle medical emergencies, and what is your hospital transfer rate?" These questions are particularly relevant given the facility's Immediate Jeopardy citations and the below-average staffing rating.

Is Maple Ridge Health Services Safe?

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

Do Nurses at Maple Ridge Health Services Stick Around?

MAPLE RIDGE HEALTH SERVICES has a staff turnover rate of 47%, 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 Maple Ridge Health Services Ever Fined?

MAPLE RIDGE HEALTH SERVICES has been fined $14,433 across 1 penalty action. This is below the Wisconsin average of $33,223. While any fine indicates a compliance issue, fines under $50,000 are relatively common and typically reflect isolated problems that were subsequently corrected. Families should ask what specific issues led to these fines and confirm they've been resolved.

Is Maple Ridge Health Services on Any Federal Watch List?

MAPLE RIDGE HEALTH SERVICES 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.