SAMARITAN NURSING AND REHAB

531 E WASHINGTON ST, WEST BEND, WI 53095 (262) 335-4500
For profit - Corporation 131 Beds SHLOMO HOFFMAN Data: November 2025 1 Immediate Jeopardy citation
Trust Grade
13/100
#240 of 321 in WI
Last Inspection: January 2025

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

Overview

Samaritan Nursing and Rehab has received a Trust Grade of F, indicating significant concerns about the facility. Ranking #240 out of 321 in Wisconsin places it in the bottom half of state facilities, and it is the lowest-rated option in Washington County. The trend is worsening, with reported issues increasing from 3 in 2024 to 19 in 2025. While staffing is a strength with a 4 out of 5 star rating and RN coverage better than 90% of Wisconsin facilities, the turnover rate is concerning at 72%, significantly above the state average. Unfortunately, the facility faces serious issues, including a critical incident where proper supervision was not maintained, resulting in potential abuse, and multiple failures in maintaining safe environments that have led to injuries and sanitation concerns.

Trust Score
F
13/100
In Wisconsin
#240/321
Bottom 26%
Safety Record
High Risk
Review needed
Inspections
Getting Worse
3 → 19 violations
Staff Stability
⚠ Watch
72% turnover. Very high, 24 points above average. Constant new faces learning your loved one's needs.
Penalties
✓ Good
$75,498 in fines. Lower than most Wisconsin facilities. Relatively clean record.
Skilled Nurses
✓ Good
Each resident gets 89 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — more than 97% of Wisconsin nursing homes. RNs are the most trained staff who catch health problems before they become serious.
Violations
⚠ Watch
35 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
★★☆☆☆
2.0
Overall Rating
★★★★☆
4.0
Staff Levels
★★★☆☆
3.0
Care Quality
★★☆☆☆
2.0
Inspection Score
Stable
2024: 3 issues
2025: 19 issues

The Good

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

Facility shows strength in staffing levels, fire safety.

The Bad

2-Star Overall Rating

Below Wisconsin average (3.0)

Below average - review inspection findings carefully

Staff Turnover: 72%

25pts above Wisconsin avg (46%)

Frequent staff changes - ask about care continuity

Federal Fines: $75,498

Well above median ($33,413)

Moderate penalties - review what triggered them

Chain: SHLOMO HOFFMAN

Part of a multi-facility chain

Ask about local staffing decisions and management

Staff turnover is very high (72%)

24 points above Wisconsin average of 48%

The Ugly 35 deficiencies on record

1 life-threatening 1 actual harm
Aug 2025 3 deficiencies
CONCERN (E) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Pharmacy Services (Tag F0755)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, staff and resident interview, and record review, the facility did not provide pharmaceutical services to e...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, staff and resident interview, and record review, the facility did not provide pharmaceutical services to ensure the accurate administration of medication for 8 residents (R) (R2, R4, R10, R9, R5, R6, R7, and R8) of 10 sampled residents.On 8/12/25, R2 was administered sevelamer. R2 did not have an order for the medication. On 7/31/25 and 8/1/25, multiple medications for R2 were administered late or not in accordance with physician orders.On 8/4/25, 8/20/25, 8/21/25, and 8/22/25, multiple medications for R4 were not administered in accordance with physician orders. In addition, R4's AM medications were not administered timely on 8/25/25.On 8/25/25, R10's ropinirole was not administered in accordance with the physician order.On 8/25/25, R9's Protonix and potassium chloride were not administered in accordance with physician orders.On 8/25/25, R5, R6, R7, and R8's AM medications were not administered timely.Findings include:The facility's Administering Medications policy, dated 5/2025, indicates: Medications shall be administered in a safe and timely manner and as prescribed .3. Medications must be administered in accordance with the orders, including any required time frames. 4. Medications must be administered within one hour of their prescribed time, unless otherwise specified .6. The individual administering medications must verify the resident's identity before giving the resident his/her medications. Methods of identifying the resident include: .b. Checking photograph attached to medical record; and c. If necessary, verifying resident identification with other facility personnel .The facility's Adverse Consequences and Medication Errors policy, dated 4/2014, indicates: Adverse consequences shall be reported to the attending physician and pharmacist, and to federal agencies as appropriate 5. A medication error is defined as the preparation or administration of drugs or biologicals which is not in accordance with physician orders .15. The following information is documented in an incident report and in the resident's clinical record: a. Factual description of the error or adverse consequence. b. Name of physician and time notified. c. Physician's subsequent orders. d. Resident's condition for 24 to 72 hours or as directed .1.On 8/25/25, Surveyor reviewed R2's medical record. R2 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and had diagnoses including osteoarthritis of right shoulder, joint replacement of right shoulder, and epilepsy. R2's Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 8/6/25, had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 15 out of 15 which indicated R2 had intact cognition. R2 was responsible for R2's healthcare decisions. Surveyor reviewed a medication error report for R2, dated 8/12/25, that indicated R2 received sevelamer (a medication used to control high blood phosphate levels in those with chronic kidney disease) that was intended for another resident when R2 was mistaken for another resident who looked like R2. R2's physician and family were notified and R2 was monitored for adverse effects. On 8/26/25 at 10:54 AM, Surveyor interviewed Director of Nursing (DON)-B who indicated an agency staff reviewed the resident's photograph for identification before administering sevelamer, however, the resident looked similar to R2 and staff administered the medication to R2. DON-B indicated staff education was in the process but had not been completed. R2's medical record indicated R2 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] at 2:23 PM and had the following physician orders, dated 7/31/25:~ Amlodipine besylate 5 milligrams (mg) give 1 tablet by mouth in morning~ Atorvastatin calcium 80 mg give 1 tablet by mouth at bedtime ~ Clopidogrel bisulfate 75 mg give 1 tablet by mouth in morning~ Cyanocobalamin oral 1000 micrograms (mcg) give 1 tablet by mouth in morning~ Docusate sodium 100 mg give 1 capsule by mouth in morning~ Fexofenadine HCL180 mg give 1 tablet by mouth in morning~ Polyvinyl alcohol 1.4% instill 1 drop in both eyes in morning~ Potassium gluconate 595 mg give 1 tablet by mouth in morning~ Selenium 200 mcg give 1 capsule by mouth in morning~ Tamsulosin HCL 0.4 mg give 1 capsule by mouth in morning~ Levetiracetam 1000 mg give tablet by mouth two times daily ~ Phenytoin sodium 100 mg give 1 capsule by mouth three times daily~ Sucralfate 1 gram (gm) give 1 tablet by mouth before meals~ Gabapentin 600 mg give 1.5 tablets by mouth four times dailyOn 8/26/25, Surveyor reviewed a Medication (Administration) Audit Report for R2 for 7/31/25 through 8/13/25 that indicated the following:~ On 7/31/25, R2's atorvastatin and gabapentin were not administered because the medications were unavailable.~ On 7/31/25, R2's levetiracetam, phenytoin, and sucralfate were administered late. ~ On 8/1/25, R2's cyanocobalamin, fexofenadine, polyvinyl eye drops, potassium, and selenium were not administered because the medications were unavailable.~ On 8/1/25, R2's amlodipine, clopidogrel, docusate sodium, tamsulosin, phenytoin, and gabapentin were administrated late. On 8/26/25 at 10:54 AM, Surveyor interviewed DON-B and Regional Registered Nurse (RRN)-F. DON-B started at the facility 6 weeks prior and indicated this was the first time DON-B was aware that medications were administered late or not administered at all. DON-B stated when residents are admitted in the afternoon Monday through Friday and orders are submitted to the pharmacy by 6:00 PM, medications arrive on the late-night delivery. RRN-F verified R2's medications did not arrive until 8/1/25. RRN-F confirmed some medications were pulled from contingency and administered late and other medications could not be provided as ordered. 2. On 8/25/25, Surveyor reviewed R4's medical record. R4 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and had diagnoses including spinal stenosis of cervical region, paranoid schizophrenia, major depression, and hypertension. R4's MDS assessment, dated 5/19/25, had a BIMS score of 15 out of 15 which indicated R4 had intact cognition. R4 was responsible for R2's healthcare decisions. R4's medical record contained the following physician orders:~ Amlodipine besylate 5 mg give 1 tablet by mouth in morning, dated 6/15/25~ Empagliflozin 10 mg give 1 tablet by mouth before breakfast, dated 5/14/25~ Metformin 500 mg give 2 tablets by mouth two times daily, dated 7/9/25~ Depakote sprinkles 125 mg give 2 capsules by mouth every morning and at bedtime, dated 8/20/25~ Bactrim DS 800-160 mg give 1 tablet by mouth two times daily, dated 8/20/25On 8/26/25, Surveyor reviewed a Medication (Administration) Audit Report for R4 for 8/1/25 through 8/25/25 that indicated the following:~ On 8/21/25 and 8/22/25, R4's 7:00 AM doses of amlodipine were not administered because the medication was unavailable.~ On 8/4/25, 8/21/25, and 8/22/25, R4's 7:00 AM doses of empagliflozin were not administered because the medication was unavailable.~ On 8/21/25 and 8/22/25, R4's 7:30 AM doses of metformin were not administered because the medication was unavailable.~ On 8/20/25, R4's 5:00 PM dose of metformin was not administered because the medication was unavailable.~ On 8/25/25, R4's 7:00 AM dose of amlodipine was administered late at 1:45 PM.~ On 8/25/25, R4's 7:30 AM dose of metformin was administered late at 1:43 PM.~ On 8/25/25, R4's 8:00 AM dose of Depakote was administered late at 1:44 PM.~ On 8/25/25, R4's 9:00 AM dose of Bactrim DS was administered late at 1:44 PM.On 8/25/25 at 2:48 PM, Surveyor interviewed R4 who indicated the facility has been out of medications lately and had to pull medications from contingency that morning. R4 indicated R4's AM medications were administered in the afternoon and agency staff seemed to have more issues with obtaining medications. R4 stated it makes R4 angry and feel like less of a person when R4 does not receive medication timely or at all and the facility doesn't seem to care. R4 indicated the facility won't allow R4 to supply R4's medications, however, the facility runs out and doesn't supply them. 3. On 8/25/25, Surveyor reviewed R10's medical record. R10 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and had diagnoses including Parkinson's disease, hypertension, diabetes, and dementia. R10's MDS assessment, dated 6/29/25, had a BIMS score of 5 out of 15 which indicated R10 had severely impaired cognition. R10 had an activated Power of Attorney for Healthcare (POAHC). R10's medical record contained the following physician orders:~Ropinirole HCL 3 mg give 1 tablet by mouth three times daily, dated 3/17/25On 8/26/25, Surveyor reviewed a Medication (Administration) Audit Report for R10 for 8/1/25 through 8/25/25 that indicated the following:~ On 8/22/25, R10's 9:00 AM dose of ropinirole was not administered because the medication was unavailable.4. On 8/25/25, Surveyor reviewed R9's medical record. R9 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and had diagnoses including contusion of left hip, unilateral osteoarthritis of left hip, and major depression. R9's MDS assessment, dated 7/22/25, had a BIMS score of 13 out of 15 which indicated R9 had intact cognition. R9 was responsible for R9's healthcare decisions. R9's medical record contained the following physician orders:~ Potassium chloride 20 milliequivalents (mEq) give 1 packet by mouth once daily, dated 1/13/25~ Protonix 40 mg give 1 tablet by mouth in morning, dated 6/20/25On 8/26/25, Surveyor reviewed a Medication (Administration) Audit Report for R9 for 8/1/25 through 8/25/25 which indicated the following:~ On 8/25/25, R9's 8:00 AM dose of potassium chloride was not administered.~ On 8/25/25, R9's 7:00 AM dose of Protonix was not administered because the medication was unavailable.5. On 8/25/25, Surveyor reviewed R5's medical record. R5 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and had diagnoses including fracture of left acetabulum, hypertension, and alcohol abuse. R5's MDS assessment, dated 8/12/25, had a BIMS score of 15 out of 15 which indicated R5 had intact cognition. R5 was responsible for R5's healthcare decisions.R5's medical record contained the following physician orders:~ Acetaminophen 500 mg give 2 tablets by mouth three times daily, dated 8/6/25~ Aspirin 81 mg give 1 tablet by mouth every morning and at bedtime, dated 8/6/25~ Metoprolol tartrate 50 mg give 1 tablet every morning and at bedtime, dated 8/6/25~ Multiple vitamin-minerals give 1 tablet by mouth once daily, dated 8/10/25~ Cholecalciferol 50 mcg give 1 tablet by mouth in the morning, dated 8/6/25On 8/26/25, Surveyor reviewed a Medication (Administration) Audit Report for R5 for 8/25/25 that indicated the following:~ On 8/25/25, R5's 8:00 AM doses of acetaminophen, aspirin, and metoprolol were administered late at 3:00 PM.~ On 8/25/25, R5's 9:00 AM dose of multiple vitamin-minerals was administered late at 3:00 PM.~ On 8/25/25, R5's 7:00 AM dose of cholecalciferol was administered late at 3:00 PM.On 8/25/25 at 11:49 PM, Surveyor interviewed R5 who indicated R5 was concerned that R5 had not received R5's AM medications yet. 6. On 8/26/25, Surveyor reviewed R6's medical record. R6 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and had diagnoses including hypertension, urinary tract infection (UTI), morbid obesity, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). R6's MDS assessment, dated 7/8/25, had a BIMS score of 15 out of 15 which indicated R6 had intact cognition. R6 was responsible for R6's healthcare decisions.R6's medical record contained the following physician orders:~ Valsartan 160 mg give 1 tablet by mouth in morning, dated 7/2/25~ Levothyroxine sodium 125 mcg give 1 tablet by mouth in morning, dated 7/2/25~ Fluoxetine HCL 40 mg give 1 capsule by mouth in morning, dated 7/2/25~ Trelegy Ellipta inhaler 200-62.5-25 micrograms/actuation (mcg/act) give 1 puff inhale in morning, dated 7/1/25~ Medroxyprogesterone acetate 5 mg give 1 tablet by mouth in morning, dated 7/2/25On 8/26/25, Surveyor reviewed a Medication (Administration) Audit Report for R6 for 8/25/25 that indicated the following:~ On 8/25/25, R6's 7:00 AM doses of valsartan, levothyroxine, fluoxetine, Trelegy Ellipta, and medroxyprogesterone were administered late at 1:20 PM. On 8/25/25 at 1:26 PM, Surveyor interviewed R6 who indicated R6 was frustrated and did not understand why medications were administered late. R6 also indicated R6 did not receive pain medication for a few days because the medication was not in stock. 7. On 8/25/25, Surveyor reviewed R7's medical record. R7 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and had diagnoses including multiple sclerosis, COPD, and hypertension. R7's MDS assessment, dated 5/15/25, had a BIMS score of 13 out of 15 which indicated R7 had intact cognition. R7 had an activated POAHC.R7's medical record contained the following physician orders:~ Multivitamin-minerals give 1 tablet by mouth in morning, dated 12/19/24~ Folic acid 1 mg give 5 tablets by mouth in morning, dated 12/19/24~ Vitamin B-Complex-C give 1 tablet by mouth in morning, dated 12/19/24~ Furosemide 20 mg give 1 tablet by mouth in morning, dated 12/19/24~ Ferrous sulfate 325 mg give 1 tablet by mouth every Monday, dated 12/19/25~ Clopidogrel bisulfate 75 mg give 1 tablet by mouth in morning, dated 12/19/24~ Hydroxyurea 500 mg give 2 capsules by mouth in morning on even days, dated 12/19/24~ Leflunomide 20 mg give 1 tablet by mouth in morning, dated 12/19/25~ Cholecalciferol 50 mcg give 1 tablet by mouth in morning, dated 12/19/24~ Loperamide HCL 2 mg give 1 capsule by mouth in morning, dated 12/19/24~ Lisinopril 10 mg give 1 tablet by mouth in morning, dated 2/6/25~ Oxybutynin chloride ER 5 mg give 1 tablet by mouth once daily, dated 2/24/25~ Liquid protein modular 30 milliliters (ml) give two times daily, dated 7/4/25~ Baclofen 10 mg give 0.5 tablet by mouth three times daily, dated 12/19/24On 8/26/25, Surveyor reviewed a Medication (Administration) Audit Report for R7 for 8/25/25 that indicated the following:~ On 8/25/25, R7's 7:00 AM doses of multivitamin-minerals, folic acid, furosemide, ferrous sulfate, clopidogrel bisulfate. hydroxyurea, leflunomide. loperamide, was administered late at 2:23 PM.~ On 8/25/25, R7's 7:00 AM doses of vitamin B-Complex-C and cholecalciferol were administered late at 2:19 PM.~ On 8/25/25, R7's 9:00 AM doses of lisinopril, oxybutynin chloride, and baclofen were administered late at 2:18 PM.~ On 8/25/25, R7's 9:00 AM dose of liquid protein modular was administered late at 2:15 PM.8. On 8/25/25, Surveyor reviewed R8's medical record. R8 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and had diagnoses including fracture of right clavicle, diabetes, hypertension, and COPD. R8's MDS assessment, dated 7/29/25, had a BIMS score of 15 out of 15 which indicated R8 had intact cognition. R8 was responsible for R8's healthcare decisions.R8's medical record contained the following physician orders:~ Tamsulosin HCL 0.4 mg give 1 capsule by mouth once daily, dated 7/23/25~ Lisinopril 40 mg give 1 tablet by mouth once daily, dated 7/23/25On 8/26/25, Surveyor reviewed a Medication (Administration) Audit Report for R8 for 8/25/25 that indicated the following:~ On 8/25/25, R8's 9:00 AM dose of tamsulosin was administered late at 1:52 PM.~ On 8/25/25, R8's 9:00 AM dose of lisinopril was administered late at 1:53 PM. On 8/25/25 at 1:10 PM, Surveyor interviewed agency Registered Nurse (RN)-I who indicated residents' medications were often missing from medication carts which RN-I thought was a pharmacy issue. RN-I indicated RN-I could not provide R4, R8, R9, and R10's medications timely because the medications were not in the cart. RN-I indicated contingency medications were not accessible to agency staff and management assistance was required. On 8/25/25 at 2:29 PM, Surveyor interviewed agency RN-H who indicated medication carts were a disaster and stated some nurses organized carts the way they liked them which made it more difficult to find medications. RN-H indicated there were numerous days when medications were not available and verified R5, R6, and R7's AM medications were administered late on 8/25/25. RN-H indicated RN-H sometimes notifies a manager if medication administration is running late, however, managers are usually busy and unable to provide assistance.On 8/26/25 at 10:54 AM, Surveyor interviewed DON-B and RRN-F. RRN-F verified the above missed medications and late medications. DON-B indicated DON-B was aware of the issue with missing medications and had a meeting with the pharmacy on 8/8/25. DON-B indicated DON-B continues to work with the pharmacy and nursing staff to address the issues and instructed staff to inform DON-B with continued concerns.
CONCERN (E) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Deficiency F0761 (Tag F0761)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on observation, staff interview, and record review, the facility did not ensure drugs and biologicals were stored in accordance with the facility's policy. This practice had the potential to aff...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, staff interview, and record review, the facility did not ensure drugs and biologicals were stored in accordance with the facility's policy. This practice had the potential to affect more than 4 of the 67 residents residing in the facility.On 8/26/25. the 400 North medication cart was left unlocked and unattended.Findings include:The facility's Storage of Medications policy, dated 4/2007, indicates: .7. Compartments (including, but not limited to, drawers, cabinets, rooms, refrigerators, carts, and boxes) containing drugs and biologicals shall be locked when not in use and trays or carts used to transport such items shall not be left unattended if open or otherwise potentially available to others .On 8/26/25 at 9:23 AM, Surveyor observed agency Registered Nurse (RN)-J leave a medication cart unlocked and unattended with an open computer screen on top of the cart that displayed resident information. The medication cart drawers faced the hallway. Surveyor observed one resident self-propel in a wheelchair in the hallway.On 8/26/25 at 9:23 AM, Surveyor interviewed RN-J who verified the medication cart should not be left unlocked and unattended and the computer should be turned off. RN-J indicated RN-J usually locks the cart but forgot when RN-J went to the kitchen to refill a water jug. On 8/26/25 at 10:54 AM, Surveyor interviewed Director of Nursing (DON)-B who indicated medications carts should be locked when unattended.
CONCERN (E) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Deficiency F0804 (Tag F0804)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on observation, staff and resident interview, and record review, the facility did not ensure food was served at a palatable, safe, and appetizing temperature for 4 residents (R) (R1, R3, R2 and ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, staff and resident interview, and record review, the facility did not ensure food was served at a palatable, safe, and appetizing temperature for 4 residents (R) (R1, R3, R2 and R4) of 6 sampled residents. This practice had the potential to affect more than 4 of the 67 residents residing in the facility.R1 and Anonymous Person (AP)-E (on behalf of R3) indicated hot and cold foods were not always served at palatable temperatures. R2 and R4 indicated the food was not palatable. During the lunch meal on 8/25/25, the facility served food that appeared to be burned. During the lunch meal on 8/26/25, food was not held at a palatable temperature.Findings include:The 2022 Federal Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Food Code documents at 3-501.16 Time/Temperature Control for Safety Food, Hot and Cold Holding: (A) Except during preparation, cooking, or cooling, or when time is used as the public health control as specified under S3-501.19, and except as specified under (B) and (C) of this section, time/temperature control for safety food shall be maintained: (1) At 57 Celsius (C) (135 Fahrenheit (F)) or above, except that roasts cooked to a temperature and for a time specified in 3-401.11(B) or reheated as specified in 3-403.11(E) may be held at a temperature of 54 degrees C (130 degrees F) or above; or (2) At 5 C (41 F) or less.The temperatures are designed to reduce the risk of foodborne illnesses by ensuring harmful pathogens are destroyed during cooking.On 8/25/25 at 9:58 AM, Surveyor interviewed AP-E who indicated R3 had a soft bite diet, however, the food R3 received was mushy and usually cold. AP-E felt that may be why R3 did not always eat.On 8/25/25 at 12:11 PM, Surveyor observed lunch in the fourth floor dining room. A posted menu indicated the meal was ham steak with baked sweet potato, cauliflower, and fruited gelatin. During lunch, Surveyor observed the following:~ R4 was at a table with 2 other residents. Surveyor observed staff serve R4's meal and heard R4 indicate the sweet potato was burned. R4 declined to eat the sweet potato. Staff took R4's plate and brought R4 an alternate. Surveyor also overheard R4 state to another resident that the food was terrible.~ Surveyor observed 4 other residents' sweet potatoes and noted the potatoes contained a black peel and edges.~ R3 was served ground ham, mashed cauliflower, and cut up sweet potato. R3 ate approximately half of the meal. (Documentation in R3's medical record indicated R3 usually ate between 50-75% of meals.)On 8/25/25 at 2:48 PM, Surveyor interviewed R4 who indicated the food was mediocre and institutional tasting.On 8/26/25 at 10:17 AM, Surveyor interviewed R2 who stated the food was gross and not palatable.On 8/26/25 at 12:05 PM, Surveyor observed lunch in the fourth floor dining room. A posted menu indicated the meal was sweet and sour chicken with steamed rice, steamed broccoli, a mini egg roll, and fruit fluff.On 8/26/25 at 12:55 PM, Surveyor asked Dietary Aide (DA)-C to complete holding temperatures in the steam table. Surveyor observed the following temperatures:~ Steamed rice: 91 F~ Sweet and sour chicken: 87 F~ Broccoli: 77 FSurveyor interviewed DA-C who was not aware of minimum holding temperatures or what steps to take if temperatures were below minimum holding temperatures.On 8/26/25 at 2:23 PM, Surveyor interviewed R1 who stated staff put cold food on the same tray and under the same food cover as hot food which made the cold food warm and gross.On 8/26/25 at 12:59 PM, Surveyor interviewed Food Service Director (FSD)-D who stated hot food should be held at 135 F or higher and cold food at 41 F or lower. FSD-D stated staff take holding temperatures prior to serving. FSD-D stated food should be at minimum holding temperatures at the end of meal service, however, minimum holding temperatures were not routinely monitored at the end of meal service. FSD-D stated staff should notify the kitchen if holding temperatures are not at minimum temperatures prior to serving. FSD-D stated there were concerns that the steam rollers were not holding temperatures and maintenance was notified. FSD-D stated it was recommended that the facility replace the steam rollers.
Jul 2025 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

Infection Control (Tag F0880)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

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

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, staff interview, and record review, the facility did not maintain an infection prevention and control program designed to prevent the transmission of communicable disease and infection for 2 residents (R) (R5 and R7) of 11 residents observed during the provision of care. Staff did not ensure enhanced barrier precautions (EBP) were followed during transfers and cares for R5.Staff did not ensure EBP was followed during catheter care for R7. In addition, staff did not ensure a catheter collection bag was stored properly and a collection bag exchange was completed appropriately. Staff did not ensure medical equipment was sanitized after use and before being placed in storage.Findings includeThe facility's Enhanced Barrier Precautions (EBP) policy, dated 4/1/24, indicates: .3. Implementation of EBP: .b. Personal protective equipment (PPE) for EBP is only necessary when performing high-contact care activities .4. High-contact resident care activities include: a. dressing, .c. transferring, d. providing hygiene, e. changing linens, f. changing briefs or assisting with toileting, g. device care or use: central lines, urinary catheters, feeding tubes, tracheotomy/ventilator tubes . The facility's Catheter Care policy, revised 2/5/25, indicates: Leg bags may be stored in a clean plastic bag when not in use or as per facility policy. The facility's Cleaning and Disinfection of Resident-Care Items and Equipment policy, revised July 2014, indicates: Durable medical equipment must be cleaned and disinfected before reuse by another resident.1. On 7/29/25 at 5:45 AM, Surveyor observed Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA)-D and CNA-E retrieve a lift and enter R5's room. A sign outside R5's door indicated R5 was on EBP. Surveyor asked permission to observe the transfer and noted CNA-D and CNA-E did not don PPE prior to entering R5's room. Upon entering the room, Surveyor observed dirty towels on the floor to the left of the door. CNA-E picked up the towels and put them in a bag. CNA-D and CNA-E then situated R5 in a sit-to-stand lift. While R5 stood in the lift in accordance with a standing program, CNA-D made R5's bed without donning a gown or gloves. While wearing gloves but not a gown, CNA-E cleaned up supplies used during cares and removed the garbage. After exiting R5's room at 5:57 AM, Surveyor asked CNA-E if PPE was required during cares and transfers for R5. CNA-E stated PPE was only needed for catheter care. On 7/29/25 at 6:02 AM, Surveyor interviewed Registered Nurse (RN)-F who indicated only gloves were needed during a transfer for a resident on EBP. RN-F indicated a gown was needed if the resident was on isolation precautions.2. On 7/29/25 at 8:14 AM, Surveyor observed CNA-H complete cares for R7. A sign outside R7's door indicated R7 was on EBP. While wearing gloves but not a gown, CNA-H removed R7's gown and blankets. When Surveyor asked if PPE should be worn during cares, CNA-H indicated PPE was only needed if emptying catheter or ostomy bags. When R7 asked CNA-H to exchange R7's catheter collection bag for a leg bag before putting on R7's pants, CNA-H donned a gown and retrieved a leg bag from the bathroom. Surveyor noted the bag did not contain a cap which CNA-H confirmed. CNA-H put the leg bag on R7s' bed without a barrier, retrieved a graduated cylinder to empty the collection bag, and knelt on the floor without a barrier while emptying the bag. CNA-H then emptied the cylinder, washed hands, donned clean gloves, and returned to R7's bedside to secure the leg bag. CNA-H disconnected the collection bag and placed the tubing on top of the uncapped bag on R7's bed. CNA-H then connected the leg bag without cleansing either connection port. R7 told CNA-H there were alcohol pads in the bathroom that CNA-H should use. Surveyor then observed the collection bag connection tube fall on the floor and leak urine. CNA-H retrieved alcohol wipes, disconnected the leg bag, and cleansed both connections with an alcohol wipe. CNA-H then hung the collection bag from a rail in the bathroom and wiped urine off the floor with a paper towel. When R7 stated to CNA-H that R7's daughter would bring vinegar to clean the collection bags, R7 indicated R7 did not know where the facility kept vinegar or if it was used to clean the bags. When Surveyor indicated the connection tube of the collection bag had been on the floor, CNA-H went to the bathroom, removed the collection bag from the railing, and put it in the garbage. 3. On 7/29/25 at 5:58 AM, Surveyor observed CNA-D return a sit-to-stand lift to the equipment storage area and walk down the hall away from the lift. When Surveyor asked if lifts should be sanitized after use, CNA-D confirmed lifts should be sanitized after use and retrieved sanitizing wipes. CNA-D returned to sanitize the lift.On 7/29/25 at 8:12 AM, Surveyor observed RN-I obtain a resident's vital signs with a vitals machine. RN-I removed the cuff and oxygen sensor and put them in storage and did not sanitize the machine after use.On 7/29/25 at 8:35 AM, Surveyor interviewed RN-I who indicated vitals machines should be sanitized after use. On 7/29/25 at 1:14 PM, Surveyor interviewed Infection Preventionist (IP)-J who confirmed staff should wear PPE during high-contact cares, including transfers. IP-J also verified staff should put dirty linens in garbage bags instead of on the floor. IP-J confirmed staff should not kneel on the floor without a barrier and should sanitize lifts and vitals machines after use. IP-J confirmed collection/leg bags should be stored in a basin in the bathroom when not in use, should contain a cap on the connection end, and should be cleaned with a 50/50 ratio of water and vinegar. IP-J confirmed a collection bag should be disposed of if the connection piece touches the ground. IP-J also verified staff should cleanse the connecting ends with alcohol prior to exchanging bags. On 7/29/25 at 1:31 PM, Surveyor interviewed Nursing Home Administrator (NHA)-A who indicated the facility does not have a policy for emptying/cleaning catheter collection bags.
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

Pressure Ulcer Prevention (Tag F0686)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on staff interview and record review, the facility did not provide the necessary care and services to prevent pressure inj...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on staff interview and record review, the facility did not provide the necessary care and services to prevent pressure injuries from developing and/or promote healing for 4 residents (R) (R2, R7, R14, and R15) of 4 sampled residents. R2 had a pressure injury on the sacrum and deep tissue damage to the right heel. R2's June 2025 Treatment Administration Record (TAR) contained orders for staff to monitor R2's bilateral feet wounds, offer changes of position during the day, apply zinc cream to the sacrum, encourage R2 to wear soft boots at all times, ensure sheep skin is in place at the foot of R2's bed, and good change of position with toileting schedules. The orders were not consistently completed.R7 had a pressure injury on the sacrum. R7's June 2025 Medication Administration Record (MAR) and TAR) contained orders for staff to reposition R7 every 2 hours, encourage change of position every 1-2 hours, and apply silver sulfadiazine (wound cream) to R7's coccyx. The orders were not consistently completed. R14 had pressure injuries on the right foot and sacrum. R14's July 2025 MAR and TAR contained orders for Arginaid powder (wound nutrition supplement), liquid protein (wound nutrition supplement), skin prep, and wound cleanse/wash/dressing. The orders were not consistently completed. R15 had deep tissue injuries of the left foot and left buttock. R15's July 2025 MAR and TAR contained orders for skin prep and offloading left buttock with good side-to-side repositioning. The orders were not consistently completed.Findings include:The facility's Pressure Injury/Skin Integrity policy, dated 10/21/24, indicates: It is the policy of this facility to enable nursing staff to manage wounds and select appropriate interventions .Based on the comprehensive assessment of a resident, this facility will ensure: A resident receives care consistent with professional standards of practice to prevent pressure injuries and does not develop pressure injuries .A resident with a pressure injury receives necessary treatment and services, consistent with professional standards of practice, to promote healing, prevent infection, and prevent new ulcers from developing .The goal for wound care is to prevent or manage the cause, provide a moist wound healing environment, avoid further trauma, protect surrounding skin .Interventions should be documented in the resident's electronic medical record (EMR) .Residents with risk for or who have a loss of skin integrity will receive the appropriate treatment/services .Repositioning and/or off-loading .Routine ongoing documentation should be conducted related to the resident's skin condition and the resident's response to the care and treatment of the skin. The frequency of documentation shall be determined based on the resident's individual needs .Wound documentation is more detailed than routine skin documentation and shall include information related to the wound based on a clinical assessment.1.On 7/29/25, Surveyor reviewed R2's medical record. R2 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and had diagnoses including pathological fracture, subsequent encounter for fracture with routine healing, pain, abnormalities of gait and mobility, unsteadiness on feet, and localized edema. R2's Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 5/5/25, had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 15 out of 15 which indicated R2 had intact cognition. R2's MDS assessment, dated 8/16/23, indicated R2 had a stage 3 pressure injury upon admission. R2 made R2's own healthcare decisions and was discharged to the hospital on 6/20/25. R2's medical record indicated R2 had pressure-induced deep tissue damage to the right heel (dated 10/25/24). A skin/wound note, dated 5/8/25, indicated R2's previous stage 3 sacral pressure injury had reopened and measured 3.0 centimeters (cm) x 2.0 x 0.1 cm. R2 indicated the area was painful. Frequent change of position was offered.Surveyor noted the following orders were not documented as completed on R2's June 2025 TAR:~ Monitor bilateral feet for new or worsening wounds. Chart per progress note and update provider if concerns noted at bedtime (HS) (ordered 12/27/24). The order was not documented as completed on 6/9/25, 6/10/25, and 6/15/25.~ Offer to get resident up during the day for change of position. Chart refusals and interventions that occurred, two times a day (ordered 5/29/25). The order was not documented as completed on 6/10/25 (PM) and 6/15/25 (PM). ~ Sacrum treatment, apply skin prep followed by zinc 20% cream every morning and at bedtime, chart assessment per progress note (ordered 5/29/25). The order was not documented as completed on 6/9/25 (HS) and 6/10/25 (HS). ~ Encourage resident to wear soft boots at all times, every shit (ordered 10/24/24). The order was not documented as completed on 6/10/25 (PM) and 6/15/25 (PM).~ Good change of position with toileting schedule, every shift for open area (ordered 11/20/24). The order was not documented as completed on 6/10/25 (PM) and 6/15/25 (PM).~ Sheep skin to base of foot of bed, check placement due to injuries to feet, every shift (ordered 8/5/24). The order was not documented as completed on 6/10/25 (PM) and 6/15/25 (PM). 2. On 7/29/25, Surveyor reviewed R7's medical record. R7 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and had diagnoses including pressure ulcer of sacral region stage 4 and Parkinsonism. R7's MDS assessment, dated 3/24/25, indicated R7 had 3 pressure injuries upon admission.Surveyor noted the following orders were not documented as completed on R7's July 2025 MAR and TAR.TAR:~ Reposition resident every 2 hours to keep off wound on coccyx .until healed (ordered 3/31/25). The order was not documented as completed on 7/2/25 (10:00 PM), 7/3/25 (4:00 AM and 6:00 AM), 7/9/25 (4:00 PM, 6:00 PM, 8:00 PM, and 10:00 PM), 7/17/25 (4:00 AM and 6:00 AM), 7/19/25 ( 12:00 AM, 2:00 AM, 4:00 AM, and 6:00 AM), 7/23/25 (8:00 AM, 10:00 AM, 12:00 PM, and 2:00 PM), 7/25/25 (4:00 PM, 6:00 PM, 8:00 PM, and 10:00 PM) and 7/28/25 (4:00 PM, 6:00 PM, 8:00 PM, and 10:00 PM).~ Encourage (change of position) (every) 1-2 hours, every shift (ordered 3/21/25). The order was not documented as completed on 7/2/25 (PM), 7/9/25 (PM), 7/18/25 (night (NOC)), 7/23/25 (AM), and 7/28/25 (PM).MAR:~ Silver sulfadiazine .apply to gluteal (buttock) fold coccyx topically, every morning and at bedtime for open area (ordered 6/29/25 and discontinued 7/10/25). The treatment was not documented as completed on 7/1/25 (AM).3. On 7/29/25, Surveyor reviewed R14's medical record. R14 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and had diagnoses including hemiplegia affecting right side, muscle weakness, pressure ulcer stage 4 of other site, pressure ulcer stage 3 of right heel, and pressure ulcer stage 3 of sacral region. R14's MDS assessment, dated 10/24/24, indicated R14 had 3 pressure injuries upon admission. Surveyor noted the following orders were not documented as completed on R14's July 2025 MAR and TAR.MAR:~ Arginaid powder packet, three times a day for wound healing (ordered 10/24/24). The order was not documented as completed on 7/5/25 (2:00 PM).~ Liquid protein modular (wound nutrition supplement), three times a day for wound healing (ordered 10/24/24). The order was not documented as completed on 7/5/25 (2:00 PM). TAR:~ Apply skin prep to right lateral ankle and bilateral heels, every night shift (ordered 4/17/25). The treatment was not documented as completed on 7/12/25 and 7/17/25.~ Right lateral foot (treatment), cleanse with wound cleanser, apply skin prep to wound bed, cover with white bordered gauze, every night shift (ordered 7/10/25 and discontinued 7/17/25). The treatment was not documented as completed on 7/12/25. ~ Right lateral foot (treatment) cleanse with wound cleanser, apply skin prep to wound bed, cover with white bordered gauze, every night shift (ordered 6/29/25 and discontinued on 7/10/25). The treatment was not documented as completed on 7/9/25.~ Wash wound with wound wash, pat dry, apply skin prep and cover with bordered foam dressing, wound to coccyx .Tuesday, Thursday, Saturday, every night shift (ordered 7/8/25). The treatment was not documented as completed on 7/12/25 and 7/17/25.4. On 7/29/25, Surveyor reviewed R15's medical record. R15 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and had diagnoses including heart failure and severe protein-calorie malnutrition. R15's MDS assessment, dated 6/10/25, indicated R15 had an unstageable pressure injury upon admission.Surveyor noted the following orders were not documented as completed on R15's July 2025 MAR and TAR.MAR:~ Apply skin prep daily in the evening for (deep tissue injury), left foot (ordered 6/13/25). The treatment was not documented as completed on 7/9/25.TAR:~ Offload left buttock due to (deep tissue injury), every shift (ordered 6/4/25 and discontinued 7/13/25). The order was not documented as completed on 7/9/25 (PM).~ Offload left buttock due to (deep tissue injury), good side-to-side positioning every shift (ordered 7/13/25). The order was not documented as completed on 7/16/25 (NOC), 7/23/25 (AM), and 7/28/25 (PM).On 7/29/25 at 4:48 PM, Surveyor interviewed Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN)-K who indicated staff should document in a resident's MAR/TAR if wound care is completed. LPN-K confirmed LPN-K received education on assessing and reporting new wounds but did not recall receiving education on MAR/TAR documentation.On 7/29/25 at 4:57 PM, Surveyor interviewed Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN)-L who indicated LPN-L was educated via phone on change of condition and received online wound education via LPN-L's nursing agency. LPN-L did not recall receiving education on MAR/TAR documentation.On 7/29/25 at 5:09 PM, Regional Nurse Consultant (RNC)-C showed Surveyor the facility's plan of correction, dated 6/7/25, which indicated staff education was provided to verify wound orders and complete skin assessments. The plan of correction also included skin checks and assessment completion. Surveyor noted the plan of correction did not refer to treatment records or documentation. RNC-C verified the 6/7/25 audits did not include treatments/orders that were not documented as completed. RNC-C indicated RNC-C started looking into MAR/TAR documentation on 7/14/25 but did not have a plan of correction yet. When Surveyor showed RNC-C the blank spaces for wound care in R14's MAR/TAR, RNC-C indicated the treatments should have been documented and stated the facility did not have a plan of correction specific to missing wound treatment documentation. RNC-C indicated if a resident is unavailable for wound care, staff should enter a 9 in the resident's MAR/TAR and write a corresponding progress note.
Apr 2025 3 deficiencies
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Deficiency F0697 (Tag F0697)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on staff interview and record review, the facility did not ensure effective pain management was provided for 1 resident (R...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on staff interview and record review, the facility did not ensure effective pain management was provided for 1 resident (R) (R2) of 1 sampled resident. R2 was not assessed or provided pain medication during the night (NOC) shift of 3/11/25 into 3/12/25. Findings include: The facility's Pain Management Guidelines policy, dated 2/24/25, indicates: .Based on the comprehensive assessment of a resident, the facility must ensure residents receive treatment and care in accordance with professional standards of practice, the comprehensive care plan, and the resident's choices related to pain management .Strategies for the prevention and management of pain may include but are not limited to: Assessing the potential for pain, recognizing the onset, presence, and duration of pain, and assessing the characteristics of the pain .Expressions of pain may be verbal or nonverbal and are subjective . On 4/23/25, Surveyor reviewed R2's medical record. R2 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and had diagnoses including chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), congestive heart failure, anxiety disorder, and failure to thrive. R2's Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 3/17/25, had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 14 out of 15 which indicated R2 was not cognitively impaired. R2 was responsible for R2's healthcare decisions. Surveyor reviewed a Concern/Comment Report, dated 3/12/25, that indicated R2 reported to staff that R2 did not receive pain medication the previous night. Surveyor reviewed R2's Medication Administration Record (MAR) which contained the following orders and administered doses: ~ Hydrocodone-acetaminophen oral tablet 5-325 milligrams (mg) Give 1 tablet by mouth every 6 hours as needed for pain. The first dose was administered on 3/12/25 at 10:30 AM for pain at a level 9 out of 10 (10 being the worst pain). ~ Acetaminophen oral tablet 500 mg Give 1 tablet by mouth every 4 hours as needed for pain. The first dose was administered on 3/21/25 at 6:25 AM for pain at a level 3 out of 10. R2's medical record contained a note, dated 3/11/25 at 3:04 PM, that indicated R2 had not had pain and did not hurt at any time in the last five days. No indicators of pain were present at that time. (No other pain assessments were noted in R2's medical record until hydrocodone/acetaminophen was administered as indicated above.) On 4/23/25, Surveyor reviewed R2's Treatment Administration Record (TAR) which contained the following order: ~ Pain assessment for 3 days every shift until 3/13/25 at (11:50 PM). The order contained nurses' initials on all shifts except for the night (NOC) shift of 3/11/25 into 3/12/25. On 4/23/25 at 4:51 PM, Surveyor interviewed Director of Nursing (DON)-B who verified R2's medical record indicated R2 was not assessed for pain and did not receive pain medication on the NOC shift of 3/11/25 into 3/12/25.
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Pharmacy Services (Tag F0755)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, staff and resident interview, and record review, the facility did not provide pharmaceutical services to e...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, staff and resident interview, and record review, the facility did not provide pharmaceutical services to ensure the accurate administration of medication for 3 residents (R) (R9, R1 and R3) of 9 sampled residents. R9 had an order for Tresiba (long-acting insulin) and self-administered the medication. R9 did not have a physician order to self-administer Tresiba or a self-administration of medication assessment that indicated R9 could self-administer Tresiba. In addition, 444 units of R9's Tresiba were unaccounted for and allegedly borrowed from other residents' supplies for administration. R1's medical record indicated R1 did not receive multiple doses of medication, including controlled substances and pain medication. In addition, R1 did not receive Rosuvastatin on 4/23/25 and had to request the medication from Registered Nurse (RN)-G. R3's medical record indicated R3 did not receive an injection as ordered. Findings include: The facility's Administering Medications policy, revised 12/2024, indicates: Medications shall be administered in a safe and timely manner, and as prescribed .3. Medications must be administered in accordance with the orders, including any required time frame .13. Insulin pens containing multiple doses of insulin are for single-resident use only. Changing the needle does not make it safe to use insulin pens for more than one resident .18. If a drug is withheld, refused, or given at a time other than the scheduled time, the individual administering the medication shall initial and circle the Medication Administration Record (MAR) space provided for that drug and dose. 19. The individual administering the medication must initial the resident's MAR on the appropriate line after giving each medication and before administering the next ones. 20. As required or indicated for a medication, the individual administering the medication will record in the resident's medical record: a. The date and time the medication was administered, the dose, the route of administration site (if applicable), any complaints or symptoms for which the drug was administered, any results achieved and when those results were observed, and the signature and title of the person administering the drug 23. Medications ordered for a particular resident may not be administered to another resident .24. Residents may self-administer their own medications only if the attending physician, in conjunction with the interdisciplinary care planning team, has determined that they have the decision-making capacity to do so safely . 1. On 4/23/25, Surveyor reviewed R9's medical record. R9 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and had diagnoses including left lower leg fracture, diabetes mellitus, and end-stage renal disease which required dialysis. R9's Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 1/20/25, had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 14 out of 15 which indicated R9 was not cognitively impaired. R9 was responsible for R9's healthcare decisions. R9's Medication Administration Record (MAR) contained the following order and information: ~Tresiba flextouch subcutaneous solution pen-injector 100 units/milliliter (ml) (Insulin degludec (generic name for Tresiba)) Inject 18 units subcutaneously one time a day for diabetes. R9's 9:00 AM dose on 4/6/25 was marked 09 which indicated other/see nurse note. A medication administration note, dated 4/6/25 at 8:14 AM, indicated R9's 18 units of Tresiba were not administered because there was no supply in the facility. The note indicated R9's Tresiba was ordered from the pharmacy by the charge Registered Nurse (RN) who notified R9's physician. On 4/23/25 at 11:53 AM, Surveyor interviewed agency RN-C via phone. RN-C verified RN-C entered the above note in R9's medical record. RN-C indicated RN-C received a text message from the charge RN to borrow Tresiba from another resident to administer to R9 on 4/6/25. RN-C refused to do so and entered the above note in R9's medical record. RN-C indicated RN-C observed an unidentified nurse borrow Tresiba from another resident for R9 on 4/7/25. RN-C indicated the nurse asked RN-C, We still don't have Tresiba? to which RN-C told the nurse RN-C was not able to administer Tresiba on 4/6/25. RN-C indicated the nurse stated, I'm just gonna borrow. On 4/23/25, Surveyor reviewed an email from the pharmacy to Director of Nursing (DON)-B, dated 4/23/25, that indicated the pharmacy sent one 3 ml pen of Tresiba with each dispensing on 2/11/25 and 3/13/25. On 4/23/25 at 12:15 AM, Surveyor and RN-D observed R9's Tresiba pen in the medication cart. The Tresiba pen had an open date of 4/10/25 and a dispensed (from pharmacy) date of 4/9/25. RN-D verified R9's Tresiba pen had 50 units left. On 4/23/25, Surveyor reviewed R9's MARs which indicated the following: ~ From 2/11/25 to 3/19/25, R9 received 20 units of Tresiba daily which was totaled 36 doses. (R9 refused the 3/2/25 dose.) ~ From 3/20/25 to 4/9/25, R9 received 18 units of Tresiba daily which totaled 20 doses. (The 4/6/25 dose was not signed out and the open date on the current pen was 4/10/25.) ~ Each Tresiba pen strength was 100 units per ml and contained 3 ml which totaled 300 units per pen. On 4/23/25, Surveyor calculated the following based on the above information: ~ 22 units x 36 doses (2 units are wasted with each dose to prime needle) = 792 units ~ 20 units x 20 doses (2 units are wasted with each dose to prime needle) = 400 units ~ 792 + 400 = 1192 - 600 (total of two pens delivered from pharmacy) = 592 units unaccounted for doses allegedly administered as indicated in R9's MAR. On 4/23/25 at 1:20 PM, Surveyor interviewed Pharmacy Manager (PM)-E via phone. PM-E indicated R9's Tresiba was on a refill by demand schedule meaning the facility needs to alert the pharmacy when the medication is running low to obtain a refill. PM-E was unsure if R9 brought Tresiba with R9 when R9 was admitted to the facility. PM-E indicated one Tresiba pen was considered a supply of approximately 13 doses. Following a discussion of the above mathematical calculations by Surveyor, PM-E verified the calculations. PM-E indicated R9's physician order for Tresiba to be administered daily and one pen provided approximately 13 doses (therefore 13 days) worth of medication. PM-E indicated there was approximately one month between facility requests for refills on R9's Tresiba. On 4/23/25, Surveyor reviewed R9's medical record which did not indicate R9 brought medications to the facility. On 4/23/25 at 1:39 PM, Surveyor interviewed DON-B who indicated Tresiba was not kept in the facility's contingency supply. DON-B indicated R9 was admitted to the facility from the hospital and medications were not sent with R9. DON-B indicated R9's medical record indicated the facility received a 200 unit/ml Tresiba pen from pharmacy on 1/14/25. R9 had an admission order for Tresiba 28 units daily before the order was changed based on R9's blood sugar results. DON-B indicated the facility received a Tresiba pen from the pharmacy when R9's order changed on 1/31/25 to 100 units/ml. Surveyor calculated with DON-B the following information: ~ From 2/2/25 to 2/10/25, R9 received 17 units of Tresiba daily which totaled 8 doses. (The 2/1/25 dose was not signed out and R9 refused 2/3/35 dose.) ~ 19 units x 8 doses = 152 units ~ 300 units (total in one pen) - 152 units = 148 units ~ 592 units (from above calculations) - 148 units = 444 units unaccounted for and allegedly administered as indicated in R9's MAR. DON-B verified nurses should not borrow medication from other residents. When asked how DON-B accounted for the discrepancy, DON-B indicated R9 did not want anyone to give R9 injections. DON-B indicated R9 dialed R9's own dose on the pen and self-administered the medication. When asked if a nurse verified the dose R9 prepared, DON-B did not think so. DON-B verified R9's medical record did not contain a physician order or self-administration of medication assessment for R9 to self-administer Tresiba. In addition, R9 did not have a care plan for self-administration of medication.2. On 4/23/25, Surveyor reviewed R1's medical record. R1 had diagnoses including chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), pulmonary embolus, edema, venous thrombosis and embolism, wedge compression fracture of unspecified thoracic vertebra subsequent encounter for fracture with routine healing, iron deficiency, borderline personality disorder, and major depressive disorder. R1's MDS assessment, dated 1/25/24, had a BIMS score of 15 out of 15 which indicated R1 was not cognitively impaired. On 4/23/25 at 5:17 AM, Surveyor interviewed R1 whose call light was activated. R1 indicated R1 was missing an AM medication. R1 showed Surveyor a medication cup and indicated R1 knew R1's medications and Rosuvastatin (used to lower bad cholesterol levels and fats in the blood) was missing. R1 indicated R1 expressed concerns about missed medications in the past but the issue has continued. RN-G then answered R1's call light and R1 indicated Rosuvastatin was missing from the medication cup. RN-G indicated RN-G thought Rosuvastatin was in the cup. Surveyor observed R1 show RN-G the cup and asked RN-G to check the back of the blister pack to ensure the medication was not stuck to the back of the paper. RN-G left R1's room and returned a short time later with Rosuvastatin which was stuck to the back of the paper on the blister pack. R1 indicated R1 frequently has to request medications that were not administered at the right time. R1 stated in February (2025), R1 was not administered medications at night, including gabapentin and pain medication and knew R1 was not the only resident who was not administered medication. R1 fears residents who cannot speak for themselves or do not know their medications do not receive all of their medications. R1 indicated R1 has severe pain and requires medication to be comfortable and maintain independence and happiness. R1 indicated AM and PM shift staff are better than NOC shift staff at administering medication. On 4/23/25 at 5:50 AM, Surveyor interviewed RN-G who works the NOC shift and administers medication. RN-G indicated RN-G has never missed a medication before and thought the medication was in the cup. RN-G indicated after RN-G was alerted by R1 that Rosuvastatin was not administered, RN-G found the medication still attached to the paper on the back of the blister pack. On 4/23/25, Surveyor reviewed R1's February 2025 MAR and noted the following medications were not documented as administered for the administration time of 10:00 PM/11:00: ~ 2/6/25: APAP extra strength oral 500 milligram (mg) tablet (an analgesic medication used to treat pain). ~ 2/16/25: APAP extra strength oral 500 mg tablet and hydromorphone HCI 2 mg (an opioid medication used to treat pain). ~ 2/26/25: Ferrous sulfate 325 mg tablet (an iron supplement used to treat and prevent iron deficiency); APAP extra strength oral 500 mg tablet; Gabapentin 100 mg x 2 (an anticonvulsant medication used to treat pain) and one 300 mg tablet to equal 500 mg; and lidocaine (an anesthetic medication used to treat pain). R1's medical record did not contain progress notes that indicated if the medication was administered, refused, or unavailable. For the administration time of 6:00 PM: ~ 2/26/25: Ropinirole HCI oral tablet 3 mg (used to treat Parkinson's disease and restless legs syndrome), tizanidine HCI 2 mg (a muscle relaxant), and hydromorphone HCI 2 mg A progress note, dated 2/11/25, indicated the following: ~ Lidocaine HCl injection solution 1 % Inject 10 ml intramuscularly one time only for muscle pain for 1 day to be administered at bedside by MD for trigger point injections. Noted as not done. ~ Kenalog 40 injection suspension Inject 40 mg intramuscularly one time only for muscle pain for 1 day to be administered at bedside by MD for trigger point injections. Noted as not done. R1's medical record did not indicate why medications were not administered. On 4/23/25, Surveyor reviewed R1's March 2025 MAR and noted the following medications were not indicated as administered for the medication administration time of 10:00 PM/11:00 PM: ~ 3/4/25: Ferrous sulfate 325 mg and APAP 2 tablets 500 mg R1's medical record did not indicate if the medications were administered, refused, or unavailable. On 4/23/25 at 12:09 PM, Surveyor interviewed DON-B who indicated there should be a progress note to indicate why a medication was not administered, if it was refused, or if it was unavailable. DON-B reviewed R1's MAR and could not explain why the medication was not signed out and could not confirm if it was administered, refused, or unavailable. DON-B indicated nursing staff are trained to use code 9 on the MAR when a medication is not administered and to write a progress note. DON-B indicated code 2 indicates the medication was refused. DON-B verified staff did not follow the facility's medication administration policy since the medications were not documented as administered in February or March 2025. 3. On 4/23/25, Surveyor reviewed R3's medical record. R3 had diagnoses including anxiety, depression, cirrhosis of liver, chronic kidney disease stage 3, left knee septic arthritis, severe portal hypertensive gastropathy, severe portal hypertensive duodenopathy, and atrial fibrillation. R3's MDS assessment, dated 2/8/25, had a BIMS score of 11 out of 15 which indicated R3 had moderate cognitive impairment. On 4/23/25 at 8:37 AM, Surveyor interviewed R3 who indicated R3 knew all of R3's medications and frequently had to request missing medications from nursing staff after R3's medications were provided. R3 indicated R3 missed a recent injection and was unsure why. R3 indicated R3 did not trust that nursing staff administered medication as ordered and stated R3 always checks R3's medications to ensure R3 receives the right medications. A progress note, dated 4/7/25, indicated: Epoetin Alfa injection solution 10000 units/ml (used to treat anemia in those with chronic kidney disease): Inject 10000 units subcutaneously once daily every 14 days for thrombocytopenia. Hold if hemoglobin is less than 11. (A medication administration progress note indicated the medication was not administered because a hemoglobin level was obtained.) On 4/23/25 at 12:09 PM, Surveyor interviewed DON-B who reviewed R3's medical record and indicated the missed Epoetin Alfa injection on 4/7/25 indicated a hemoglobin level was not completed. DON-B indicated an order was not obtained for the hemoglobin level. DON-B confirmed the order should have been obtained by nursing staff. DON-B indicated it was a reoccurring order for R3 and could not explain why it was not completed.
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Deficiency F0806 (Tag F0806)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, staff and resident interview, and record review, the facility did not ensure food preferences were honored for 2 residents (R) (R1 and R3) of 2 sampled residents. R1 was not prov...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, staff and resident interview, and record review, the facility did not ensure food preferences were honored for 2 residents (R) (R1 and R3) of 2 sampled residents. R1 was not provided R1's preferred breakfast item of fried eggs and was told by kitchen staff that eggs were not available. R3's meal ticket indicated R3's food preference for breakfast was 3 fried eggs if available. R3 did not receive fried eggs and was told by kitchen staff that eggs were not available. Findings include: 1. On 4/23/25, Surveyor reviewed R1's medical record. R1 had diagnoses including chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), pulmonary embolus, edema, venous thrombosis and embolism, wedge compression fracture of unspecified thoracic vertebra subsequent encounter for fracture with routine healing, iron deficiency, and borderline personality disorder. R1's Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 1/25/24, had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 15 out of 15 which indicated R1 was not cognitively impaired. On 4/23/25 at 5:17 AM, Surveyor interviewed R1 who indicated R1 was not satisfied with most food items and had regularly received fried eggs for breakfast which was R1's preference. R1 indicated Dietary Manager (DM)-H told R1 that the facility could not get shelled eggs because the vendor did not have any available. R1 indicated DM-H talked with R1 on many occasions and attempted to find other foods that R1 liked for breakfast. R1 indicated liquid eggs are not palatable and R1 feels R1 should be able to have fried eggs for breakfast on a daily basis. On 4/23/25 at 7:00 AM, Surveyor toured the kitchen and observed a case of pasteurized eggs, a case of liquid eggs, and a box of hard-boiled eggs in the walk-in cooler. Surveyor noted the box of shelled eggs was labeled Desserts only. Surveyor interviewed Kitchen Manager (KM)-F who indicated the eggs in the walk-in cooler were for special items because the price of eggs was expensive and the facility's budget did not allow the facility to purchase eggs with every order. KM-F thought the case of eggs was delivered by mistake because the facility usually only purchased hard boiled eggs and liquid eggs that were served to residents for breakfast. On 4/23/25 at 8:00 AM, Surveyor observed meal service at the fourth floor steam table. Surveyor noted R1's meal tray contained scrambled eggs with ham, cheese, and peppers. R3's meal ticket indicated 3 fried eggs if available. Surveyor noted the fourth floor steam table had scrambled eggs but no fried eggs. On 4/23/25 at 8:25 AM, Surveyor interviewed R1 who was eating an omelet scramble, rye toast, and two yogurts. R1 was happy with the rye toast and yogurt and stated, I want real eggs. R1 also stated, I won't stand for it. I don't want these rubbery eggs. R1 indicated R1 spoke with DM-H about the food. R1 indicated DM-H tries, however, R1 was informed real eggs can not be ordered by the facility due to the cost. R1 indicated R1 understands rising costs and but R1 is one person and wants to have fried eggs. R1 stated, I spend all my money here and should be able to eat what I like. 2. On 4/23/25, Surveyor reviewed R3's medical record. R3 had diagnoses including chronic kidney disease stage 3, left knee septic arthritis, erosive distal esophagitis, atrial fibrillation, anxiety, and gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). R3's MDS assessment, dated 2/8/25, had a BIMS score of 11 out of 15 which indicated R3 had moderately impaired cognition. On 4/23/25 at 8:45 AM, Surveyor interviewed R3 who had received a breakfast tray. R3 indicated R3 wanted and requested fried eggs for breakfast but had not received them for a long time. R3 indicated the scrambled eggs were egg goulash and disgusting and R3 would not eat them. R3 made a request to DM-H who informed R3 that eggs cannot be ordered due to cost and the eggs are not available. R3 indicated R3 understood the rising costs, however, eggs should be offered. R3 found it hard to believe the facility could not buy eggs. R3 indicated eggs in the form R3 and other residents request should be honored because that is their preference. On 4/23/25 at 12:40 PM, Surveyor interviewed DM-H who indicated the facility orders shelled eggs every week, however, the vendor is unable to provide them. DM-H indicated DM-H spoke with R1 who agreed to an egg scramble or hard boiled eggs. DM-H indicated shelled eggs are in the cooler but are only for specialty items. DM-H indicated the facility serves the skilled nursing and assisted living facilities. DM-H indicated one case of eggs was not enough to serve all residents who request a fried egg. DM-H indicated DM-H already discussed a cooked and frozen fried egg patty with residents and was looking into the possibility of ordering the item. DM-H indicated residents who prefer fried eggs had a recent meal ticket change to if available. DM-H indicated shelled eggs are available but not served per residents' preferences because staff were cooking 50-60 fried eggs between both facilities which was beyond the facility's budget and what their vendor could provide. DM-H indicated DM-H is not allowed to order eggs from another vendor and kitchen staffing does not allow for one cook to spend the amount of time it takes to make fried eggs which are difficult to keep warm for service.
Jan 2025 11 deficiencies
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0551 (Tag F0551)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on staff interview and record review, the facility did not ensure court-ordered protective placement was obtained for 1 re...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on staff interview and record review, the facility did not ensure court-ordered protective placement was obtained for 1 resident (R) (R48) of 2 sampled residents. R48 had a legal Guardian. The facility did not obtain court-ordered protective placement to ensure R48 resided in the least restrictive environment at the facility. Findings include: The facility did not provide a policy regarding protective placement. State Statute Chapter 55.03(4) indicates court-ordered protective placement should be obtained for any resident admitted to a nursing home who has a legal Guardian and whose nursing home stay exceeds ninety days. State Statute Chapter 55.18 indicates protective placement is reviewed annually. On 1/27/25, Surveyor reviewed R48's medical record. R48 had a legal Guardian when R48 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. R48 had court-ordered Guardianship, dated 2006, with a successor Guardian appointed on 9/26/23. R48's medical record did not contain protective placement documentation. On 1/27/25, Surveyor requested protective placement paperwork for R48 from Nursing Home Administrator (NHA)-A. On 1/28/25, Surveyor received Guardianship paperwork from NHA-A but not protective placement paperwork. NHA-A indicated Social Worker (SW)-C was responsible for obtaining protective placement paperwork for residents who had Guardians. On 1/28/25 at 10:17 AM, Surveyor interviewed SW-C who indicated SW-C would look for R48's protective placement paperwork. SW-C indicated when a resident with a Guardianship is admitted , the Admissions Coordinator obtains the paperwork upon admission and SW-C ensures annual reviews are received from the county. SW-C indicated R48 had a Guardianship prior to admission and was admitted to the facility from a group home. On 1/28/25 at 2:28 PM, SW-C approached Surveyor and indicated the facility had not obtained protective placement for R48 but had contacted the county to initiate it. SW-C indicated the facility does not have a policy regarding protective placement. SW-C indicated the facility follows state and federal regulations which require protective placement and annual review of the placement for those placed in skilled nursing facilities larger than 16 beds.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0582 (Tag F0582)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on staff and resident representative interview and record review, the facility did not ensure 3 residents (R) (R13, R15, and R168) of 3 sampled residents received a copy of the Skilled Nursing F...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on staff and resident representative interview and record review, the facility did not ensure 3 residents (R) (R13, R15, and R168) of 3 sampled residents received a copy of the Skilled Nursing Facility Advanced Beneficiary Notice (ABN) form or were provided a Notice of Medicare Non-Coverage (NOMNC) form in a timely manner. The facility did not provide R13 and R15 with an ABN form or a timely NOMNC form when R13 and R15's Medicare services ended and R13 and R15 remained in the facility. The facility did not provide R168 with a timely NOMNC form when R168's Medicare services ended on 11/18/24. Findings include: The facility did not provide a policy regarding Medicare coverage/liability notices. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS)-10055 Skilled Nursing Facility Advanced Beneficiary Notice of Non-Coverage (ABN) form indicates: The ABN provides information to the beneficiary so the beneficiary can decide whether or not to get the care that may not be paid for by Medicare and assume financial responsibility .The ABN is only issued if the beneficiary intends to continue services and the Skilled Nursing Facility believes the services may not be covered under Medicare. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) form CMS-10123 indicates a NOMNC form must be delivered at least two calendar days before Medicare-covered services end or the second-to-last-day of service if care is not being provided daily. Note: The two-day advance requirement is not a 48-hour requirement .The provider must ensure the beneficiary or representative signs and dates the NOMNC form to demonstrate the beneficiary, or representative received the notice and understands the termination decision can be disputed. 1. From 1/27/25 to 1/29/25, Surveyor reviewed R13's medical record and noted R13 was provided a NOMNC and ABN form that indicated R13's Medicare services would end on 12/17/24. The facility provided a generated form that indicated the last day of R13's Medicare coverage was 12/17/24 and private pay for room and board would be effective 12/18/24. The form did not include R13 or R13's representative's signature or note that the forms were given or sent to R13 or R13's representative. The forms indicated R13 and/or R13's representative were provided the information verbally. R13 remained in the facility. On 1/28/25 at 10:32 AM, Surveyor interviewed R13 and R13's Power of Attorney ((POA)-K) and showed R13 and POA-K the NOMNC and ABN forms. R13 and POA-K both denied being verbally informed by the facility and indicated they did not receive the forms via mail. 2. From 1/27/25 to 1/29/25, Surveyor reviewed R15's medical record and noted R15 was provided a NOMNC and ABN form that indicated R15's Medicare services would end on 1/21/25. The facility provided a generated form that indicated the last day of R15's Medicare coverage was 1/21/25 and private pay for room and board would be effective 1/22/25. The form did not include R15 or R15's representative's signature or note that the forms were given or sent to R15 or R15's representative. The forms indicated R15 and/or R15's representative were provided the information verbally. R15 remained in the facility. On 1/28/25 at 9:48 AM, Surveyor interviewed R15's Legal Guardian ((LG)-I) via phone. LG-I indicated the facility did not call LG-I with the NOMNC and ABN information. LG-I confirmed LG-I did not receive the forms via mail and was not given a copy. 3. From 1/27/25 to 1/29/25, Surveyor reviewed R168's medical record and noted R168 was provided a NOMNC form that indicated R168's Medicare services would end on 11/17/24. The form did not include R168 or R168's representative's signature or note that the forms were given or sent to R168 or R168's representative. The forms indicated R168 and/or R168's representative were provided the information verbally. R168 discharged home. On 1/28/25 at 10:06 AM, Surveyor interviewed R168's Power of Attorney ((POA)-J) regarding the NOMNC form. POA-J indicated POA-J did not remember receiving a phone call from the facility that R168's Medicare coverage was ending. POA-J indicated if the facility sent the NOMNC form POA-J would have the form in R168's file. On 1/28/25 at 12:24 PM, Surveyor interviewed Minimum Data Set Coordinator (MDSC)-H who was responsible for providing NOMNC and ABN forms to residents. MDSC-H indicated MDSC-H left the forms in the resident's room or sent the forms via mail. MDSC-H was unable to provide documentation that the forms were sent or given to residents or their representatives. MDSC-H indicated the facility attempts to have a resident's representative sign the forms during a visit but will verbally inform a resident's representative via phone and mail or leave a copy of the form in the resident's room. MDSC-H indicated there is not a process to keep track of which forms are mailed or not mailed. MDSC-H confirmed the facility does not have a policy regarding Medicare coverage/liability notices. On 1/28/25 at 1:04 PM, Surveyor interviewed Nursing Home Administrator (NHA)-A who indicated notifications should be mailed and there should be documentation on the forms or in the resident's medical record that the notifications were sent.
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 F0583 (Tag F0583)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, staff interview, and record review, the facility did not provide privacy during showers for 1 resident (R)...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, staff interview, and record review, the facility did not provide privacy during showers for 1 resident (R) (R7) of 1 sampled resident. R7 indicated staff interrupted R7 and entered the shower room during R7's showers. R7 filed a grievance with the facility on 1/23/25. Staff created a sign for R7 to use while R7 showered, however, staff were not educated about the sign and interrupted R7 again on 1/27/25. Findings include: On 1/27/25, Surveyor reviewed R7's medical record. R7 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and had diagnoses including chronic heart failure, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), and pulmonary embolus. R7's Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 7/25/24, had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 15 out of 15 which indicated R7 had intact cognition. R7's medical record indicated R7 was responsible for R7's healthcare decisions. On 1/27/25 at 10:45 AM, Surveyor interviewed R7 who indicated a male Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) enters the shower room when R7 is showering. R7 indicated there are signs posted on the door not to disturb, but staff come in constantly to get linens. R7 indicated there is a shower curtain that guards R7, however. R7 does not like CNAs entering the room when R7 is showering. R7 indicated R7 filed a grievance but staff continue to enter the shower room. On 1/27/25 at 12:57 PM, Surveyor observed the shower room on the fourth floor which has a shower area on the left side and a bathtub area with curtains on the right side. Surveyor noted linens were stored in a closet on the bathtub side of the room. On 1/28/25 at 11:34 AM, Surveyor interviewed CNA-O who indicated CNA-O usually puts an ear to the door of the shower room to monitor for sound of use or knocks on the door prior to entering. CNA-O admitted that on more than one occasion CNA-O accidentally entered the shower room to obtain linens while R7 was showering. CNA-O apologized and indicated the shower was a communal shower. On 1/28/25 at 12:23 PM, Surveyor interviewed CNA-S who indicated R7 likes to have privacy during showers and R7 showers independently. CNA-S indicated if CNA-S needs to get in the room for linens, CNA-S knocks and asks for permission to enter. If R7 declines, CNA-S waits until R7 is done in the shower room. On 1/28/25 at 2:58 PM, Surveyor interviewed Director of Nursing (DON)-B who indicated DON-B met with R7 on 1/23/25 to address R7's grievance. DON-B created a magnetic sign for R7 to place on the shower door to alert staff that R7 is using the shower and wants privacy. On 1/29/25 at 10:01 AM, Surveyor interviewed R7 and observed the privacy sign that DON-B created. R7 indicated R7 was interrupted by two night shift CNAs during a shower on 1/27/25. On 1/29/25 at 10:32 AM, Surveyor interviewed Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN)-P who indicated LPN-P was not aware of a sign that was created for R7 while showering. On 1/29/25 at 10:34 AM, Surveyor interviewed CNA-Q who denied any knowledge of a sign that was created for R7 while showering. On 1/29/25 at 10:49 AM, Surveyor interviewed CNA-R who was aware of a previous blue sign but not aware of a new sign created for R7 while showering. On 1/29/25 at 11:58 AM, Surveyor interviewed DON-B who indicated DON-B had not educated all staff on use of the new sign for R7. DON-B indicated DON-B spoke with night shift staff that morning regarding the sign that was created on 1/23/25. DON-B indicated staff education was started on a 1:1 basis but verified there was no documentation or signed acknowledgment/communication sheets for the education.
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 staff and resident interview and record review, the facility did not ensure the provision of safe and comfortable water...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on staff and resident interview and record review, the facility did not ensure the provision of safe and comfortable water temperatures for 2 residents (R) (R7 and R16) of 23 sampled residents. R7 reported to staff that R7 did not have warm water while showering on multiple occasions. R16 reported that staff gave R16 a bath with cool water. Findings include: 1. On 1/27/25, Surveyor reviewed R7's medical record. R7 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and had diagnoses including chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and pulmonary embolus. R7's Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 7/25/24, had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 15 out of 15 which indicated R7 had intact cognition. R7's medical record indicated R7 was responsible for R7's healthcare decisions. On 1/27/25 at 11:46 AM, Surveyor interviewed R7 who indicated there was often no hot water from 7:00 AM to 7:00 PM in the fourth floor shower room. R7 was informed hot water was an issue because the laundry and kitchen used high volumes of hot water during that time. R7 was told the issue would be resolved in August of 2025. R7 indicated cold showers remained an issue. 2. On 1/27/25, Surveyor reviewed R16's medical record. R16 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and had diagnoses including pneumonia due to coronavirus, type 2 diabetes mellitus with diabetic neuropathy, major depressive disorder, and anxiety disorder. R16's MDS assessment, dated 1/2/25, indicated R16 had intact cognition. R16's care plan (dated 1/15/25) indicated R16 had a self-care performance deficit related to COVID-19, pneumonia, congestive heart failure (CHF), and diabetes mellitus. The care plan contained interventions for substantial/maximal assistance with bathing and avoid exposure to extreme heat or cold. On 1/27/25 at 1:00 PM, Surveyor interviewed R16 who reported an incident approximately two weeks prior when Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA)-O gave R16 a bath and the water was too cold. On 1/28/25, Surveyor reviewed the facility's grievances. Surveyor noted several grievances related to cold water for baths and showers with the latest grievance dated 1/3/25. The facility's response to the grievance (on 1/6/25)indicated the water was tested and it took approximately 13 minutes for the water to get warm. The grievance indicated the issue was addressed by maintenance who confirmed the water temperature was in the appropriate range but replaced the mixing valve which appeared to be worn out. On 1/28/25 at 12:25 PM, Surveyor interviewed CNA-O who indicated CNA-O has had trouble getting enough warm water. CNA-O indicated the building is old and if multiple residents use hot water there is not enough. CNA-O indicated the water starts out warm but gets cold before the bath tub is full. CNA-O informed other nursing staff but did not inform administration and indicated it is common knowledge that hot water is a continuous problem. CNA-O indicated warm water runs out on most days. CNA-O confirmed CNA-O ran out of warm water during a bath for R16 approximately two weeks prior and rinsed soap off of R16 with cool water. On 1/28/25 at 3:33 PM, Surveyor interviewed CNA-T who indicated there is usually enough hot water to begin showers. CNA-T indicated staff know they can not do more than 3 baths in a row or the fourth floor shower room will run out of hot water. On 1/28/25 at 12:38 PM and 1/29/25 at 1:40 PM, Surveyor interviewed Registered Nurse Manager (RNM)-L who verified RNM-L received several complaints about running out of hot water in the fourth floor shower room. RNM-L indicated RNM-L received complaints of cold water once per week in November and December of 2024. RNM-L indicated if 3 residents are showered back-to-back it can cause the facility to run out of warm water. RNM-L indicated cold water could be related to staff not understanding the knobs and indicated if the water is switched from the bath to shower head the water in the line could be cold. RNM-L provided education for a few staff but did not educate all staff. On 1/28/25 at 2:28 PM, Surveyor interviewed Nursing Home Administrator (NHA)-A and Director of Nursing (DON)-B. NHA-A verified NHA-A was aware of R7's grievance and thought the cold water issue was resolved. NHA-A indicated staff had not informed NHA-A of the continued issues. NHA-A verified residents who bath or shower should have hot water.
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Grievances (Tag F0585)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on staff and family interview and record review, the facility did not make a prompt effort to resolve a grievance for 1 re...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on staff and family interview and record review, the facility did not make a prompt effort to resolve a grievance for 1 resident (R) (R25) of 2 sampled residents. R25 had a lab culture obtained on 1/2/25. On 1/3/25, 1/4/25, 1/5/25, and 1/6/25, R25's Family Member ((FM)-N) called the facility for the culture results but staff were unable to provide the results. FM-N filed a grievance with the facility on 1/6/25. At a care conference for R25, FM-N was notified the grievance was resolved, however, the facility did not provide an explanation of what happened or the resolution. Findings include: The facility's Grievance Guideline policy, dated 4/23/18, indicates: The facility will ensure prompt resolution (within five calendar days) to all grievances, keeping the resident and resident representative informed throughout the investigation and resolution process .G. Response: Any employee of this facility who receives a complaint shall immediately attempt to resolve the complaint within their role and authority. If a complaint cannot be immediately resolved, the employee shall escalate that complaint to their supervisor and facility Grievance Official .A review of the completed complaint report: An interview with the person or persons reporting the incident if applicable .A root-cause analysis of all circumstances surrounding the incident . On 1/27/25, Surveyor reviewed R25's medical record. R25 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and had diagnoses including T12 compression deformity, chronic kidney disease, and anemia. R25's Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 12/8/24, had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 13 out of 15 which indicated R25 had intact cognition. R25's medical record indicated R25 was responsible for R25's healthcare decisions. On 1/27/25 at 1:19 PM, Surveyor interviewed FM-N who was upset that R25's lab cultures were not sent in timely and the only response FM-N received from a grievance filed on 1/6/25 was that the issue was resolved. FM-N indicated FM-N did not receive an explanation of what caused the delay and how the process would be improved in the future. On 1/28/25 at 2:00 PM, Surveyor interviewed Nursing Home Administrator (NHA)-A and Director of Nursing (DON)-B. NHA-A indicated FM-N reported a grievance on behalf of R25 via telephone on 1/6/25. DON-B indicated staff called the Nurse Practitioner (NP) about starting a broad-spectrum antibiotic, however, the NP indicated it was best to wait for the culture results before starting any treatment. NHA-A indicated a process change was implemented to ensure all refrigerators are checked when staff are at the facility to obtain samples. NHA-A indicated the process change was made with the clinical management team. NHA-A indicated there was no documentation of the process change or education to staff.
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, staff and resident interview, and record review, the facility did not ensure treatment and services were p...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, staff and resident interview, and record review, the facility did not ensure treatment and services were provided to prevent the development of pressure injuries and/or promote healing for 1 resident (R) (R44) of 4 sampled residents. R44 had impaired skin integrity and multiple wounds, including a chronic ulcer of the buttocks. R44's pressure-relieving air mattress was not correctly set to R44's body weight. In addition, R44's care plan did not contain an individualized setting for the mattress. Findings include: The facility's Wound Care Prevention and Program Management policy, dated 11/13/24, indicates: Interventions will be implemented to mitigate the risk for skin breakdown, based on individual risk factors, and may include, but are not limited to: a. The use of pressure redistribution device such as mattresses .Interventions should be documented in the resident's electronic medical record, including in the resident's individualized resident-centered plan of care .Residents with risk for or who have a loss of skin integrity will receive the appropriate treatment/services which may include .pressure relieving equipment .Interventions and treatments should be routinely evaluated for efficacy .A baseline plan of care will be developed to identify areas of concern, risk factors, or existing wounds, measurable goals of care, and to specify interventions to prevent and/or treat skin integrity . From 1/27/25 to 1/29/25, Surveyor reviewed R44's medical record. R44 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], received Hospice services, and had diagnoses including pressure-induced deep tissue injury of right heel, chronic venous ulcers of right foot, chronic ulcer of buttocks, and deconditioning. R44's Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 11/2/24, indicated R44 had intact cognition. R44's medical record indicated R44 was physically deconditioned and bed bound and R44's weight was 180 pounds. R44's care plan (dated 11/15/24) indicated R44 had potential for impairment to skin integrity related to incontinence and limited mobility. The care plan contained a goal that R44 would remain free of new skin impairment through the review date (2/13/25). The care plan contained the following intervention: Air Mattress (Specify Settings). Surveyor noted the air mattress settings were not individualized for R44. A wound care physician note, dated 1/16/25, indicated R44 had the following wounds: Venous wound of right leg, stage 4 pressure wound of left foot, arterial wound of right first toe, stage 4 pressure wound of left foot, unstageable deep tissue injury of right foot, end-stage skin failure of sacrum, and stage 3 pressure wound to right buttocks. On 1/27/25 at 12:12 PM, Surveyor interviewed R44 who indicated R44 was bed bound and had multiple areas of skin breakdown. Surveyor noted R44 had a pressure-relieving air mattress that was set to 360 pounds. On 1/29/25 at 1:12 PM, Surveyor interviewed Director of Nursing (DON)-B who indicated air mattress settings should be individualized for each resident and based on the resident's current weight. DON-B confirmed if R44's air mattress was set to 360 pounds, the air mattress was set incorrectly. On 1/29/25 at 1:38 PM, Surveyor reviewed R44's air mattress settings with Registered Nurse Manager (RNM)-L who confirmed R44's air mattress was set to 360 pounds. RNM-L indicated R44's air mattress should be set to 180 pounds based on R44's weight.
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, staff interview, and record review, the facility did not ensure 2 residents (R) (R15 and R368) of 3 sample...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, staff interview, and record review, the facility did not ensure 2 residents (R) (R15 and R368) of 3 sampled residents received the appropriate care and services to prevent urinary tract infections (UTI). R15's uncovered catheter bag was observed on the floor underneath R15's wheelchair on multiple occasions. R368 was on enhanced barrier precautions (EBP). R368's uncovered catheter bag was observed on the floor underneath R368's bed. Findings include: The facility's Catheter Care, Urinary Policy, dated 9/2014, indicates: The purpose of this procedure is to prevent catheter-associated urinary tract infections .1. Use standard precautions when handling or manipulating the drainage system. b. Be sure the catheter tubing and drainage bag are kept off the floor. 1. From 1/27/25 to 1/29/25, Surveyor reviewed R15's medical record. R15 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and had diagnoses including cerebral palsy, epilepsy, mutism, obstructive uropathy, and multidrug-resistant organism (MDRO). R15 also had a UTI within the last 30 days (12/24/24). R15's Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 12/31/24, had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 0 out of 15 which indicated R15 had severe cognitive impairment. The MDS also indicated R15 was dependent on staff for toileting, bathing, and hygiene. On 1/27/25 at 10:32 AM, Surveyor observed R15 in the dining area for approximately 15 minutes and noted R15's uncovered catheter bag was on the floor underneath R15's wheelchair. On 1/28/25 at 9:33 AM, Surveyor observed R15 in a wheelchair in the hallway outside the dining area. R15's uncovered catheter bag was on the floor underneath R15's wheelchair. On 1/29/25 at 8:34 AM, Surveyor observed R15 in a wheelchair in the hallway being pushed by a staff. R15's uncovered catheter bag was on the floor underneath R15's wheelchair. 2. From 1/27/25 to 1/29/25, Surveyor reviewed R368's medical record. R368 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and had diagnoses including paraplegia and neuromuscular dysfunction of bladder. R368's MDS assessment, dated 1/17/25, had a BIMS score of 15 out of 15 which indicated R368 had intact cognition. R368's medical record contained an order for an indwelling Foley catheter size 18 French (dated 1/17/25). On 1/28/25 at 10:08 AM, Surveyor observed an EBP sign posted outside R368's door. Surveyor interviewed R368 and noted R368's uncovered catheter bag was in contact with the floor under R368's bed. On 1/29/25 at 11:42 AM, Surveyor interviewed Director of Nursing (DON)-B who indicated catheter bags should be covered and off the floor per the facility's policy.
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Pharmacy Services (Tag F0755)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, staff and resident interview, and record review, the facility did not provide pharmaceutical services to e...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, staff and resident interview, and record review, the facility did not provide pharmaceutical services to ensure accurate administration of drugs and biologicals for 3 residents (R) (R7, R114, and R15) of 8 sampled residents. R7 did not receive eight doses of scheduled medication because the medication was not available. R114 did not receive a scheduled medication because the medication was not available. Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN)-U dispensed an expired medication for R15 and did not dispose of the medication according to the facility's policy. Findings include: The facility's Administering Medications policy, dated 12/2024, indicates: Medications shall be administered in a safe and timely manner, and as prescribed .3. Medications must be administered in accordance with the orders, including any required time frame. 4. Medications must be administered within one hour of their prescribed time, unless otherwise specified .9. The expiration/beyond-use date on the medication label must be checked prior to administering. When opening a multi-dose container, the date opened shall be recorded on the container . The facility's Discarding and Destroying Medications policy, dated 2001, indicates: Medications will be disposed of in accordance with federal, state, and local regulations governing management of non-hazardous pharmaceuticals, hazardous waste, and controlled substances . 1. On [DATE], Surveyor reviewed R7's medical record. R7 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and had diagnoses including chronic heart failure, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), and pulmonary embolus. R7's Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated [DATE], had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 15 out of 15 which indicated R7 had intact cognition. R7's medical record indicated R7 was responsible for R7's healthcare decisions. On [DATE] at 10:45 AM, Surveyor interviewed R7 who indicated every week for at least 2 years, the facility runs out of R7's medication. R7 indicated nursing staff informed R7 that morning that the facility does not have R7's afternoon dose of OxyContin and nursing staff were working with R7's provider to obtain a refill. R7 was verbally upset and indicated receiving pain medication is crucial for R7's health. R7 indicated R7 has filed grievances with the facility regarding the issue, however, R7 does not feel like R7's concerns have been addressed because it keeps happening. R7 indicated R7 has had to wait several days for R7's medication to arrive. On [DATE] at 10:38 AM, Surveyor interviewed Registered Nurse Manager (RNM)-L who indicated the facility was working with R7's provider but there was another provider covering for R7's provider on the weekend who would not refill R7's OxyContin. RNM-L indicated on [DATE], R7's provider's office stated the facility needs to allow 24 hours for refills to be addressed. RNM-L indicated staff contacted the facility's Medical Director to obtain an order for 5 doses of OxyContin until R7's provider could refill the order. RNM-L indicated staff order medications through the facility's medical record charting system but run into issues when refills are not available and staff have to contact a resident's primary provider. Surveyor reviewed R7's [DATE] medication administration record (MAR) and noted the following: ~ On [DATE], R7's dose of Jardiance 10 milligrams (mg) was not available ~ On [DATE], R7's dose of levothyroxine sodium 125 micrograms (mcg) was not available ~ On [DATE], R7's dose of warfarin sodium 6 mg at bedtime was not provided ~ On [DATE], R7's dose of warfarin sodium 4 mg at bedtime was not provided ~ On [DATE], R7's does of Jardiance 10 mg was not available ~ On [DATE], R7's dose of rosuvastatin calcium 5 mg was not provided ~ On [DATE], R7's dose of amlodipine 10 mg was not provided ~ On [DATE], R7's dose of cholecalciferol oral capsule 1.25 mg was not available On [DATE] at 2:44 PM, Surveyor interviewed Nursing Home Administrator (NHA)-A and Director of Nursing (DON)-B. DON-B reviewed R7's MAR and verified the above medications were not provided. DON-B was not aware that various medications were not administered because the medications were not available. DON-B indicated DON-B expects staff to provide all prescribed medications as ordered. 2. From [DATE] to [DATE], Surveyor reviewed R114's medical record. R114 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and had diagnoses including vascular dementia with agitation, transient ischemic attack, and mild protein-calorie malnutrition. R114's MDS assessment, dated [DATE], indicated R114 had severe cognitive impairment. R114's [DATE] MAR contained an order for Depakote Extended Release (ER) 500 mg tablet once daily scheduled at 7:00 AM and Depakote Delayed Release (DR) 750 mg tablet once daily scheduled at 1:00 PM. On [DATE] at 9:02 AM, Surveyor observed LPN-U prepare R114's AM medications. LPN-U indicated R114's Depakote ER 500 mg tablet could not be administered. LPN-U indicated R114 was no longer able to swallow whole pills and Depakote ER was not a crushable medication. LPN-U indicated LPN-U requested Depakote sprinkles on [DATE], however, Depakote sprinkles were not available at that time. On [DATE] at 1:43 PM, Surveyor interviewed RNM-M and LPN-U who confirmed R114 did not receive the 7:00 AM dose of Depakote ER. RNM-M and LPN-U indicated Depakote sprinkles were requested from the pharmacy, but were not available to administer to R114 at the scheduled time. 3. From [DATE] to [DATE], Surveyor reviewed R15's medical record. R15 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and had diagnoses including cerebral palsy and seizure disorder. R15's MDS assessment, dated [DATE], indicated R15 had moderate cognitive impairment. On [DATE] at 9:39 AM, Surveyor reviewed the medication storage room on the third floor with LPN-U. Surveyor observed 3 bottles of Gericare Iron tabs 325 mg with expiration dates of 12/2024. LPN-U confirmed the bottles were expired. On [DATE] at 7:58 AM, Surveyor observed LPN-U prepare R15's AM medications. LPN-U dispensed 1 tablet of iron 325 mg into a medication cup. Surveyor noted the iron tablet was dispensed from a bottle with an expiration date of 12/2024. When Surveyor informed LPN-U of the expiration date, LPN-U removed the iron tablet from the medication cup and disposed of the tablet in a garbage bin on the medication cart. LPN-U then dispensed a venlafaxine ER 75 mg tablet. LPN-U noted the venlafaxine tablet had broken when LPN-U removed the tablet from the medication card. LPN-U removed the broken tablet from the medication cup and disposed of the tablet in a garbage bin on the medication cart. On [DATE] at 8:38 AM, Surveyor interviewed LPN-U who indicated non-narcotic medications are typically disposed of in the garbage bin on the medication cart. LPN-U indicated narcotics are disposed of in a Sharps container or Drug Buster (a pharmaceutical disposal system). On [DATE] at 8:39 AM, Surveyor interviewed RNM-M who indicated medication should be disposed of in the Drug Buster and confirmed medications should not be disposed of in the garbage. On [DATE] at 10:35 AM, Surveyor interviewed DON-B who indicated medication should be disposed of in the Drug Buster in the medication room and confirmed medication should not be disposed of in the medication cart garbage.
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

Laboratory Services (Tag F0770)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on staff interview and record review, the facility did not ensure prompt laboratory services for 1 resident (R) (R25) of 1...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on staff interview and record review, the facility did not ensure prompt laboratory services for 1 resident (R) (R25) of 1 sampled resident. R25 had an order for a wound culture on 1/2/25. R25's wound culture was obtained on 1/2/25 and again on 1/5/25. Due to a delay in submitting the culture sample timely, R25 did not start antibiotic therapy until 1/8/25. Findings include: The facility's Cultures, Specimen Collection policy, dated October 2011, indicates: Correct collection and handling of culture specimens helps ensure more accurate and timely results and subsequent treatment .1. Labeling of specimen must include: a. resident name .d. Date and time specimen collected .5. Label the specimen correctly and send it to the laboratory .Special Considerations: .3. Document the time, date, and site of specimen collection. Note any unusual appearance or odor of the specimen . On 1/27/25, Surveyor reviewed R25's medical record. R25 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and had diagnoses including T12 compression deformity, chronic kidney disease, and anemia. R25's Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 12/8/24, had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 13 out of 15 which indicated R25 had intact cognition. R25's medical record indicated R25 was responsible for R25's healthcare decisions. R25 had an order for a wound culture to be completed on 1/2/25. The culture was collected on 1/2/25 and sent to the lab on 1/4/25. The lab called the facility on 1/5/25 and stated the culture could not be used because it was not processed timely. The facility obtained a second culture on 1/5/25 and sent it to the lab. On 1/8/25, the culture results were positive for Escherichia (E) coli and staph. R25's provider ordered antibiotic treatment at that time. On 1/28/25 at 10:22 AM, Surveyor interviewed Registered Nurse Manager (RNM)-L who indicated the wound culture obtained on 1/2/25 was not picked up timely and the facility had to obtain a second culture. RNM-L indicated R25 was started on doxycycline on 1/8/25. On 1/28/25 at 11:24 AM, Surveyor interviewed RNM-M who verified R25's provider and RNM-M collected R25's wound culture specimen during wound rounds on 1/2/25. On 1/28/25 at 2:00 PM, Surveyor interviewed Nursing Home Administrator (NHA)-A and Director of Nursing (DON)-B. DON-B verified R25's lab culture was obtained on 1/2/25 but was not sent to lab timely which resulted in a delay in R25's antibiotic treatment.
CONCERN (E) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Menu Adequacy (Tag F0803)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on observation, staff interview, and record review, the facility did not ensure nutritional needs were met or diet orders were followed for 5 residents (R) (R7, R26, R16, R24, and R48) of 5 samp...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, staff interview, and record review, the facility did not ensure nutritional needs were met or diet orders were followed for 5 residents (R) (R7, R26, R16, R24, and R48) of 5 sampled residents. This practice had the potential to affect multiple other residents in the facility. Residents on pureed diets did not receive the correct serving size for lunch on 1/27/25 and 1/28/25 and breakfast on 1/28/25. Residents on carb controlled (CCHO) and low concentrated sweets (LCS) diets did not receive their diets as ordered for lunch on 1/27/25 and 1/28/25 and breakfast on 1/28/25. R26's meal ticked indicated R26 should receive double portions, diet Jell-O and sugar-free cereal. R26's meal ticket was not followed during lunch on 1/27/25 and breakfast on 1/28/25. R48 had an order for ground meat when served roasts. R48 did not receive ground pork roast for lunch on 1/28/25. Residents on the fourth floor did not receive the ordered serving size of corn casserole for lunch on 1/28/25. Findings include: The facility's Therapeutic Diets policy, dated 9/1/21, indicates: All resident have a diet order, including regular, therapeutic and texture modification that is prescribed by the attending physician therapeutic diet is defined as a diet ordered by a physician or delegated registered or licensed dietitian as part of the treatment for a disease or clinical condition. The purpose of a therapeutic diet is to eliminate or decrease specific nutrients in the diet or increase specific nutrients in the diet or to provide food that a resident can eat (e.g., mechanically-altered diet). Mechanically-altered diet means one in which the texture of the diet is altered .Diets are prepared in accordance with the guidelines in the approved diet manual and residents' individualized plans of care .Mechanically-altered diets are prepared following recipes and production tools . On 1/27/25 at 11:53 AM, Surveyor interviewed R7 who indicated the facility does not allow R7 to have the amount of food R7 wants and R7 feels that food is being rationed. R7 indicated when R7 asks for more food, R7 is told the facility does not have any more servings to offer. During a continuous lunch service observation at the third floor steam table that began at 12:01 PM on 1/27/25, Surveyor observed Dietary Aide (DA)-F serve lunch to residents. Surveyor observed DA-F use a 3 oz. ladle for pureed baked chicken (was to be served with a #6 scoop) and a #16 scoop (was to be served with a #8 scoop) for pureed herbed stuffing and provide all residents with a full piece of apple streusel cake. Surveyor noted R26's meal ticket indicated R26 should receive double portions, however, R26 was served single portions that consisted of one piece of 3 ounce chicken, one scoop of herbed stuffing (serving scoop #8 with ½ cup serving size), and one scoop of vegetables (4 ounce ladle). R26 was also served one Jell-O snack pack. R26's meal ticket indicated R26 should receive one diet Jell-O for lunch. Surveyor noted R26 did not receive diet Jell-O. Following the observation, Surveyor interviewed DA-F who indicated gray scoops are used for regular texture and mechanically-altered meats, as well as vegetables. DA-F indicated white scoops are used for desserts, and pureed breads and pureed meats are served with metal scoops. On 1/27/25 at 12:51 PM, Surveyor interviewed R16 who indicated R16's lunch tray had not been delivered yet. R16 indicated breakfast was small and R16 was hungry and felt weak because R16 did not get enough food. R16 indicated R16 has asked for more or larger servings but has not received extra servings. On 1/27/25 at 3:10 PM, Surveyor interviewed R24 who indicated the food is subpar. R24 indicated R24 does not get enough food and the food does not seem like it is served in a large enough portions. R24 indicated R24 had shrimp [NAME] the other day and there was one shrimp on the plate. On 1/28/25 at 7:32 AM, Surveyor observed breakfast in the third floor dining room. Surveyor observed DA-G serve pureed sausage links with a #12 scoop (1/3 cup) and noted all residents who ordered hot cereal received one spoonful of brown sugar on top of oatmeal. R26 was served cereal that contained sugar even though R26's meal ticket indicated R26 should receive sugar-free cereal. On 1/28/25 at 9:15 AM, Surveyor reviewed diet spreadsheets provided by Dietary Manager (DM)-D. The spreadsheets contained scoop numbers/serving sizes for the 1/27/25 lunch meal. Surveyor noted and DM-D confirmed the following foods served during the meal were not served at the correct serving size: ~ Pureed baked chicken was to be served with a #6 scoop (2/3 cup serving) but was served with a 3 ounce ladle. ~ Pureed herbed stuffing was to be served with a #8 scoop (½ cup serving) but was served with a #16 scoop (¼ cup serving). Surveyor also observed DA-F serve all residents a full piece of apple streusel cake. The diet spreadsheet indicated residents on CCHO and LCS diets should receive a half-serving of dessert. The diet spreadsheet for the 1/28/25 breakfast meal indicated pureed sausage links should be served with a #20 scoop (3-1/3 tablespoons) but were served with a #12 scoop (1/3 cup serving). On 1/28/25 at 11:45 AM, Surveyor observed DA-E serve lunch on the fourth floor. Surveyor observed DA-E plate corn casserole with a spatula. DA-E did not use a scoop or measurement to ensure residents received the appropriate serving size. Surveyor also noted DA-E served all residents a full portion of dessert. The diet spreadsheet for the 1/28/25 lunch meal indicated the following: ~ Corn casserole should be served with a #8 scoop. ~ Residents on CCHO and LCS diets should receive a half-portion of dessert. On 1/28/25 at 12:15 PM, Surveyor observed R48's Guardian assist R48 in the dining room and cut up the pork roast that was served for lunch. Surveyor noted R48's diet order indicated R48 should receive ground pork, beef, and chicken roasts. R48 was not served ground pork roast per R48's diet order. On 1/28/25 at 12:54 PM, Surveyor interviewed DM-D who indicated all staff have access to the diet spreadsheets that outline what size scoop or ladle to use for meal service in the unit kitchens where meal service occurs. DM-D indicated the spreadsheets are used to determine the scoop sizes and the recommended scoop sizes should be used during meal service.
CONCERN (F)

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

Food Safety (Tag F0812)

Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents

Based on observation, staff interview, and record review, the facility did not ensure food was stored and prepared in a sanitary manner. This practice had the potential to affect all 69 residents resi...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, staff interview, and record review, the facility did not ensure food was stored and prepared in a sanitary manner. This practice had the potential to affect all 69 residents residing in the facility. Staff did not monitor and document cooling temperatures. Staff did not consistently monitor and document food cooked temperatures Staff did not wash and sanitize dishes in the three-compartment sink per manufacturer's guidelines or the facility's policy. Findings include: Cooling Method: The facility's Previously Cooked Food Saved for Future Service policy, dated 9/1/21, indicates: All foods are prepared in accordance with the Federal Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Food Code .Previously cooked foods must be cooled to an internal temperature of 70 degrees within 2 hours from the start of the process . The 2022 FDA Food Code documents at 3-501.14 Cooling: (A) Cooked time/temperature control for safety food shall be cooled: (1) Within 2 hours from 57° Celsius (C) (135° Fahrenheit) (F) to 21° C (70° F); and (2) Within a total of 6 hours from 57° C (135° F) to 5° C (41° F) or less. (B) Time/temperature control for safety food shall be cooled within 4 hours to 5° C (41° F) or less. The 2022 FDA Food Code documents at 3-501.15 Cooling Methods: (A) Cooling shall be accomplished in accordance with the time and temperature criteria specified under § 3-501.14 by using one or more of the following methods based on the type of food being cooled: (1) Placing the food in shallow pans; (2) Separating the food into smaller or thinner portions; (3) Using rapid cooling equipment; (4) Stirring the food in a container placed in an ice water bath; (5) Using containers that facilitate heat transfer; (6) Adding ice as an ingredient; or (7) Other effective methods. During an initial kitchen tour with Dietary Manager (DM)-D that began at 9:07 AM on 1/27/25, Surveyor observed the following pre-cooked foods in the cooler and freezers: ~Pureed vegetables ~Pureed fish ~Macaroni and cheese ~Chili ~Shrimp Alfredo ~Hot dogs ~Hamburgers ~Pureed pizza ~Corned beef hash ~Chicken tortilla soup ~Pureed cabbage ~Spaghetti ~Sausage sauce ~Cinnamon rolls ~Pork stir fry On 1/28/25 at 12:45 PM, Surveyor interviewed DM-D who indicated the facility saves and uses leftovers and pre-cooked soups. DM-D indicated there was not a food cooling log for the above food items. DM-D confirmed the foods should have been cooled using an approved cooling method and documented on a cooling log to ensure they were cooled safely to use again for resident consumption. Cooked Food Temperatures: The 2022 FDA Food Code documents at section 3-401.11 Raw Animal Foods: (A) Except as specified under (B) and in (C) and (D) of this section, raw animal foods such as eggs, fish, meat, poultry, and food containing these raw animal foods, shall be cooked to heat all parts of the food to a temperature and for a time that complies with one of the following methods based on the food that is being cooked .Internal Cooking Temperature Specifications for Raw Animal Foods Internal Cooking Temperature Raw Animal Foods: . Raw eggs cooked for immediate service, fish, intact meat, except whole meat roasts and whole muscle intact beef steak at 145° F for 15 seconds .Commercially raised game animals, rabbits at 155° F for 17 seconds .Non-intact meats and raw eggs not for immediate service, wild game animals, poultry, stuffed fish, meat, pork, pasta, ratites, stuffing containing fish, meat, ratites and poultry at 165° F for greater than 1 second . During an initial kitchen tour that began at 9:07 AM on 1/27/25, Surveyor observed cooking temperature logs for December 2024 and January 2025 and noted the the logs were missing multiple temperatures for the supper meal. The logs contained food temperatures for supper on the following days: 12/3/24, 12/31/24, 1/15/25, 1/14/25, 1/23/25, 1/24/25, and 1/25/25. Surveyor noted the temperatures for the supper meal on 1/28/25 were already documented. Surveyor requested copies of the documentation from DM-D. On 1/28/25 at 1:25 PM, Surveyor received copies of the cooked temperature logs and noted all the days that were previously undocumented contained food temperatures. Surveyor interviewed DM-D who verified DM-D filled in the missing cooking temperatures and indicated the PM cook documented the temperatures in another place. DM-D indicated the forms are not consistently filled out and verified the process of filling out the forms to ensure cooked food temperatures are appropriate and safe cooking temperatures are reached is not being followed by PM staff. Three-Compartment Sink and Sanitizer Buckets: The facility's Three Compartment Sink policy, dated 9/1/21, indicates: Sanitizer should be changed ever 2 hours or more and as needed to keep the water clean and the sanitizer effective in use. Read the label for time and temperature requirements of the sanitizer you are using. Use a test kit to check the concentration (PPM) .Temperature: Generally chemical sanitizers work best at temperatures between 55-120 degrees. See manufacturers' recommendations for specific temperatures. The Hydrion Quaternary test strip package insert directions indicate the test solution should be between 65 and 75 degrees F at the time of testing. The Sunburst Chemicals manufacturer directions indicate the parts per million (PPM) for the sanitizer should be 200. During an initial kitchen tour that began at 9:07 AM on 1/27/25, DM-D indicated cooks use the three-compartment sink to wash cooking utensils, pans, and bowls and to fill sanitizer buckets for washing and sanitizing food prep areas. Surveyor noted the Sunburst Chemicals sanitizer used by the facility indicated the required PPM were 200. Surveyor observed the three-compartment sink sanitizer testing log which contained PPM above 200 for all days/meal times in December 2024 and January 2025. Surveyor noted the August 2024, September 2024, and November 2024 logs were missing several days/meal times and contained PPM ranging from 200-800. There was no documentation in October 2024. Surveyor also noted the water temperature was not documented. On 1/28/25 at 12:45 PM, Surveyor interviewed DM-D regarding PPM for the sanitizing solution and the water temperature. DM-D indicated DM-D did not know the PPM of sanitizing solution should be 200 and believed the staff did not fully understand the required PPM for the sanitizing solution or water temperature testing in the three-compartment sink and sanitizing buckets.
Dec 2024 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

Pharmacy Services (Tag F0755)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on resident and staff interview and record review, the facility did not provide pharmaceutical services to meet the needs ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on resident and staff interview and record review, the facility did not provide pharmaceutical services to meet the needs of 1 resident (R) (R1) of 6 sampled residents. R1 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and had an order for Vyvanse. The facility did not provide R1 with prescribed medication from 11/9/24 through 11/11/24. Findings include: The facility's admission Criteria Policy, dated October 2012, states the facility will admit only those residents whose medical and nursing care needs can be met .1. The objectives of the policy are to: .b. Admit residents who can be cared for adequately by the facility; .e. Assure the facility receives appropriate medical and financial records prior to or upon a resident's admission .2. Prior to or at the time of admission, a resident's attending physician must provide the facility with information needed for the immediate care of the resident, including orders covering at least: b. Medication orders. On 12/5/24, Surveyor reviewed R1's medical record. R1 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and had diagnoses including spinal stenosis, lumbar region without neurogenic claudication, major depressive disorder, anxiety disorder, bipolar disorder, and anorexia nervosa, binge eating/purging type. R1's Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 11/12/24, had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 14 out of 15 which indicated R1 was not cognitively impaired. R1 was responsible for R1's healthcare decisions and discharged from the facility against medical advice (AMA) on 11/12/24. On 12/5/24, Surveyor reviewed a grievance submitted to the facility from R1 that indicated R1 did not receive a prescribed medication after the prescriber received an error message during the submission of a Vyvanse order to the pharmacy on 11/8/24 (Friday). The prescriber then sent a script to the pharmacy on 11/11/24 (Monday). The grievance indicated staff should have contacted the provider and the pharmacy to obtain the medication. Staff education was provided on contacting the pharmacy to assure medications were received. Surveyor reviewed R1's physician orders and noted an order for lisdexamfetamine dimesylate (Vyvanse) 70 mg (milligrams) 1 capsule by mouth in the morning for attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). On 12/5/24 at 1:39 PM, Surveyor interviewed R1 via phone. R1 confirmed R1 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. R1 stated R1 had anxiety medication (Vyvanse) that R1 was supposed to take, however, staff did not provide the medication to R1 over the weekend because the medication was not obtained from the pharmacy. R1 stated R1 was upset and anxious when R1 did not receive the medication. On 12/5/24 at 1:40 PM, Surveyor interviewed Registered Nurse (RN)-E who stated RN-E assisted with R1's admission. RN-E stated the hospital provided two scripts for R1 at the time of admission but did not provide one for Vyvanse. RN-E stated a message was sent to the provider who confirmed a Vyvanse script would be sent. RN-E stated RN-E returned to the facility on [DATE] and noted the facility still did not have R1's Vyvanse. RN-E verified R1 discharged AMA on 11/12/24. RN-E could not confirm that RN-E received education related to the incident. On 12/5/24 at 2:07 PM, Surveyor interviewed RN-F who stated R1's family brought R1's Vyvanse from home on [DATE] (Saturday), however, the medication was not in the original container and staff could not administer the medication. RN-F stated a Vyvanse script was sent to the pharmacy, however, it was a weekend and the pharmacy did not send the medication. RN-F did not recall receiving education related to the incident. On 12/5/24 at 3:30 PM, Surveyor interviewed Nursing Home Administrator (NHA)-A who stated the provider did not inform the facility that R1's Vyvanse script did not go through. NHA-A spoke with the provider's office and the pharmacy regarding the concern. NHA-A stated the pharmacy completed audits and developed a system to ensure the concern did not happen again. NHA-A stated verbal education was done with nursing staff on the need to follow-up and ensure medications were received. NHA-A was unable to provide documentation of the education. Staff interviews (as noted above) did not indicate staff recalled receiving education.
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

Menu Adequacy (Tag F0803)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, staff interview, and record review, the facility did not ensure nutritional needs were met for 1 resident (R) (R3) of 1 resident who had an order for double entree portions at al...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, staff interview, and record review, the facility did not ensure nutritional needs were met for 1 resident (R) (R3) of 1 resident who had an order for double entree portions at all meals. R3's diet order included double entrees at all meals for wound healing. R3 did not receive a double entree during the lunch meal on 12/5/24. Findings include: The facility's Therapeutic Diets policy, revised November 2015, indicates: Therapeutic diets shall be prescribed by the attending physician. The facility will strive for the fewest possible dietary restrictions .Diet will be determined in accordance with the resident's informed choices, preferences, treatment goals and wishes. Diagnoses alone will not determine whether the resident is prescribed a therapeutic diet .A therapeutic diet must be prescribed by the resident's attending physician. The physician's diet order should match the terminology used by food services .The clinical dietitian, nursing staff, and attending physician will review, along with other orders, the need for and resident's acceptance of a prescribed therapeutic diet .Routine menus are planned by the Food Services Manager and approved by a Registered Dietitian for nutritional adequacy. The Food Services Manager will establish and use a tray identification system to ensure that each resident receives his or her diet as ordered. On 12/5/24, Surveyor reviewed R3's medical record. R3 had diagnoses including dementia, laceration without foreign body of left great toe without damage to nail, and a stage 3 pressure ulcer. R3's Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 10/20/24, had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 9 out of 15 which indicated R3 had moderately impaired cognition. R3's medical record contained an order for double entrees at all meals and increased protein needs for wound healing. During an observation of the lunch meal on 12/5/24 at 12:05 PM, Surveyor observed Dietary Aide (DA)-D plate R3's lunch tray with one entree. Surveyor noted R3's meal ticket indicated R3 should receive a double entree. Surveyor interviewed DA-D who was unsure why R3 was not served a double entree. On 12/5/24 at 1:53 PM, Surveyor interviewed Food Safety Manager (FSM)-C who indicated there was a need for training and FSM-C initiated talks with managers. FSM-C confirmed R3 should receive double entrees at all meals per R3's meal ticket and stated residents should receive therapeutic diets as ordered.
Oct 2024 1 deficiency 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

Free from Abuse/Neglect (Tag F0600)

Someone could have died · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on staff interview and record review, the facility did not ensure the resident environment remained free of abuse for 1 re...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on staff interview and record review, the facility did not ensure the resident environment remained free of abuse for 1 resident (R) (R1) of 6 sampled residents. During the night (NOC) shift on 9/24/24-9/25/24, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN)-D observed R2 touch R6's leg and try to kiss R6. LPN-D immediately separated R2 and R6 and documented the incident in R2's medical record. Following the incident, no interventions were put in place to ensure the safety of R6 or other residents. On 9/25/24 at approximately 11:00 AM, Registered Nurse (RN)-C observed R1 and R2 in the lounge. R2 had one arm around R1's shoulders and the other hand inside R1's brief. R2 moved R2's hand back and forth while R1 attempted to push R2's hand away. RN-C separated the residents, placed R2 on 1:1 supervision, and notified supervisory staff. The facility's failure to implement interventions to supervise a resident with previous sexually inappropriate behavior and keep residents safe from further abuse created a finding of immediate jeopardy that began on 9/25/24. Nursing Home Administrator (NHA)-A was notified of the immediate jeopardy on 10/8/24 at 3:13 PM. The immediate jeopardy was removed on 10/9/24, however, the deficient practice continues at a scope/severity level D (potential for more than minimal harm/isolated) as the facility continues to implement its action plan. Findings include: The facility's Abuse, Neglect, and Exploitation policy, revised 1/5/24, indicates in part: Sexual abuse is non-consensual sexual contact of any type with a resident .III. Prevention of Abuse, Neglect, and Exploitation: A. Establishing a safe environment by establishing policies and protocols for preventing sexual abuse, such as identifying when, how, and by whom determinations of capacity to consent to sexual contact will be made .D. The identification, ongoing assessment, care planning for appropriate interventions, and monitoring of resident needs and behaviors which might lead to conflict . On 10/8/24, Surveyor reviewed R2's medical record. R2 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including dementia, anxiety, stroke, and encephalopathy (brain dysfunction). R2's most recent Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 9/16/24, had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 6 out of 15 which indicated R2 had severe cognitive impairment. R2 had an activated Power of Attorney for Healthcare (POAHC). Nursing notes, dated 9/11/24 and 9/19/24, indicated R2 made sexually inappropriate comments to staff. A nursing note, dated 9/20/24, indicated R2 inappropriately touched staff. A nursing note written by LPN-D, dated 9/24/24, indicated R2 made sexually inappropriate comments to staff and attempted to kiss a resident (R6) and had to be pulled away. (R6 has diagnoses including Alzheimer's disease, dementia with behavioral disturbance, anxiety, and depression. R6's most recent MDS assessment, dated 8/29/24, had a BIMS score of 1 out of 15 which indicated R6 had severe cognitive impairment. R6 had an activated POAHC.) On 10/8/24, Surveyor reviewed a facility-reported incident (FRI) that was submitted to the State Agency (SA) on 10/2/24. The FRI indicated: On 9/25/24 at approximately 11:00 AM, RN-C observed R1 and R2 in the lounge on the third floor. RN-C observed R2 with R2's left arm around R1's shoulders and R2's right hand moving back and forth inside R1's brief. RN-C observed R1 push down and away on R2's right hand. RN-C removed R1 from the lounge and notified RN-C's supervisor. (R1 has diagnoses including Alzheimer's disease, dementia with behaviors, and depression. R1's most recent MDS assessment, dated 8/16/24, had a BIMS score of 0 out of 15 which indicated R1 had severe cognitive impairment. R1 had a legal guardian to assist with healthcare decisions.) NHA-A and Director of Nursing (DON)-B submitted an initial report to the SA on 9/25/24 and initiated an investigation. The investigation indicated a skin check was completed for R1. R2 was placed on continuous 1:1 supervision. R2's room was moved to a different hallway. R1 and R2 were provided with psychiatric follow-up. R1 and R2's physicians, representatives, and local law enforcement were notified. R1 and R2's care plans were updated. Other residents were interviewed regarding potential abuse. R2's care plan was updated on 9/26/24 to address R2's sexually inappropriate behavior toward residents and staff. On 10/8/24 at 2:39 PM, Surveyor interviewed LPN-D regarding R2's behavior during the 9/24/24-9/25/24 NOC shift. LPN-D verified LPN-D observed R2 touch R6's knee and ask R6 multiple times to kiss R2. LPN-D observed R2 lean in and try to kiss R6 before LPN-D intervened. LPN-D verified R6 was cognitively impaired and could not consent to a sexual relationship. LPN-D stated LPN-D documented the behavior in R2's medical record and notified the oncoming AM shift nurse about the incident. LPN-D verified R2 was not placed on 1:1 supervision until later in the day on 9/25/24 after the incident between R1 and R2. On 10/8/24 at 12:38 PM, Surveyor interviewed NHA-A and DON-B regarding R2's sexually inappropriate behavior. NHA-A and DON-B were not aware that R2 was sexually inappropriate toward R6 prior to the incident between R1 and R2 on 9/25/24. DON-B verified R2 was not placed on increased supervision until after 11:00 AM on 9/25/24. NHA-A stated R1 was offered a head-to-toe exam by RN-C but confirmed R1 and R1's representative were not offered a Sexual Assault Nurse Exam (SANE). When Surveyor asked NHA-A for proof of staff education, NHA-A stated staff were educated on the incident between R1 and R2 and R2's 1:1 supervision during huddles and the education was not documented. On 10/10/24, NHA-A provided Surveyor with signed education sheets for staff which included 44 of the facility's approximately 130 staff members. Several of the sheets did not include the date of the education or what information was provided during the huddle. On 10/11/24, Surveyor reviewed a police report regarding the incident between R1 and R2. The report indicated RN-C observed R1 and R2 in a common area with R2's hand moving back and forth in R1's pants. Officers interviewed R1 and R2. R1 was unable to respond to questions. R2 denied the incident occurred and was deemed incoherent by officers. The case was forwarded to Adult Protective Services (APS) and no charges were filed. The failure to supervise a resident with a history of inappropriate sexual behavior toward a resident and staff created a reasonable likelihood for serious harm which led to a finding of immediate jeopardy. The facility removed the jeopardy on 10/9/24 when it completed the following: 1. Placed R2 on 1:1 supervision and moved R2 to a different unit. 2. Initiated facility-wide education on abuse and 1:1 supervision. 3. Completed psychosocial interviews with R1, R2, and R6. 4. Updated R1, R2, and R6's care plans. 5. Notified R1, R2, and R6's physicians, representatives, and local law enforcement. 6. Interviewed residents and staff and initiated monitoring for changes in behavior of non-interviewable residents.
Nov 2023 6 deficiencies
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Investigate Abuse (Tag F0610)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on staff interview and record review the facility did not ensure incidents of potential abuse were investigated thoroughly...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on staff interview and record review the facility did not ensure incidents of potential abuse were investigated thoroughly for 1 (R10) of 2 residents reviewed for potential abuse. *R10 was discovered with a large bruise. The facility completed an investigation and reported the incident to the state agency; however, the facility's investigation did not include resident interviews or like resident assessments to identify the scope of the allegation. Findings include: The facility policy entitled, Abuse Prevention Policy, revised on 2/12/2021, documented, Objective: To protect and maintain each resident/tenant's right to be treated with courtesy, respect, and recognition of one's dignity and individuality by all employees of the facility .1) Reporting and Investigation .Investigations may include: resident statements . R10 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that include Alzheimer's disease, dementia, hemiplegia and hemiparesis following cerebral infarction affecting unspecified side, dysphagia following cerebral infarction and generalized anxiety disorder and depression. R10 was admitted to hospice on 4/10/23. R10's Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] assesses that R10's is rarely/never understood and has severe cognitive impairment. R10 is assessed as requiring extensive assistance with two + persons physical assist for bed mobility, toileting, and personal hygiene. Transfer and dressing are assessed as total dependence with two + persons physical assist. R10's skin care plan identifies that R10 has potential for pressure ulcer/bruise development and bruising due to immobility, history of stage IV pressure injury, personal preference to cross legs. Interventions include: The resident will have intact skin, free of redness, blisters or discoloration by/through review date. Educate the resident/family/caregivers as to causes of skin breakdown; including transfer/positioning requirements; importance of taking care during ambulating/mobility, good nutrition and frequent repositioning. Monitor/document/report PRN (as needed) any changes in skin status: appearance, color, wound healing, signs and symptoms of infection, wound size (length X width X depth), stage. R10's current physician orders documents, nursing weekly summary and nursing weekly skin check every day shift every Monday with a start date of 7/13/23. On 9/18/2023, at 14:53, Skin/Wound Note by Registered Nurse Manager (RN)-U documents, 27.5 cm (centimeter) x 25.0 cm bruise noted from top of right foot to shin. Right ankle and top of foot edematous. Bruise noted to be dark purple to top of foot and faded into yellow towards shin. Resident does pull foot back when touched, but no facial grimacing or calling out noted. Per POA (Power of Attorney), resident is very ticklish to feet. Per staff, resident does move right leg in Broda chair and will cross over left leg. Staff also states that resident usually has legs bent during Hoyer transfers and foot is not near Hoyer. POA updated, hospice updated, and primary MD (Medical Doctor) updated. X-ray to area ordered by hospice NP (Nurse Practitioner). Heel lift boots to be worn. Review of R10's medical chart documents that a 2-view x-ray of foot and ankle due to bruising, swelling and suspected trauma and pain with palpation was obtained on 9/18/23. Radiology results report dated 9/19/23 15:49 documents finding for the ankle that include a fracture involving distal tibia with no displacement. There is associated soft tissue swelling. Conclusion is an acute hairline ankle fracture. The facility implemented bilateral boots at all times, monitoring site for redness, edema pain and warmth. The facility submitted an Alleged Nursing Home Resident Mistreatment, Neglect, and Abuse Report to the State Agency and an investigation began. The facility began looking at previous skin checks for R10 and determined that skin was intact on 9/11/23. They then used this date of 9/11/23 as a start date and began interviewing all staff and hospice staff that worked with R10 from that date forward. In a statement from a hospice aide reveled that on 9/15/23 when the hospice aide was working with R10 the resident had their legs crossed in the Broda chair during lunch. When the hospice aide pushed the resident in the Broda chair the hospice staff recalled bumping the resident into the table and chair. Surveyor reviewed the Misconduct Incident Report dated 9/25/23 which outlines the facility's investigation and conclusion. After this incident all staff were educated on the proper positioning of R10 while in a Broda chair. Surveyor notes that the investigation does not include any interviews with other residents who receive care by the hospice agency or the hospice aide directly. There is also no documentation of any other resident skin checks completed. On 11/02/23, at 09:00 AM, Surveyor interviewed Director of Nursing (DON)-B. The DON explained how the facility investigated the injury of unknown source and how they narrowed down the time frame of when and how the bruise occurred. The DON explained that when she had interviewed the hospice aide who stated that she accidentally bumped R10's foot on a table and chair when transporting R10 back to their room that this was when the suspected trauma occurred. The DON then explained that she informed the hospice company of the incident and that the hospice aide was formally retrained. Surveyor asked if the investigation included any additional interviews with other residents who were receiving care by the same hospice aide, and she stated no. The DON explained that she didn't identify any trends and therefore did not feel a need to interview other residents or complete skin checks on other residents. DON-B explained that they thought it was just an isolated accident. Surveyor shared concerns of the lack of interviewing or screening other residents to eliminate the possibility of abuse. The DON stated that she just didn't think to interview others or look at their skin checks. DON-B stated that she will remember this going forward. 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

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 interviews and record review the facility did not ensure that residents received care and treatment in accordance with ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interviews and record review the facility did not ensure that residents received care and treatment in accordance with professional standards of practice for 1 (R342) of 12 residents reviewed for Quality of Care. R342's admission orders, which included insulin and blood sugar monitoring, were not correctly transcribed onto the Medication Administration Record (MAR). R342 sustained a fall related to a hypoglycemic (low blood sugar) episode. Findings include: R342 admitted to the facility on [DATE] for respite care. Diagnoses included: Alzheimer's disease, liver cell carcinoma, hypertension, Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus, major depressive disorder, anxiety disorder, cervical disc degeneration and obstructive sleep apnea. The facility policy and procedure titled Administering Medications dated revised 11/3/21 documents (in part) . Objective: To ensure that medications are administered in a safe and timely manner, as prescribed. 3) Medications must be administered in accordance with the orders, including any required time frame. 5) If a dosage is believed to be inappropriate or excessive for a resident, or a medication has been identified as having potential adverse consequences for the resident the person preparing or administering the medication shall contact the resident's attending Physician or the facility's medical director to discuss the concerns. 7) The individual administering the medication must check the label three (3) times to verify the right resident, right medication, right dosage, right time and right method (route) of administration before giving the medication. The facility policy and procedure titled admission Orders dated revised 7/5/23 documents (in part) . Objective: To ensure orders are received upon admission to the facility in order to meet the immediate needs of a resident and remain in compliance. 5) Enter all orders in PCC (Point Click Care) under order tab and/or cosign orders per HUC (Health Unit Coordinator). Be sure the following is entered as orders in PCC upon admission: Immunization, allergies, blood sugar, code status, diet, fluid consistency, fluid restrictions, supplements, medication orders, nursing orders, standing orders, treatment orders. 6) Orders are to be verified by two nurses (License Practical Nurse (LPN) or Registered Nurse (RN), signatures are noted on admission checklist that verification is complete. R342's referral/History and Physical/orders with a date range 1/1/23 to 6/23/23 documented: Appointment date with (physician) 6/20/23. Reviewed medications: Accu check guide test strips use to test blood sugar 4 times daily. Free style lancets 28 gauge - test blood sugar 4 times daily. Insulin aspar prot-insulin aspart 100 u (units)/ml (milliliter) (70/30) insulin pen - administer 30 units under the skin every morning and every evening. R342's July 2023 Medication Administration Record (MAR) documented an order for Insulin Aspart Flex Pen Solution Pen-injector 100 unit/ml (Insulin Aspart) Inject 30 unit subcutaneously two times a day for Diabetes mellitus Morning and Evening - Start Date 6/30/23 at 5:00 PM. Times: 8:00 AM and 5:00 PM. Surveyor noted the insulin was not correctly transcribed onto R342's MAR. Ordered insulin was for Aspart 70/30 and regular Aspart insulin was transcribed. Surveyor noted insulin to be signed out as administered each date and time since admission up to and including 7/4/23 at 5:00 PM. Surveyor noted the Physician's order to check R342's blood sugar 4 times daily was not transcribed on the MAR prior to 7/5/23. Surveyor noted a facility progress note dated 6/30/23 at 10:23 AM which documented: Order Note Text: This order is outside of the recommended dose or frequency. Insulin Aspart Flex Pen Solution Pen-injector 100 unit/ml Inject 30 unit subcutaneously two times a day for Diabetes mellitus Morning and Evening. The single dose of 30 units exceeds the maximum single dose of 22.2079 units. Surveyor noted this medication alert was not clarified and was entered onto the MAR. Surveyor review of R342's progress notes which documented: On 7/4/23, at 8:30 PM, Incident Note Text: Found kneeling on floor in room next to bed, had hands on floor, was bent over and had forehead touching the floor. Was alert, verbal at first contact, assisted to roll onto back. Was last seen by CNA (Certified Nursing Assistant) and writer approximately 20 minutes prior to fall and was lying in bed watching TV. Lights were on in room, call light was on bed, not activated, walker was near bed, bed was in mid low position, floor was dry, resident had gripper socks on. No s/s (signs or symptoms) of pain, resident stated no to pain question. Resident was slow to follow directions, did grasp writers hand with left hand and grasp was strong. Skin was diaphoretic, Blood sugar taken immediately at 8:35 PM and was 29. Resident was not following with eyes, staring straight ahead. Was given 1 mg (milligram) Glucagon. MD (Medical Doctor) on call was called and updated new orders received. 911 emergency called for transport. Family 1st contact called and updated. Blood sugar taken again was at 34, resident more alert and responding slowly. Emergency EMT (Emergency Medical Transport) here and took over care. Family member states I want her sent to ER (emergency room). Resident was more alert and able to verbalize slowly. Call to ER nurse and updated, resident transported to Hospital. On 7/5/23, at 6:19 AM, Health Status Note Text: Resident returned from ER at 5:20 AM. CT (Computerized Tomography) of head done with artifact noted. Another CT of her head was completed again with no abnormal findings this time. CT of spine was also performed with no abnormal results reported. The Hospital stated they managed her blood sugar t/o (throughout) the night with results averaging in the 80s. Resident had labs obtained which did show low potassium. She is to f/u (follow up) with her primary regarding hypoglycemia and hypokalemia. Vitals obtained upon returning to facility. Resident was back to her baseline, with forgetfulness. Blood sugar at 5:30 AM was 150. On 7/5/23, at 10:17 AM, Incident Note Text: Per admission paperwork it is stated that resident was to have accu checks performed 4x day and this order did not get entered into the system under E (electronic) MAR. One did fall and was transferred per ambulance to ER for evaluation and treatment. Per admission paperwork it is stated that resident is to receive 70/30 of insulin bid (twice daily) 30 Units SQ (subcutaneous). In the EMAR it is noted as insulin Aspar prot-insulin SQ 30U bid. Upon investigation the insulin present per pen from home is the correct insulin given but not correct in the EMAR. Per IDT (Interdisciplinary Team) correct orders were put into place in MAR, education to staff on med administration, education to staff on transcribing orders. Emergency Department paperwork dated 7/4/23 documented: Found on floor with reduced mentation, glucose found to be 29. Received glucagon at facility. CT head interpreted by radiology as limited artifacts unable to fully decipher if there is any hemorrhage, recommending a repeat scan in 4-6 hours. Patient continues to be observed in the ER until that time. Repeat head CT is unremarkable. Observed in the ER for just over 6 1/2 hours. Glucose remained stable without any further intervention from our end. Glucose has been recovered, likely related to her reduced PO (by mouth) intake. Recommend to her facility to check her glucose prior to any insulin administration and to follow up with PCP (primary care provider) surrounding recommended dosing changes or sliding scale recommendations. Director of Nursing (DON)-B advised Surveyor when residents are admitted for respite care, family brings in medications, including insulin pens. DON-B reported R342 received the correct insulin, but it was still a medication error because the nurses didn't read the MAR. On 11/1/23, at 11:08 AM, Surveyor spoke with the facility Pharmacy Technician-H who reported the pharmacy sent Aspart generic for Novolog insulin on 6/30/23. Delivery ticket indicates received at facility on 7/1/23 at 1:00 AM. Pharmacy Technician-H reported the pharmacy has a product return (unknown date) for the insulin, which is unusual because the pharmacy typically doesn't accept insulin for return. Surveyor review of R342's appetite record on 7/4/23 documented: What percentage of the meal was eaten? Breakfast 75-100%, lunch 75-100% BF, dinner 0-25%. The facility incident report included staff statements which document: Registered Nurse (RN)-D (nurse that gave R342 insulin before dinner on 7/4/23): Writer did note MAR stated giving Humalog although pen stated 70/30 which had residents name labeled. Asked another nurse who worked with the resident about dosing. Other nurse stated the pens are what the family supplied. Did not recheck order. No BS (blood sugar) at lunch but at dinner time did check BG (blood glucose) while at the dining room table. BG was 210 or 216 which seemed to be a reasonable number to administer insulin prior to eating dinner. (Surveyor noted no blood sugar testing order in MAR and no evidence or documentation of alleged blood sugar taken). Writer did not follow up with the CNA's to see if the resident ate. Writer was not aware the resident did not eat dinner which lead to not reporting to oncoming nurse to monitor the resident for not eating. CNA-I: During dinner (CNA-J) asked resident what she wanted to drink. Stated she didn't want anything to drink or eat. I asked if she was sure and if she would rather have a grilled cheese, ham sandwich or PBJ (peanut butter and jelly). She refused all options claiming she had an upset stomach and did not want to eat. I got her to drink 200 cc water. She then walked back to her room. CNA-J: Resident said she wanted nothing to drink. I was starting to pass dinner food trays when I noticed her stand up and start to walk out of the DR (dining room). I reminded her that it was dinner time and that she did not eat yet. Resident stated I don't want to eat, my stomach hurts. Refused food and drink at 4:45 PM. Witnessed another CNA offer food and drink at 5 PM. After this she walked back to her room, no further interaction with resident. CNA-K: Saw resident resting in her room around 6:15 PM. Asked about bath, nodded she wanted to wait longer. Returned 30 minutes later asked if ready for shower shook head no. Asked if she wanted to use BR (bathroom) shook head no. Asked if she would like a snack shook head no. 7:15 PM resident was tired and refused toileting and bath. CNA statements documented R1 refused her meal and snacks. There was no evidence the CNA's notified the nurse that R342 refused her meal and snacks after receiving insulin. Facility typed summary of incident: Reviewed admission orders and noted omission of blood sugars present. To have BS checks qid (four times daily). Noted insulin transcribed into PCC. EMAR stated Humalog not 70/30 insulin. Education on transcription of admission orders and completing 5 checks took place with (RN-E). Education on the 5 rights for administration and 3 checks is noted with the nurses that did not check the MAR to the insulin noted from home. Audit per nurse educator will take place weekly for 6 weeks with (RN-E, RN-L, RN-D and RN-M). (Surveyor noted the nurses listed were the nurses who signed the MAR indicating the incorrect insulin was administered). At this time for any insulin that is short acting the nurses are to put in the amount of food or fluids consumed in the MAR to be aware and intervene with follow up or alternatives to make sure blood sugar does not drop. Per review transcription errors were noted, insulin was given with resident not wanting to eat and nurses did not complete 5 checks for med rights and 3 checks for med administration. Systems reviewed in depth. Education is noted and given to the whole staff team for prevention of these errors. On 11/6/23 at 7:15 AM, DON-B provided evidence of education provided at the facility skills fair on 9/20/23 to all staff nursing and CNA's including tests taken. Surveyor asked if education provided was specific to the incident involving R342. DON-B stated No, the skills fair was scheduled and this was the education provided. Surveyor review of the education provided at the skills fair included: Hypoglycemic protocol, s/sx (signs/symptoms) low blood sugar, causes of low blood glucose, hypogylcemia unawareness, treating hypoglycemia, actions of insulin to include onset, peak, duration. Notify nurse if any resident does not eat their meal, this can cause a dangerous drop in blood sugar. On 11/6/23 at 10:42 AM, DON-B was advised of the following concerns: R342's admission orders were not transcribed correctly on the MAR. The resident had orders for 70/30 insulin, however the MAR documented Aspart (regular) insulin. Although the resident did receive the correct insulin (brought in by family) the facility nurses did not verify and correct the order in the MAR. In addition, R342 had orders to check her blood sugar 4 times daily which was not transcribed onto the MAR, thus blood sugars were not being monitored as ordered. Insulin was given before the evening meal on 7/4/23 and although facility CNA's were aware the resident refused her meal and snacks, the nurse was not notified. R342 sustained a fall related to hypoglycemia. Education to all nurses and CNA's was not provided until the facility skills fair on 9/20/23. 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

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 residents with pressure injuries received necessar...

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 with pressure injuries received necessary treatment and services, consistent with professional standards of practice, to promote healing, prevent infection and prevent new ulcers from developing for 1 (R38) of 3 residents reviewed for pressure injuries. R38 was admitted to the facility with an identified pressure injury to the sacrum. The wound was not comprehensively assessed and was staged incorrectly. In addition, treatment for the pressure injury was not implemented upon admission. Findings include: The facility policy and procedure titled Wound Care, revised 10/27/23 documents (in part) . It is the policy of this facility to enable nursing staff to manage wounds and select appropriate interventions according to the National Pressure Ulcer Advisory Panel (NPUAP). 4) Wound documentation guidelines. a) Document size measurements in centimeters b) Document any undermining/tunneling/sinus tracts c) Describe any exudates - type, amount, and/or odor d) Describe the various types/characteristics of tissue in wound bed including: Tissue types 1) Slough - usually lighter in color, thinner and stringy in consistency (can be yellow, gray, white, green, brown). f) Describe any indicators of infection . j) Document current topical treatment plan, response to treatment, modifications to plan, implementation of new orders, reason for not changing treatment plan, referrals. Treatment Guidelines: Stage 2 pressure injury: Apply barrier cream, inzo, calazime or zinc products or apply foam with border dressing until healed or wound characteristics change. Change every 3-5 days or as needed. Stage 3 or 4 pressure injuries: Evaluate need for chemical, sharps or surgical debridement. Unstageable pressure injury: If slough noted mechanical or surgical debridement. R38 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that include fracture of shaft of humerus left arm, hypertensive chronic kidney disease, atherosclerotic heart disease, protein calorie malnutrition and Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease. The facility admission Admit/Readmit Screener dated 9/12/23, created by Registered Nurse (RN)-G documents: Skin Integrity - Resident bilateral heels are red but intact. Dry skin peeling off on bilateral feet. Sacrum Pressure 0.5 x 0.5 x 0.1 Stage II. Facility progress note dated 9/12/23 at 8:03 PM, entered by RN-F, documents (in part) . Resident is a new admit today following a fall at home resulting in Left Humerus fx (fracture) and mass in brain resulting in Right Frontal Craniotomy. Has stage 2 open area to coccyx noted on admission with mepilex in place. Very cooperative and pleasant. Surveyor review of R38's Treatment Administration Record (TAR) revealed no treatment for R38's pressure injury was implemented upon admission. Wound Physician-O's progress notes document: -9/14/23 Stage 3 pressure wound sacrum full thickness 1.2 x 0.5 x 0.2 cm (centimeters) 100% slough. Light serous exudate. TX (treatment) plan: Leptospermum honey apply once daily, Gauze island w/(with) border apply once daily. Surgical excisional debridement procedure: The wound was cleansed with normal saline and anesthesia was achieved using topical benzocaine. Then with clean surgical technique, curette was used to surgically excise devitalized tissue including slough, biofilm, and non-viable subcutaneous level tissues were removed at a depth of 0.2 cm and healthy bleeding tissue was observed. As a result of this procedure, the nonviable tissue in the wound bed decreased from 100% to 0%. Hemostasis was achieved and a clean dressing was applied. R38 was hospitalized for a change in condition on 9/14/23 and readmitted to the facility on [DATE]. The Admit/Readmit screener documents: Sacrum has pressure open area 2 cm x 2 cm x 0.1 cm with discoloration above this measuring 6 cm x 2 cm. Foam dressing applied. Wound Physician-O notes document: -9/21/23 Stage 3 pressure wound sacrum full thickness 1.2 x 0.7 x 0.2 cm 100% slough. Moderate serous exudate. Leptospermum honey apply once daily, Gauze island w/border apply once daily. Surveyor noted the wound was debrided by the physician. Unstageable DTI (deep tissue injury) of the upper sacrum partial thickness 2.2 x 1.4 x Not Measurable cm. Zinc ointment BID (twice daily). On 9/28/23, R38 was out at an appointment. Wound Physician-O did not see R38 that week, however an assessment was completed by Director of Nursing (DON)-B (the facility wound nurse) which documented: -9/29/23 at 1:09 PM, Writer assessed coccyx wounds 3 x 2 cm with 75% slough off white in color; mild redness to periwound; distal wound 2 cm x 1 cm pink in color mild redness to periwound. -Wound Physician-O progress note on 10/5/23 documented: Stage 3 pressure wound sacrum full thickness 1.5 x 0.4 x 0.3 cm 100% slough. light serous drainage. Improved AEB (as evidenced by) decreased surface area. No change in treatment. Wound was debrided. Unstageable DTI of the upper sacrum resolved on 10/5/23. -10/13/23 at 3:39 PM facility skin/wound note (Wound Physician-O was not in) Note Text: Wound to sacrum is noted be have measurements of 1.5 cm x 0.4 cm x 0.3 cm with 25% slough adhered to wound base. Granulation tissue is noted to wound base at 75%. Drainage is moderate serous with slight maceration noted to wound edges. No foul odor noted, air mattress is on bed and low profile roho cushion is in place to wheelchair. One states no pain or discomfort. Treatment is applied per MD (Medical Doctor) order. Will continue to change of position and pressure relieving surfaces. Wound Physician-O notes document: -10/19/23 Stage 3 pressure wound sacrum full thickness 3.5 x 1.0 x 0.3 cm. 100% slough. Debrided. No change in treatment. -10/26/2023 Stage 3 pressure wound sacrum full thickness 3.5 x 1.2 x 0.3 cm 100% slough. Improved evidenced by decreased inflammation. Surveyor noted R38 admitted to the facility on [DATE] with a pressure injury. The wound was documented as stage 2 upon admission, however there was no documentation of a comprehensive assessment of what wound bed looked like. Treatment for the pressure injury was not implemented on the TAR upon admission. Wound Physician-O documented the pressure injury as stage 3 with 100% slough 2 days later on 9/14/23. On 11/1/23, at 12:54 PM, Surveyor advised Director of Nursing (DON)-B of concern R38 admitted to the facility on [DATE] with a pressure injury documented as stage 2. There was not a comprehensive assessment of the wound to include what the wound looked like, treatment was not implemented upon admission and 2 days later the Physician documented the wound as Stage 3 pressure injury. On 11/1/23, at 2:23 PM DON-B, asked to speak with Surveyor. DON-B reported the nurse did not stage the pressure injury correctly upon admission. DON-B reported she assessed the pressure injury the next day and it had slough. She spoke to the admission nurse and asked her to describe what the wound looked like upon admission. She described slough, but said she was confused on how to stage it. Surveyor asked DON-B is she documented her assessment or conversation with the nurse. DON-B stated: I did not, I should have. I figured if she was confused, then probably others were confused too, so I took it as an opportunity for education. I did education with the nurse and all nurses. I got a free wound kit from the state of Wisconsin to work with the nurses. We measured wounds/did treatments/staged wounds. Surveyor informed DON-B that treatment for the pressure injury was not implemented upon admission 9/12/23 until the Wound Physician-O came in on 9/14/23. DON-B reported R38 has a Mepilex dressing on when she came from the hospital. We pulled it back to look at the wound. There was no information in the discharge summary about the wound, so I even called the hospital to try to find out about the wound, but wasn't able to get any information. Surveyor clarified with DON-B the wound had slough when she assessed it on 9/13/23 and asked if she called to get a new treatment. DON-B stated: No, I knew the doctor was coming in the next day and Mepilex can stay on for several days. On 11/2/23, at 1:00 PM, Surveyor asked DON-B who she spoke to regarding the wound documentation on 9/12/23. DON-B reported she spoke to RN-F. Surveyor informed DON-B that RN-G entered the measurements and staged the wound on the admission skin screener. DON-B looked at the form and reported RN-G is an agency nurse, but RN-F entered the information in the progress notes. DON-B reported the facility always has 2 nurses assess wounds, one to look at the wound and one to write down the information. DON-B provided information of skills fair education provided to staff on 9/20/23. DON-B reported the facility set up a station regarding pressure injuries and provided presentation slides. On 11/2/23, at 1:45 PM, Surveyor observed R38's sacral pressure injury wound care with RN-D and Wound Physician-O. The old dressing was removed, no active drainage was observed. Measurements: 3.8 x 0.9 x 0.3 cm. The wound bed is pink with a small amount of scattered slough throughout. Wound Physician-O used a scalpel to scrape a small amount of slough from the wound and wiped it on a gauze dressing. Surveyor identified no concerns with treatment application. On 11/2/23, at 1:52 PM, Surveyor spoke with Wound Physician-O following R38's treatment. Wound Physician-O did not recall when he first saw R38's wound or what it looked like, stating: I see a lot of butts. Surveyor advised Wound Physician-O that R38 admitted on [DATE] and he saw her on 9/14/12. Surveyor asked if he remembered the facility calling for a treatment order. Wound Physician-O stated: No, I don't remember, but that would be unusual. Usually they wait for me to come in and order treatment. After reviewing notes, Wound Physician-O reported when he first saw R38's wound it was covered with 100% slough, which he debrided. Wound Physician-O reported it was after he debrided the wound he documented the wound as stage 3. Surveyor asked Wound Physician-O: If a resident admitted on [DATE] with slough present in the wound, and he was not scheduled to come until 2 days later, would you expect the facility to call for treatment orders? Wound Physician-O stated: Slough itself can be a long term problem, but not necessarily an acute problem. As long as there is no signs of infection, I'd expect covering with a mepilex dressing would be sufficient until I came in. Surveyor reviewed the education/slides provided at the facility skills fair on 9/20/23 which included stations for: Friction and shear, barriers to adequate nutrition, support surfaces activity, foot care activity, stages of pressure injuries activity and photos representing various stages of pressure injuries. Surveyor located a back to basics licensed staff pressure injury prevention competency answer sheet completed by RN-F dated 9/20/23. On 11/6/23, at 7:15 AM, DON-B informed Surveyor she is not able to find evidence of treatment for R38's pressure injury initiated upon admission on [DATE]. DON-B confirmed the skills fair education provided was not specific to this incident. The skills fair and education was pre-planned prior to R38's admission. Surveyor notes the skills fair did not include education to all staff on documenting comprehensive assessment of wounds to include characteristics of wound/what the wound looks like and ordering/implementing treatment. Facility documented wound present on admission with mepilex dressing in place. Dressing left on without obtaining treatment orders and no treatment orders implemented on the TAR. On 11/6/23, at 10:42 AM Surveyor advised DON-B of the following concerns: R38 admitted to the facility on [DATE] with a sacral pressure injury. A comprehensive assessment was not completed and the pressure injury was not staged correctly. Facility documentation indicated a mepilex dressing in place on admission. The facility did not obtain orders for treatment and implement treatment on the TAR for R28's sacral pressure injury until 2 days after R28's admission. 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 F0692 (Tag F0692)

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 maintain acceptable parameters of nutrit...

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 maintain acceptable parameters of nutritional status, such as usual body weight or desirable body weight range, unless the resident's clinical condition demonstrates that this is not possible or resident preferences indicate otherwise for 1 (R1) of 2 residents reviewed for weight loss. R1 had daily weights ordered which were not consistently completed. R1 sustained weight loss over 9 days of 8.6 pounds (6.06%). Neither the Physician or Dietician were notified of R1's weight loss. Findings include: R1 admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that include Covid-19, Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus, Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease, Heart Failure and Anemia. The facility policy and procedure titled Resident Weights and Nutrition dated 1/14/21 documents (in part) . [Facility name] will provide a program to assist residents in maintaining acceptable parameters of nutritional status such as body weight, unless his/her clinical condition demonstrates this is not possible. Nursing, RD (Registered Dietician) and CDM (Certified Dietary Manager) will coordinate efforts for weighing, recording and monitoring weights of residents. Procedure: . 3) Admission/re-admission weight will be obtained within 24 hours, then daily for 2 days (3 consecutive days total upon admission), then weekly for 4 weeks, then monthly. The admission weight is compared to the hospital weight and/or prior facility weight records for variances. 4) Weights may be ordered by nursing RD/CDM, Physician or designee. 5) More frequent weights may be taken: a) If ordered by the medical provider b) if nursing or IDT (Interdisciplinary Team) determine more frequent weight measurement is needed to closely monitor nutritional well-being. c) unstable nutritional status (5% weight change in 30 days, 7.5% weight change in 90 days, frequent poor intake). 6) If a resident has a weight difference of 3 or more pounds in a day or 5 or more pounds in a week since the last recorded weight, a reweigh will be obtained. If the weight loss or gain remains, evaluate the resident, review the care plan to determine if revision of the plan of care is indicated. Update the MD (Medical Doctor) and RD. 7) For any significant weight changes; MD, resident/resident representative will be updated as needed. 9) Nursing, the RD and/or the CDM will review all resident weights once per week. The CDM/RD and Nursing managers will review residents that have been identified for Nutrition at Risk weekly. 14) If a residents eating habits change or she/he has a weight loss of 5% in 30 days, observe and assess resident for underlying factors. Notify the physician and RD. Determine appropriate interventions and update the resident's care plan. R1's physician's order dated 10/20/23 documented: Order summary: Daily weight in the morning. R1's hospital Discharge summary dated [DATE] documented condition at discharge: Weight 151 pounds. R1's Nutrition/Dietary note dated 10/21/23, at 2:42 PM documents: Resident admit with covid 19. Diet: NAS (no added salt) Mechanical soft/Puree meat and thin liquids. Meal preferences noted. Fair-poor meal intakes. Addition of Boost Pudding BID (twice daily) to meet daily needs. Prostat 30cc (cubic centimeters) QD (daily) for 100kcal (kilocalorie), 15gm (gram) protein to promote wound healing of noted stage 2 PI (pressure injury) to coccyx. Weight: 142 pounds (10/20). Nutrition assessment to follow. R1's MAR documented Boost Nutritional Pudding two times a day for inadequate oral intake, promote wt stability % documented. Surveyor review of percent consumed from 10/21/23 -10/31/23 (21 shifts): R1 consumed 100% 13 times, 50% 5 times, 25% 1 time and refused 1 time. R1's facility documented weights are as followed: 10/20/23 150.2 Mechanical Lift (crossed out/incorrect documentation) 10/21/23 141.8 sitting (all subsequent weights were taken sitting) 10/22/23 138.6 10/23/23 136.6 10/24/23 138.6 10/30/23 133.2 Surveyor noted this weight entered by Registered Nurse (RN)-E indicated a weight loss of 8.6 pounds/6.06% over a period of 9 days (from admission weight). 10/31/23 134.0 11/1/23 134.6 11/2/23 136.4 11/3/23 133.0 11/4 /23 133.4 11/5/23 132.0 Surveyor noted R1's Medication Administration Record (MAR) documented: Daily weight in the morning - start Date 10/21/23 to be signed out as completed, however R1's daily weight was not completed as ordered. R1 was not weighed for 5 days from 10/25/23 to 10/29/23. R1's next weight on 10/30/23 documented weight loss of 8.6 pounds. There was no evidence in R1's medical record the Physician or Dietician was notified of R1's weight loss documented on 10/30/23. Surveyor noted orders for Bumetanide 1 mg (milligram) two times a day for CHF (Congestive Heart Failure) -start date 10/20/23. R1 was seen by the cardiologist on 10/30/23. New orders for Bumetanide 1 mg two times a day for CHF - decrease to 1 mg daily if weight increases 3 pounds in a day or or 5 pounds in a week - start Date 10/31/23. On 11/6/23 at 8:40 AM Surveyor asked Infection Preventionist-C to view the new cardiology order. Infection Preventionist-C stated: That doesn't make sense, if her weight goes up why would he want the Bumex decreased - it should be the opposite. I'll have to clarify this. On 11/2/23 at 9:52 AM Surveyor spoke with Registered Nurse (RN)-D who reported ordered weights are on the MAR and either the CNA (Certified Nursing Assistant) or the nurse can enter the weight. Surveyor asked who is responsible for monitoring residents' weight for a loss or gain. RN-D reported when the weight it entered, I believe it will do an alert if there is a loss or gain of 5 pounds. Also, I know the residents, so when the aide gives me the weight and it doesn't sound right to me, I can ask for a reweigh. If they have had a gain then I would assess the resident, look for edema, check their lungs and let the doctor know. Surveyor asked what she would do if there was a weight loss. RN-D stated: The same, I'd do an assessment, see how they've been eating, if they're on diuretics that may have contributed and let the doctor know. Surveyor and RN-D reviewed R1's weights together. RN-D reported she is not sure why R1's daily weights were not entered. Surveyor asked who is responsible for monitoring the weights if there is gain or loss. RN-D stated: The nurses. On 11/2/23 at 11:14 AM Surveyor spoke with RN-E. Surveyor asked who is responsible for entering weights. RN-E reported either the CNA or the nurse enter weights. Surveyor advised RN-E that R1 is to be a daily weight and weights were not entered for a period of 5 days 10/25/23 through 10/29/23. RN-E stated: That was probably my fault, I know I worked that week because it was my birthday, I'm sure I got her weight, but didn't enter it. If the aides don't get the weight, I make sure the next shift gets the weight. Surveyor advised RN-E she entered R1's weight on 10/30/23 which indicated a loss of 8.6 pounds over a period of 9 days since admission, and asked if she recalled being aware of the weight loss. RN-E stated: I don't remember, but I've worked with her since the beginning and she has not changed, she doesn't have increased edema and her lungs are clear. Surveyor advised I was looking at weight loss not gain. RN-E reported she did not remember noticing R1's weight loss on 10/30/23, adding but she hasn't had any change. I know she hates the food, absolutely hates it, and she doesn't drink her supplements, I think it's boost. Surveyor asked RN-E if she became aware of an 8 pound weight loss over a period of 9 days on a resident that you know hates the food and does not like taking her supplements, what would you do? RN-E reported she would call the doctor and let the Dietician know. Surveyor asked RN-E what she did when she entered R1's 10/30/23 weight which indicated an 8.6 pound weight loss over a period of 9 days. RN-E stated: No, I don't remember. On 11/2/23 at 10:06 AM Surveyor spoke with Registered Dietician (RD)-V. She reported weights are a joint effort between herself and nursing. I look more at the weekly and monthly weights, nursing is more on top of the daily weight monitoring and letting the doctor know. RD-V reported she looks at the 24 hour summary daily and the weights and vital exception report 2 times a week. RD-V reported she has a list of who is daily and weekly weights. Surveyor advised RD-V of concern R1's weekly weight not completed as ordered, and asked if she was aware of the weight obtained on 10/30/23 which identified a loss of 8.6 pounds and 6.06% over a period of 9 days. RD-V reported she was off last week, but she (R1) is on my list, I'm going through it today. After reviewing R1's weights, RD-V stated: I see that it did trigger (in red) the weight loss. Surveyor asked RD-V what is her expectation when a nurse enters a weight that triggers weight loss. Dietician stated: I expect the nurse to either give me a phone call or call the CDM if I'm not here. RD-V viewed the MAR and stated: It looks like they were weighing her daily and then stopped for that week. They're putting a check mark that she is being weighed daily. I'm not sure why they missed those days (10/25/23 to 10/29/23). RD-V added: Yes, and I see then on 10/30/23 is when she triggered for the weight loss. She is on my list so I will be reviewing her. On 11/6/23 at 10:42 AM Director of Nursing (DON)-B was advised of the following concerns: R1's daily weight was not completed as ordered. No weight was recorded from 10/25/23 to 10/29/23. The next weight entered on 10/30/23 indicated a weight loss of 8.6 pounds/6.06% over a period of 9 days since admission. Neither the Physician nor the Dietician were notified of R1's weight loss. No additional information was provided.
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

Based on observation and interview the facility did not ensure that food was stored, prepared and served under sanitary conditions. Staff were observed touching ready to eat food after touching non-sa...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation and interview the facility did not ensure that food was stored, prepared and served under sanitary conditions. Staff were observed touching ready to eat food after touching non-sanitized food surfaces with no barrier or handwashing. This deficient practice had the potential to affect 42 of 43 residents served food from these kitchenettes. On 10/31/23, Dietary Aide-S was observed touching ready to eat food (cupcakes) with a bare hand after touching non-sanitized food surfaces (counter and steam table lid covers) and place the food item onto trays for residents to eat. Findings include: The facility policy, entitled Bare Hand Contact with Food and Use of Plastic Gloves, from Policy and Procedure Manual, 2013 [Name of Company], states, Single-use gloves will be worn when handling food directly with hands to assure that bacteria are not transferred from the food handlers' hand to the food product being served. Bare hand contact with food is prohibited. #2. Staff use clean barriers such as single-use gloves, tongs, deli paper and spatulas to prevent food borne illness. #3. Gloved hands are considered a food contact surface that can get contaminated or soiled. If used, single use gloves shall be used for only one task (such as working with ready-to-eat food or with raw animal food), used for no other purpose, and discarded when damaged or soiled, or when interruptions occur in the operation. #6. Gloves are just like hands. They get soiled. Anytime a contaminated surface is touched, the gloves must be changed. -After coughing or sneezing into hands, using a handkerchief or tissue, using tobacco or touching hair or face. 1.On 10/31/23, at 11:28 AM, Surveyor observed Dietary Aide-S on the 4th floor kitchenette pick up a cupcake with a bare hand and place it on a tray and then continue to plate the meal. At 11:29 AM Surveyor observed the same dietary aide-S pick up a cupcake with a bare hand and place it on a tray. She continued this action three additional times before stopping to grab tongs from the drawer. Dietary Aide-s then used tongs to place cupcakes on to the trays. On 11/01/23, at 02:15 PM, Surveyor interviewed Dietary Manager (DM)-R who explained that ready to eat food cannot handle with bare hands at all. Staff must use gloves or utensil. DM-R also stated that gloves are to be worn for single tasks and need to be removed and hands washed if task is interrupted. Surveyor explained observations of Dietary Aide-S touching cupcakes with bare hands. Dietary Manager stated she would speak with staff. On 11/01/23, at 03:13 PM, during the end of the day meeting with Nursing Home Administrator (NHA)-A and Director of Nursing (DON)-B, Surveyor informed them of the concerns with touching ready to eat food with no barrier and potential cross contamination of food handling when wearing plastic gloves. On 11/06/23, Dietary Manager-R informed Surveyor that she began educating kitchen staff on proper handling of foods and food storage and provided documentation of this. No additional information was provided at this time.
CONCERN (F) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Infection Control (Tag F0880)

Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents

Based on interview and record review the facility did not establish and maintain a comprehensive Water Management Plan (WMP), to reduce the growth and spread of Legionella, which has the potential to ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview and record review the facility did not establish and maintain a comprehensive Water Management Plan (WMP), to reduce the growth and spread of Legionella, which has the potential to affect 43 of the 43 residents residing in the facility at the time of the survey. The facility's Water Management Plan (WMP) did not address components of a complete water management plan to include; the names, titles, contact information and roles of the water management program team, the buildings water systems, identification of external hazards and plans for mitigating or managing these events, identifying areas where biofilms may be present and where pathogens may grow and spread in the plumbing systems, conduct an infection control risk assessment, identify control point locations and determine how control measures will be applied using both the environment assessment and the infection control assessment. The facility's WMP did not address control limits for control measures that will be monitored (water temperature, etc.), outbreak and contingency response plans, verification the plan has been implemented, documentation, and communication, in order to reduce the growth and spread of Legionella. The WMP was dated 2021 and there was no evidence the facility had reviewed this plan annually. Findings include: According to the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), Developing a Water Management Program to Reduce Legionella Growth & Spread in Buildings. A practical guide to implementing industry standards dated June 24, 2021 version 1.1 states in part; Legionnaires' disease is a serious type of pneumonia cause by bacteria, called Legionella, that live in water. Legionella can make people sick when they inhale contaminated water from building water systems that are not adequately maintained. Unfortunately, Legionnaire's disease is on the rise in the United States. To reverse this trend, we are asking for your help to management the risk of exposure to Legionella from water in your building .This toolkit will help you develop and implement a water management program to reduce your buildings risk for growing and spreading Legionella . www.cdc.gov/legionella/WMPtoolkit. According to the CDC, Healthcare Facility Water Management Program Checklist updated 11/17/2021, www.cdc.gov/hai/prevent/water-management.html, the checklist is intended to assist in the development of an all-hazards approach to water management in a healthcare facility, and may be used to: - Evaluate a comprehensive water management program - Identify individuals to participate in the water management program - Assist in conducting assessments, including hazard analysis, environmental risk assessments, and infection control risk assessments. - Inform water monitoring practices guided by the management program . The facility's policy entitled Water Management Program to Reduce Legionella Growth & Spread, dated 12/2021, documented: Purpose: To monitor and manage the water system at LLC [sic] to reduce the risk of the growth and spread of Legionella. Procedure: Water Management Team at [name of the facility] includes the Building Supervisor, Assistant Administrator, Director of Nursing and the Infection Preventionist. .External factors to building that lead to Legionella growth: Construction .water main breaks .changes in municipal water quality . .Internal Factors to buildings that can lead to Legionella growth: Biofilm, Scale and sediment, Water Temperature fluctuations, Water Pressure changes, pH, Inadequate disinfectant, Water stagnation . The section of the policy entitled, Control Measures and Corrective Actions, contained one page which documented the maintenance department is responsible for checking and maintain the following: Daily temperature is documented on the appropriate form .Air Conditioning .Tri-Monthly cleaning of the ice machine . Corrective Actions documented: If the temperature is not within the designated range, the maintenance department will adjust to get it to the correct temperature .If the hardness of the water is not correct-they will adjust the salt level in the water softeners. ? [sic] not noted in the control measures above; If there is a water main break-follow building supervisors direction .Any abnormalities to the above control measures will be documented and noted by the building supervisor . Surveyor noted the above three control measures-daily temperature, air conditioning and tri-monthly cleaning of the ice machines-were the only risk hazards/control measures documented in the facility's WMP. Surveyor noted the above three corrective actions were the only corrective actions documented in the facility's WMP. Surveyor noted the above document was the only document provided by the facility relating to the facility's WMP. Surveyor noted the facility's WMP did not; Include the names, titles, contact information and roles of the water management program team, Did not identify areas where biofilms may be present and where pathogens may grow and spread in the plumbing systems, Did not conduct an infection control risk assessment, Did not identify all of the control point locations and determine how control measures will be applied using both the environment assessment and the infection control assessment. Did not address outbreak and contingency response plans, Did not include verification the plan has been implemented, Did not include documentation, Did not include communication of their plan. On 11/02/23 at 10:22 AM, Surveyor interviewed Registered Nurse, Infection Preventionist (IP)-C. Per IP-C she did not have any involvement in the facility's WMP previously, but moving forward she will. Per IP-C, Surveyor should speak with Nursing Home Administrator (NHA)-A in regards to the facility's WMP. On 11/02/23 at 10:38 AM, Surveyor interviewed NHA-A. Per NHA-A, the County Facility's department is responsible for the WMP. NHA-A informed Surveyor the facility had a contract with a company to do water testing in 2018, but NHA-A could not find anything between 2018 and present. NHA-A showed Surveyor the contract with [name of company] and the testing information. The contract was dated 2017 and the testing was form 2018. Surveyor showed NHA-A the facility's WMP/policy and questioned a lack of information such as names, contact information and assignments of the team members. Surveyor asked NHA-A if the building had any closed units/rooms. Per NHA-A the second floor has been shut down but the water is not considered stagnate because the facility is flushing/running the water in the unused rooms. Surveyor asked how often the facility is running/flushing the water. NHA-A stated monthly. Surveyor asked what standard of practice the facility follows for their WMP and Surveyor asked if there was documentation recording the monthly flushing. Per NHA-A, he did not think there would be any documentation for the monthly flushing. NHA-A informed Surveyor he had spoken with the County Facility's Manager (FM)-N. Per NHA-A, FM-N was working with [name of company] to provide water testing and a new contract should be signed either by that afternoon or Monday. On 11/06/23 at 8:28 AM, NHA-A gave Surveyor a Superior Health Quality Alliance document. This document was entitled, Nursing Home Emergency Preparedness Plan Review. Surveyor reviewed this plan and did not find information relevant to the facility's water management plan. Per NHA-A, he could not find any information between 2018 and present. NHA-A showed Surveyor previous WMP, dated 2017, which documented water testing from 2018. NHA-A stated once Facility's took over, they took all of our documentation and it seems as though there is nothing from 2018 to present. NHA-A informed Surveyor, Surveyor could meet with FM-N later that day to discuss the WMP. On 11/06/23 at 10:29 AM, Surveyor interviewed NHA-A and FM-N. FM-N informed Surveyor she thinks she is in charge of the facility's WMP. Per FM-N, she just took over her position in September. FM-N stated they have not been actively involved in developing or implementing a WMP. Per FM-N there is a meeting scheduled for Wednesday and there is an agenda to go over such as reviewing the Water Management program, the testing requirements, updating documents and control measures. FM-N provided Surveyor with a copy of the water temperature testing log and the water softener testing log. Surveyor asked about the closed unit/rooms. Per FM-N, those areas are being flushed monthly. NHA-A then informed Surveyor the facility's maintenance staff is flushing those units weekly. Surveyor asked for documentation regarding the flushing of the closed units. Surveyor reviewed weekly flushing documentation from the month of October provided by maintenance staff (MS)-P. Per MS-P, he was flushing/running the water weekly, but just recently started documenting it. Surveyor explained the need for documentation of the control measures performed as part of a comprehensive WMP. Surveyor relayed the concern of a lack of a thorough WMP which should include all of the risk hazards in the water system, including dead legs (closed units rooms), control measures in place for those risk hazards and names and contact numbers of the team members assigned to those tasks. FM-N and NHA-A verbalized understanding. Surveyor asked for any additional information. No additional information was provided.
Dec 2022 1 deficiency 1 Harm
SERIOUS (G) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

Actual Harm - a resident was hurt due to facility failures

Accident Prevention (Tag F0689)

A resident was harmed · This affected 1 resident

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

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility did not ensure the environment remained free from accident hazards and assistive devices to prevent accidents for 2 (R1 and R3) of 3 residents reviewed for falls. R1 had a fall while using a sit-to-stand lift on 10/12/2022 that was not reported, documented, or investigated. No interventions were put in place to prevent future falls or injuries. On 10/13/2022, R1 was using a sit-to-stand lift and had an unresponsive episode while sitting on the toilet with the sit-to-stand lift in place and R1 sustained a fractured humerus. No evaluation was completed on R1's use of the sit-to-stand lift to determine if the lift was appropriate for R1 to use after 10/12/2022 or if a total lift was more appropriate to prevent harm. R3 had a fall on 11/3/2022 and the interdisciplinary team determined a scoop mattress would be an appropriate intervention to prevent future falls. The scoop mattress intervention was not added to R3's Falls Care Plan. A scoop mattress was not observed on R3's bed. R3 had a fall on 12/5/2022 out of the wheelchair and Dycem was observed on R3's wheelchair cushion. The Dycem was not added to R3's Falls Care Plan. Findings: The facility Policy and Procedure entitled Accident(s), Incident(s), dated 7/30/2018, states: 2) An initial care plan will be developed for any resident that is determined to be at risk for falls. a) if at risk for falls, the house fall protocol will be implemented. 3) This care plan is communicated to appropriate staff members. 4) Care plans and assessments should be re-evaluated at a minimum of quarterly, with any new change of condition and/or accident/incident as deemed necessary. 5) If a fall occurs, the facility will provide nursing and/or emergency care as needed per facility's policy and procedure standards of practice and follow Incident Report Investigation Checklist. When an accident or incident occurs: .3) Complete Accident/ Incident Investigation Checklist at time of accident/incident with all staff present. a) If accident/incident is not witnessed; or the resident is not able to verbalize a probable cause; or the nurse is unable to determine a probable cause; or there is an injury in a suspicious location, and/or resident has injury has a suspicious [sic] origin i) The Nurse must interview staff on duty on the unit and take a statement from the staff members using Staff Statement Tool. ii) The Nurse or designee must interview the staff and write statements for the staff member.5) If a fall related incident: . i) Update fall assessment in electronic medical record prior to shift ending - nurse on duty is responsible; if completed by an LPNN, a RN must co-sign. ii) Update fall Care Plan with immediate fall interventions - nurse on duty is responsible.9) Add to 24-hour communication board. 10) IDT team will review accident/ incident next business day. R1 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that include: Alzheimer's Disease, major depressive disorder, constipation, dysphagia, and anxiety disorder. R1's annual Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] indicated R1 had a severe cognitive impairment with a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 00 and coded R1 as needing extensive assistance with transfers, toilet use, dressing, and hygiene. R1 was admitted into Hospice on 11/15/2022 and passed away on 11/17/2022. R1 was not observed during the survey. R1's Activities of Daily Living Care Plan had the following interventions in place on 10/10/2022: -Toilet Use: extensive assistance of one with EZ stand, R1 wears incontinence brief, provide with perineal care and help adjust clothing. -Transfer: Extensive assistance from 1 person, a stand-up lift (may require 2 assist in/out of bed for setup/removal). R1's Falls Care Plan had the following interventions in place on 10/10/2022: -Anticipate and meet R1's needs. -Be sure R1's call light is within reach and encourage R1 to use it for assistance as needed; R1needs prompt response to all requests for assistance. -Educate about safety reminders and what to do if a fall occurs. -Fall mat next to bed when in bed. -Follow facility fall protocol. -Physical therapy evaluate and treat as ordered and as needed. -Review information on past falls and attempt to determine cause of falls; record possible root causes; alter/remove any potential causes if possible; educate as to causes. On 12/13/2022 at 12:54 PM, Surveyor requested all fall investigations regarding R1 from Director of Nursing (DON)-B. On the Request for Therapy Screen form, Rehab Director-D completed the form on 10/18/2022 indicating R1's foot slipped off the back of the foot plate of the EZ stand on 10/10/2022 and R1 was lowered to the floor. The Fall Care Plan was reviewed, and the Fall Care Plan indicated R1 had a fall on 10/10/2022 with the following intervention implemented on 10/18/2022: staff education and assess grip pad on foot plate of EZ stand. Surveyor did not find any documentation in R1's medical record of a fall that R1 sustained on 10/10/2022. DON-B provided Surveyor with the incident report that was initiated on 10/17/2022 of R1's fall dated 10/12/2022 in which R1's foot slipped in the EZ stand and R1 was lowered to the bed. The fall investigation stated it was later determined that R1 had been lowered to the floor and then transferred to the bed. In an interview with DON-B on 12/15/2022 at 1:19 PM, Surveyor asked DON-B to clarify the date of R1's fall because the Falls Care Plan and the Request for Therapy Screen form indicated the fall occurred on 10/10/2022. DON-B stated R1's fall occurred on 10/12/2022 and not 10/10/2022. DON-B stated the IDT was investigating another incident involving R1 when it was discovered that R1 had been lowered to the floor on 10/12/2022 by facility staff when R1's foot slipped from the EZ stand. DON-B was aware there was no documentation by nursing staff on 10/12/2022 of R1's fall and DON-B stated the nurse was educated in the proper documentation that was needed after a fall. Surveyor noted a late entry of the fall on 10/12/2022 was not put in R1's medical record . Surveyor noted no investigation into R1's fall with the use of the EZ stand was completed on 10/12/2022 and no interventions were implemented on 10/12/2022 to prevent future falls or injuries. Surveyor noted R1 was not assessed in the use of the EZ stand to determine if the EZ stand was an appropriate transfer device for R1. On 10/13/2022 at 7:13 AM in the progress notes, nursing charted the Registered Nurse (RN) was called into R1's room by a certified nursing assistant (CNA.) Nursing charted R1 was observed on the sit-to-stand lift slumped over to right side while sitting on the toilet. Nursing charted R1 was unresponsive for thirty seconds upon the nurse arriving in the room and R1 slowly regained responsiveness with verbal and tactile stimuli. Nursing charted R1's vital signs and noted R1 to be hypotensive (low blood pressure) 88/47, pulse 104, respirations 10-12. On 10/13/2022 at 7:33AM in the progress notes, nursing charted the Nurse Practitioner (NP) was called and was informed of R1's syncopal (passing out) episode. Nursing charted the NP gave orders to recheck R1's vital signs and monitor; the NP informed the nursing staff member that R1 was a comfort focus and to encourage fluids and eating. On 10/13/2022 at 10:12 AM in the progress notes, nursing charted Tylenol 650 mg was given to R1 for left shoulder pain. Surveyor noted R1 had not requested or complained of pain to the left shoulder in the past. On 10/13/2922 at 2:36 PM in the progress notes, nursing charted the NP was notified R1 was back to baseline, Tylenol was given for arm pain, and R1 did not have any more syncope episodes. On 10/13/2022 at 7:43 PM in the progress notes, nursing charted a blue/purple bruise was noted to R1's left upper arm during PM cares that measured 4 cm x 5 cm. On 10/14/2022 at 8:59 AM in the progress notes, nursing charted the CNA alerted the nurse that R1 had blister in the bruise on the left upper arm. Nursing charted the blood blister and bruising likely occurred on 10/13/2022 when R1 became unresponsive in the EZ stand and the skin was pinched. Nursing charted a further assessment showed increased pain, guarding (protecting arm,) and vocal complaints of pain from R1 was noted with touch and movement. Nursing charted the NP was notified and a new order for skin prep to blister twice daily and x-rays STAT (as soon as possible) to the left shoulder, clavicle, humerus, radius, and ulna were ordered. On 10/14/2022 at 12:26 PM in the progress notes, nursing charted the facility was notified that R1's x-ray of the left humerus indicated an acute fracture of the cervical neck. R1's Activities of Daily Living Care Plan was revised on 10/14/2022 with the following intervention: transfer R1 with a Hoyer lift. EZ stand transfers were discontinued. On 10/18/2022 at 09:54 AM in the progress notes, the IDT charted the root cause of R1's fall was due to R1's foot slipping from the EZ stand resulting in R1 needing to be lowered to the floor. The recommended interventions were staff education and assess the grip pad on the foot plate of the EZ Stand. Surveyor noted the IDT note on 10/18/2022 did not indicate when R1 had a fall from the EZ stand and no other documentation was found regarding a fall on 10/10/2022 or 10/12/2022. In an interview on 12/13/2022 at 1:30PM, CNA-C stated CNA-C got R1 up and transferred to the toilet using the EZ stand on 10/13/2022. CNA-C stated CNA-C was washing R1 up with R1 standing in the EZ stand, and R1 went limp so CNA-C lowered R1 onto the toilet and ran to the door, yelled for help and put all the call lights on in the room. CNA-C stated the nurse came to do vital signs, got R1 aroused awake and went to call the NP. CNA-C stated CNA-C attempted to get R1 up again using the EZ stand and R1 passed out again, so CNA-C lowered R1 to toilet and left to get CNA-F. CNA-C stated CNA-C and CNA-F attempted to get R1 up again to put the Hoyer lift sling under R1 using the EZ stand and R1 passed out again. CNA-C and CNA-F got the Hoyer lift and transferred R1 back to bed. CNA-C stated R1 had total of three episodes of unresponsiveness and the nurse was aware of all of them but was only present for the first episode. CNA-C stated CNA-C became aware R1 has had fainting episodes in the past but only through word of mouth and had never experienced it until the episode on 10/13/2022. Surveyor asked CNA-C if R1 had complained of any pain. CNA-C stated R1 was saying ow when being lifted in the sling with the Hoyer lift. In an interview on 12/13/2022 at 2:44 PM, Surveyor spoke with Rehab Director-D regarding the request for a therapy screen for transfer assessment after the fall on 10/12/2022 when R1's feet slipped off EZ stand. Rehab Director-D stated the form was completed on 10/18/2022 after the IDT meeting of which Rehab Director-D is a part of met on 10/17/2022. Rehab Director-D stated the NP discontinued the transfer assessment order from R1's fall on 10/12/2022 due to R1 sustaining a fractured arm on 10/13/2022 and being on comfort care. Rehab Director-D stated R1 was never assessed for transfer status after the fall on 10/12/2022. Rehab Director-D stated R1 was last seen for therapy on 2/2022 for physical therapy and Occupational therapy for position changes. Rehab Director-D stated R1 was given another wheelchair at that time. Rehab Director-D stated the IDT meets daily and investigates the falls of residents from the previous day. Rehab Director-D stated Rehab Director-D did not know why the IDT did not meet after the fall on 10/12/2022 until 10/17/2022. On the Request for Therapy Screen form completed on 10/18/2022, the interventions listed on the form were to educate the nurse and Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) regarding reporting incidents, proper transfer training, and maintenance work order to check the foot plate of the EZ stand. The request of the therapy screen originated from the Fall Committee. The therapy response to the request per Rehab Director-D was discontinued due to R1's current status on 10/18/2022 with an arm fracture and the request for comfort care. In an interview on 12/13/2022 at 2:52 PM, Surveyor asked Registered Nurse (RN)-E about R1 after the syncopal episodes on 10/13/2022. RN-E stated RN-E was told about the bruise on R1's arm on the bicep area from the CNA. RN-E stated RN-E went to assess R1 and R1 had no pain at the time and no swelling noted. RN-E stated RN-E was moving R1's arm around and R1 never said anything about pain. RN-E stated R1 had no complaints of pain all shift and was surprised when came RN-E came in the next day and the area was more bruised. RN-E stated RN-E figured it was because when R1 was slumped over during the fainting episode, maybe R1 was pulled by the CNA to sit up. RN-E was not aware of R1 having difficulty with the EZ stand or previous episodes of syncope while in EZ stand. In an interview on 12/15/2022 at 11:16 AM, Surveyor asked CNA-F about R1's episode of unresponsiveness on 10/13/2022. CNA-F stated CNA-F was called to R1's room by CNA-C to help with R1's transfer with the EZ stand because R1 had passed out. CNA-F was unsure if R1 ever came to when trying to get up off toilet. CNA-F remembered R1 saying ow when being transferred in the Hoyer lift. CNA-F stated CNA-F did not hear a crack or pop when lifting R1 up. CNA-F did not recall hearing about an incident of R1's feet slipping off the EZ stand during a transfer. In an interview on 12/15/2022 at 12:57 PM, Surveyor spoke with Rehab Director-D who had talked with other rehab staff and looked back at notes for clarification after the last interview with Surveyor. Rehab Director-D clarified that initially the IDT did not think R1 had a fall on 10/12/2022, but when the IDT reviewed the information on 10/17/2022, they felt R1 had a fall and then the investigation with staff interviews began. In an interview on 12/15/2022 at 1:20 PM, Surveyor asked Director of Nursing (DON)- B about R1's fall on 10/12/2022. DON-B stated that R1's fall on 10/12/2022 was brought to DON-B's attention on Monday 10/17/2022. DON-B stated the investigation into the incident found it was a fall and that R1 had to be lowered to the floor when the feet slipped off the EZ stand. DON-B stated the CNA went to get a nurse and the nurse stated it was ok to put R1 back to bed without assessing R1. DON-B stated staff have been educated as a whole about using EZ stands and all the gripper strips on the EZ lifts have been changed. DON-B stated LPNs are instructed to call 911 if no RN is in the building and this policy has been implemented after R1's fall occurred. On 12/15/2022 at 2:25 PM, Surveyor met with Nursing Home Administrator (NHA)-A and DON-B to review the concerns regarding R1's falls and transfer status. Surveyor shared the concern R1 had a witnessed fall on 10/12/2022 while using the EZ stand that was not documented in R1's medical record and no investigation to the cause of the fall or interventions were completed until 10/18/2022, six days after the fall occurred. Surveyor shared the concern R1 was not assessed to determine if the EZ stand transfer was an appropriate transfer device after the fall on 10/12/2022 and R1 sustained a fractured arm on 10/13/2022 while using an EZ lift. No further information was provided at that time. *)R3 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses of Alzheimer's disease, diabetes, heart failure, coronary artery disease, anxiety, and alcohol abuse. R3's admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] indicated R3 had moderate cognitive impairment with a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 8 and codded R3 as needing extensive assistance with bed mobility and transfers and did not ambulate in the room or hallway. R3 had a history of falls prior to admission and was admitted to the facility after sustaining a fracture to the left hip that was surgically repaired. R3's Risk for Falls Care Plan was initiated on 8/12/2022 with the following interventions: -Be sure the call light is in reach and encourage R3 to use it for assistance as needed. R3 needs prompt response to all requests for assistance. -Ensure R3 is wearing appropriate footwear (shoes or gripper socks) when ambulating or mobilizing in wheelchair. -Follow facility fall protocol. R3's Risk for Falls Care Plan was revised on 9/3/2022 with the following intervention: ensure R3 has heel lift boots on at all times when in bed to off load. R3's Risk for Falls Care Plan was revised on 9/22/2022 with the following intervention: place wheelchair within reach at all times. On 11/1/2022 at 12:30 AM in the progress notes, nursing charted R3 was found lying on the right side on the floor next to the bed. R3 was assessed by a Registered Nurse (RN) and was found to have no injuries and no complaints of pain. Nursing charted R3 had heel boots on, the call light was in reach, the bed was in low position and the care plan was followed. Nursing charted R3 had last been seen at 12:10 AM. Nursing charted R3 stated R3 had been dreaming and rolled off the bed. Nursing charted the immediate intervention put in place was a fall mat. On 11/1/2022 at 9:47 AM in the progress notes, the interdisciplinary team (IDT) met and determined the fall mat was an appropriate intervention. R3's Risk for Falls Care Plan was revised on 11/1/2022 with the following intervention: 11/1/2022 fall - mat on floor next to bed. The facility implemented a second Risk for Falls Care Plan on 11/2/2022 with the following interventions: -Assist R3 with ambulation and transfers, utilizing therapy recommendations. -Determine R3's ability to transfer. -Evaluate fall risk on admission and as needed. -If a fall occurs, alert provider. -If a fall occurs, initiate frequent neuro and bleeding evaluation per facility protocol. -If R3 is a fall risk, initiate fall risk precautions. On 11/3/2022 at 5:28 PM in the progress notes, nursing charted R3 was found lying down net to the bed with blankets around R3's body. Nursing charted R3 was down for a nap and R3 stated R3 rolled off the bed. Nursing charted the fall mat was in place and R3 did not sustain any injuries. On 11/4/2022 at 9:52 AM in the progress notes, the IDT determined a scoop mattress was an appropriate intervention to prevent future falls. Surveyor noted R3's Risk for Falls Care Plan was not revised to include the scoop mattress intervention. On 12/5/2022 at 7:45 PM in the progress notes, nursing charted R3 had been sitting in the wheelchair watching TV and the wheelchair was noted to be tipped forward and R3 was sitting on the foot pedals. Nursing charted R3 had reached forward and slid off the seat. Nursing charted Occupational Therapy evaluation for wheelchair positioning was the immediate intervention. On 12/6/2022 at 9:47 AM in the progress notes, the IDT determined Dycem on the cushion and a therapy evaluation were appropriate interventions to prevent future falls. Surveyor noted R3's Risk for Falls Care Plan was not revised to include the Dycem on the wheelchair cushion or a therapy evaluation. In an interview on 12/13/2022 at 1:05 PM, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN)-G stated resident care plans are on the back of the resident's bathroom door so anyone can help with transfers or any other cares or see what is on the care plan. On 12/13/2022 at 1:25 PM, Surveyor observed R3 sleeping in bed. The bed was in a low position, a fall mat was on the floor next to the bed, and the call light was in reach. The mattress in place was not a scoop mattress. Multiple pillows were placed on the side of the bed opposite the wall. Surveyor observed Dycem on R3's wheelchair cushion. Surveyor observed R3's Care Plan on the back of the bathroom door. A scoop mattress and Dycem for the wheelchair cushion were not listed on the care plan. In an interview on 12/13/2022 at 2:30 PM, Surveyor asked Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA)-C if R3 had any interventions in place to prevent falls. CNA-C stated R3 gets a fall mat on the floor, but CNA-C stated R3 had only been on the unit for a couple of weeks so did not know R3 very well yet. Surveyor asked CNA-C if R3 should have Dycem in the chair. CNA-C stated the Dycem may have been put in the chair from the other unit to keep R3 from sliding out of the chair because R3 had really long legs, but CNA-C did not know if the Dycem should have been on the cushion or not. On 12/15/2022 at 10:30 AM, Surveyor observed R3 asleep sitting in the wheelchair in R3's room. The call light was in reach, the fall mat was up against the wall, and the mattress in place on the bed was a regular mattress, not a scoop mattress. In an interview on 12/15/2022 at 11:10 AM, Surveyor asked Director of Nursing (DON)-B what the facility process was for reviewing and revising Care Plans. DON-B stated Care Plans are reviewed quarterly, with significant changes, and as needed. Surveyor asked DON-B how falls are investigated, and Care Plans revised after a fall. DON-B stated the IDT meets the next day after a fall occurs to review the fall and determine interventions to address the cause of the fall and then the Care Plan is updated with that intervention. DON-B stated the nursing process is used to develop Care Plans and education has been started with the nurses on the floor to update Care Plans. In an interview on 12/15/2022 at 1:00 PM, Surveyor asked Rehab Director-D if R3 was screened on 12/5/2022 after R3 slid out of the wheelchair. Rehab Director-D stated R3 was already on case load and the fall on 12/5/2022 was discussed on 12/6/2022 with the IDT, of which Rehab Director-D is a part of. Rehab Director-D stated Dycem under the wheelchair cushion is standard for all residents. Rehab Director-D stated R3 has a small upper body and long legs so Rehab Director-D may have put the Dycem on top of the wheelchair cushion at that time but could not recall for certain. Rehab Director-D stated since R3 was already on Physical Therapy caseload, options had been prepared prior to therapy seeing R3 to address the fall out of the wheelchair and the Dycem was implemented on 12/7/2022 when R3 was seen by therapy. Surveyor asked Rehab Director-D if a scoop mattress was discussed with the IDT after R3's fall on 11/3/2022. Rehab Director-D could not recall a scoop mattress as part of the conversation. In an interview on 12/15/2022 at 1:19 PM, Surveyor reviewed with DON-B R3's falls. Surveyor asked DON-B if R3 had a scoop mattress placed on the bed after the fall on 11/3/2022 when the scoop mattress was the recommendation. DON-B stated DON-B would check with maintenance to see if a scoop mattress was ordered and placed on the bed. DON-B stated R3 had changed rooms in the last week or so and the scoop mattress may not have moved with R3. Surveyor asked DON-B if R3's Care Plan should have been revised with Dycem on top of the wheelchair cushion after R3's fall on 12/5/2022. DON-B stated Dycem is a standard on all wheelchairs under the cushion and the Dycem on top of the cushion should have been added to the Falls Care Plan because that is an extra intervention. In an interview on 12/15/2022 at 2:00 PM, DON-B provided the maintenance work order for R3's scoop mattress: the mattress was ordered and placed on the bed on 11/4/2022. DON-B stated R3's bed was not moved when R3 changed rooms. R3 changed rooms on 11/29/2022. DON-B stated if the scoop mattress had been on the Care Plan, the scoop mattress would have moved with R3, or the staff would have been aware R3 needed a scoop mattress. Surveyor noted R3 did not have a scoop mattress on the bed since 11/29/2022. No further information was provided at that time.
Jul 2022 6 deficiencies
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0688 (Tag F0688)

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 (R15) of 1 Residents reviewed with limited rang...

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 (R15) of 1 Residents reviewed with limited range of motion received appropriate treatment and services to increase range of motion and/or to prevent further decrease in range of motion. *R15 was observed not wearing a hand splint per Occupational Therapy discharge orders and as documented on R15's Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) [NAME] and comprehensive care plan. Findings Include: Surveyor reviewed the facility's policy and procedure entitled, Range of Motion, revised 3/2020 and noted the following: Objective To promote/maintain optimal physical range of motion, prevent further decline. Promote/maintain independence, any functional ability, comfort, and prevent contractures. Procedure 1. When assessment shows a Resident is in need of intervention for joint mobility, a referral will be made for either Physical Therapy (PT) or Occupational Therapy (OT) screen. 2. If either discipline recommends PROM (Passive Range of Motion), a formal program will be initiated. 3. The program can be implemented by a licensed staff person, or Restorative Nursing. 4. Instructions and schedule will be placed on the nursing care plan, and the Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) care card in the Resident's room. 5. All CNAs are trained in safe technique, and in-service yearly. 6. Efficacy of the program will be monitored, and reassessed for any needed changes on an ongoing basis. R15 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses of Hemiplegia and Hemiparesis Following Cerebral Infarction Affecting Unspecified Side, Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease, Chronic Kidney Disease, and Major Depressive Disorder. R15 has Health Care Power of Attorney (HCPOA). Surveyor reviewed R15's 5 day Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 6/5/22 and notes R15's Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 14, indicating R15 is cognitively intact for daily decision making. R15's MDS also documents R15 requires extensive assistance of 2 staff for bed mobility, transfers, dressing, and toileting. R15's MDS documents R15 has both upper and lower extremity range of motion impairment on one side. Surveyor also notes R15's MDS does not documented R15 demonstrates behavior concerns related to rejection of evaluation or care. R15's MDS does not document a splint assessment was completed. Surveyor reviewed R15's [NAME] as of 7/26/22 and notes the following documented: Has left hand cone on at all times if allows. PROM with am/pm cares to left hand/wrist and left knee. Surveyor reviewed R15's comprehensive care plan and notes the following: R15 has an ADL (Activities of Daily Living) self-care performance deficit r/t (related to) Limited Mobility, Stroke chronic illness Initiated: 2/14/22 The following applicable interventions are in place: Apply left pan splint to hand in the morning remove prior to bed or as needed during the day if pain occurs. Initiated: 3/16/22; Has L (Left) hand cone at all x (times)'s if allows . PROM w/ (with) am/pm cares to L hand/wrist and L knee. PLEASE OFFER recliner between meals. Initiated: 3/8/22, revised 3/16/22; Monitor/document/report PRN (as needed) any changes, any potential for improvement, reasons for self-care deficit, expected course, declines in function. Initiated: 2/14/22, revised 3/8/22; PT (Physical Therapy)/OT (Occupational Therapy) evaluation and treatment as per MD (Medical Doctor) orders. Initiated: 2/14/22; On 7/26/22, at 10:46 AM, Surveyor observed R15 sitting in a highback chair. Surveyor observed R15's left hand to be contracted with fingers digging into the palm of the left hand. R15 did not have a splint on the left hand or wrist. Surveyor asked R15 if he had a splint for the left hand/wrist. R15 stated, I'm not sure what happened with it. On 7/26/22, at 12:16 PM, Surveyor observed R15 with no splint on the left hand/wrist. On 7/27/22, at 8:23 AM, Surveyor observed R15 with no splint on the left hand/wrist. On 7/27/22, at 10:49 AM, Surveyor observed R15 up in a wheelchair. R15's left arm is positioned on a pillow, no splint on the left hand/wrist. On 7/27/22, at 10:49 AM, Surveyor interviewed Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA-K) who stated he has not seen R15's splint in a long time, at least for several months. CNA-K stated R15 is supposed to have a washcloth in his fist, but has been known to refuse both at times. CNA-K stated he did not offer to place the splint on today because I haven't seen the splint on for a long time. CNA-K stated if R15 would refuse, CNA-K would document it in the tasks (section of the EMR) and the expectation is to tell the nurse every time R15 refuses. CNA-K stated I don't even know where the splint is. Surveyor asked CNA-K if he had informed anyone he has not seen R15's splint in awhile and CNA-K stated no. On 7/27/22, at 2:42 PM, At the daily exit meeting with the facility Surveyor shared the concern R15's splint has not been observed on during the survey and requested any documentation of R15's refusal to allow staff to apply the hand splint. On 7/28/22, at 10:03 AM, Surveyor interviewed Registered Nurse (RN)-C in regards to R15's splint. RN-C stated R15 can be noncompliant at times but it depends on R15's mood. RN-C stated she has asked R15 to wear the cone splint, but R15 has refused in the past. RN-C has made comments I had the splint hidden. RN-C can't recall the last time she has seen R15 wear the splint. Surveyor asked RN-C, have you told anyone about R15's refusals to wear the hand splint? RN-C stated no. On 7/28/22, at 10:14 AM, Surveyor asked Director of Nursing (DON)-B for documentation of R15's refusals to allow the staff to apply the hand splint. DON-B informed Surveyor there is no documentation of R15's refusals to allow staff to apply the left hand splint. DON-B agreed the left hand splint is on R15's care plan but was never added to the CNA task section (of the medical record) to document the left hand splint was applied or refused. DON-B informed Surveyor that it has been added now. On 7/28/22, at 11:06 AM, Surveyor shared the concern with DON-B about the observations of R15 not wearing a hand splint, the lack of documentation of R15's refusals to allow the staff to apply the splint and staff have not communicated R15 had refused to allow staff to apply the left hand/wrist splint. DON-B understands the concern. Surveyor was provided Occupational Therapy documentation. The Occupational Therapist was not available to interview during the survey process. On 7/13/18, OT recommended R15 have a small cone in left hand at all times. On 8/9/18, OT recommended the resting pan splint to be applied to left wrist, hand daily in the morning, remove prior to bed or as needed during the day if pain occurs. On 8/21/18, OT's Functional Limitations Assessment documents R15's primary goal for OT is to tolerate wear of left hand/wrist splint to improve hygiene and decrease risk of skin breakdown and further contracture. R15 able to tolerate wearing the resting pan splint on R15's left wrist/hand for 7+ hours. Therapy recommendation program in place for daily use of the splint to decrease R15's risk of further contracture and/or skin breakdown. On 8/21/18, OT's Therapist Progress and Discharge Summary the following was documented: Analysis of Functional Outcome/Clinical Impression [Resident's name] has benefited from skilled therapy as noted by improvements in less contracture in [Resident's name] left fingers from 90 degrees of flex to 85 degrees. Left wrist flex contracture at 30 degrees to 50 degrees, resting pan splint from not wearing to tolerating 7+ hours. [Resident's name]/caregivers educated on daily use of the splint to decrease [Resident's name] risk of further contractures and/or skin break down. Impact on Burden of Care/Daily Life Post discharge recommendations for [Resident's name]/caregiver follow through include continued use of the resting pan splint daily to decrease [Resident's name] risk for further contracture and/or risk of skin breakdown. No further information was provided.
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 (R4, R15, and R23) of 5 residents reviewed rec...

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 (R4, R15, and R23) of 5 residents reviewed received adequate supervision and assistive devices to prevent accidents. *R4 's fall investigations did not include staff statements. R4 did not receive a therapy consult after the 7/17/22 fall. *R15's fall investigations did not include staff statements. *R23's fall investigations did not include staff statements. R23's care plan was not updated after a fall. Findings include: The Facility Policy and Procedure, entitled Accident(s), Incident(s), dated of 7/30/2018, documents (in part) . .The facility will complete the following for all residents: . 1) Upon admission all Residents are assessed for problems associated with falls and skin integrity risks along with other requirements for admission assessments. These assessments will be reviewed at a minimum of quarterly and with any change of conditions or accident/incident occurrence. 4) Care plans and assessments should be re-evaluated at a minimum of quarterly, with any new change of condition and or accident/incident as deemed necessary. When a fall or incident occurs: . i) the nurse must interview staff on duty on the unit and take a statement from the staff members using staff statement tool. ii) the Nurse or designee must interview the staff and write the statements for the staff member. iii) Allow staff member being interviewed to review statement written by nurse or designee and have staff member sign the statement and ensure it is correct . Update fall care plan with immediate fall intervention-nurse on duty is responsible . 1. R4 was readmitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that include chronic pain, history of falling, and edema. R4's quarterly minimum data set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE], documents a BIMS (Brief Interview for Mental Status) score of 15, indicating R4 is cognitively intact for daily decision making. R4's Annual Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 4/26/22, Section G (Functional Status) documents R4 requires supervision and one-person physical assist for bed mobility and is independent for transfer needs. R4's fall risk evaluation, dated 7/12/22, documents R4 is at risk for falls. R4's fall care plan documents The resident is at risk for falls r/t (related to) Gait/balance problems, Psychoactive drug use , Unaware of safety needs, Noted to fall asleep while doing tasks. The interventions section documented .PT evaluate and treated as ordered or PRN (as needed). On 7/12/22, at 10:30 AM, R4's medical record documents: The resident had an unwitnessed fall. The resident was found lying on the floor in front of the recliner with head towards the door. Surveyor reviewed the facility's fall investigation report dated 7/12/22. Surveyor was unable to locate documentation of staff statements regarding R4's fall which could have identified what R4 was attempting to due at the time of the fall and when R4 was last seen and/or assisted by staff. On 7/14/22, at 8:15 AM, R4's medical record documents: The resident had an unwitnessed fall. The resident was found on all fours in front of recliner. The fall investigation documents R4 slid from the recliner and the call light was noted to be on at the time of the fall. Surveyor reviewed the facility's fall investigation report dated 7/14/22. Surveyor was unable to locate documentation of staff statements regarding R4's fall. The fall investigation does not document when R4 was last seen or assisted by staff, or what R4 was attempting to do at the time of the fall. On 7/17/22, at 08:50 AM, R4's medical record documents: The resident has an unwitnessed fall. The resident was found sitting on the floor in front of the recliner. Surveyor reviewed the facility's fall investigation report dated 7/17/22. Surveyor was unable to locate documentation of staff statements regarding R4's fall. There is no documentation of when R4 was last seen or assisted by staff and what R4 was attempting to do at the time of the fall. Surveyor noted R4 had 3 falls in 6 days. The falls occurred in the morning, in R4's room and R4 was found by her recliner with each fall. R4's nurses note, dated 7/18/2022, at 4:37 PM documents: Talked with Resident about fall prevention. At this time did make the recommendation for gripper tape to be placed in front of recliner with resident and friend refusing the intervention. One states it wrecks ones socks and leaves black sand all over the floor. In discussion one wishes to have a rug placed in front of her recliner with an adhesive on the floor to keep rug present. Will also consult with therapy. On 7/28/22, at 10:22 AM. Surveyor interviewed Director of Nursing (DON)-B. Surveyor inquired about intervention related to rug being placed in front of R4's recliner per 7/18/22 nursing note. DON-B reported R4 refused this intervention. Surveyor requested documentation of therapy consult per 7/18/22 nursing note. DON-B reported they will get information from therapy and provide it to Surveyor. On 7/28/22, at 11:18 AM, Surveyor interviewed Nursing Home Administrator (NHA)-A. Surveyor shared concerns with NHA-A related to no staff statements being completed to allow for a thorough investigation of R4's falls. NHA-A reported the expectation is for facility staff to follow the policy regarding staff statements for a fall investigation. NHA-A did report the process for staff statements was easier to complete when it was on paper, but now that the facility switched to an online forms, there have been some challenges. NHA-A reported this is something the facility is currently working on. On 7/28/22, at 12:33 PM, DON-B reported to Surveyor there was no therapy consult completed for R4 following the 7/18/22 progress note identifying this intervention. On 7/28/22 at 12:38 PM, Surveyor shared with NHA-A the above concern regarding R4 not having a therapy consult and not completing a thorough investigation of R4's falls. No additional information was provided. 2) R15 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses of Hemiplegia and Hemiparesis Following Cerebral Infarction Affecting Unspecified Side, Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease, Chronic Kidney Disease, and Major Depressive Disorder. R15 has Health Care Power of Attorney (HCPOA). Surveyor reviewed R15's 5 day Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 6/5/22, and notes R15's Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 14, indicating R15 is cognitively intact for daily decision making. R15's MDS also documents R15 requires extensive assistance of 2 staff for bed mobility, transfers, dressing, and toileting. R15's MDS documents R15 has both upper and lower extremity range of motion impairment on one side. R15's fall Care Area Assessment (CAA), dated 6/5/22, documents R15 is at risk for falls related to the conditions noted above. Will continue to anticipate needs and assist with all mobility, and monitor for any unsafe conditions or situations in a continued effort to prevent falls or injury. Surveyor reviewed R15's [NAME], dated 7/26/22, and notes it instructs Certified Nursing Assistants(CNAs) to place urinal on window sill per R15's request. Surveyor reviewed R15's comprehensive care plan and notes there is a focused problem which identifies R15 is at risk for falls due to CVA (Cerebrovascular Accident), Hemiplegia, Gait/Balance problems, Incontinence, and Psychoactive drug use Initiated: 3/16/22 Interventions in place: Anticipate and meet resident's needs, Initiated: 3/16/22; Be sure resident's call light is within reach and encourage resident to use it for assistance as needed. Resident needs prompt response to all requests for assistance. Initiated: 3/16/22, Follow facility fall protocol. Initiated; 3/16/22; Place urinal on Window sill per Resident's request. Initiated: 7/13/22 PT (physical therapy) evaluate and treat as ordered or PRN (as needed). Initiated: 3/16/22; Review information on past falls and attempt to determine cause of falls. Record possible root causes. Alter remove any potential causes if possible. Educate Resident/family/caregivers/IDT (Interdisciplinary Team) as to causes. Initiated: 3/16/22; Surveyor notes R15 had 2 recent fall assessments completed by the facility. 5/10/22 admission completed-no rating documented. 7/13/22-completed-no rating documented. On 7/27/22, Surveyor reviewed R15's electronic medical record (EMR) and notes there is an un-witnessed fall incident report dated 7/12/22. It documents R15 was found on the ground next to the bed. R15 was on his back on the ground. R15 had stated he had slid out of bed. No documented injury for R15. R15 had been on the floor for about 30 minutes. The documented time of the fall was 10:15 PM. R15 stated he had been looking for his urinal, sat up on edge of the bed to grab it, and slid off the floor. The urinal was supposed to be on the window ledge but the urinal was placed on garbage can below bed. R15 did not have a bariatric fitted sheet on the bed, only non fitted sheet. Surveyor notes there are no staff statements. On 7/28/22 at 8:19 AM, Surveyor received a new fall incident report with a statement added from a Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA). Surveyor notes the typed statement documents: Came on shift, got report, walked down hallways and looked into [Resident's name] room and [Resident's name] was on the ground, notified nurse right away, no sheet on bed. Surveyor notes there are no statements from staff that worked the previous shift which could have documented when R15 was last seen or assisted by staff or why R15's urinal was not placed on the widow sill per R15's preference but was placed on the garbage can. Surveyor notes R15's care plan was updated to identify new fall prevention interventions. Surveyor notes the facility provided an inservice for 4th floor staff nursing staff which discussed having fitted sheets on all beds. On 7/28/22, at 10:43 AM, Surveyor shared the concern with Director of Nursing (DON)-B that there are no staff statements for R15's fall which could identify when R15 was last seen and assisted by staff, what fall prevention interventions were in place at the time of the fall or to identify the root cause of the fall. DON-B understands the concern and stated the expectation is to complete a thorough investigation of each fall including staff statements and to update the care plan as needed. 3) R23 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses of Parkinson's Disease, Essential Hypertension, Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus, Polyneuropathy, Dementia, and Major Depressive Disorder. R23 has a Health Care Power of Attorney (HCPOA). Surveyor reviewed R23's Annual MDS (Minimum Data Set ) assessment, dated 5/27/22, and notes R23's BIMS score to be 11, indicating R23 demonstrates moderately impaired skills for daily decision making. R23 requires extensive assistance for bed mobility, transfers, dressing, and toileting. R23's fall Care Area Assessment (CAA), dated 5/27/22 states R23 is at risk for falls. R23 has not been calling and/or waiting for staff assist with transfers. Staff will continue to assist with Activities of Daily Living (ADLs), monitor for any changes and implement interventions as needed. Surveyor reviewed R23's [NAME], dated 7/26/22, and notes it instructs Certified Nursing Assistants(CNAs) to apply dycem to recliner at all times, auto lock brakes to wheelchair, if [Resident's name] is sleeping in chair, offer to have [Resident's name] lay down in recliner or bed for comfort and safety, and keep reacher out on bedside table where cassette tapes are noted. Surveyor reviewed R23's comprehensive care plan and notes there is a focused problem which identify's R23 is at risk for falls noted in last quarter. Initiated; 6/5/22, Revised 7/26/22 Interventions in place: Apply dycem to recliner at all times, Initiated: 6/9/22; Assist [Resident's name] with ambulation and transfers, utilizing therapy recommendations, Initiated: 6/5/22; Auto lock brakes to wheelchair, Initiated: 6/5/22; Evaluate fall risk on admission and as needed, Initiated: 6/5/22; If fall occurs, alert provider, Initiated: 6/5/22; If fall occurs, initiate frequent neuro and bleeding evaluation per facility protocol, Initiated: 6/5/22; If [Name of resident] is sleeping in chair, offer [Name of resident] to lay down in recliner or in bed for comfort and safety, Initiated: 6/9/22; If [Name of resident] is at fall risk, initiate fall risk precautions, Initiated: 6/5/22; Keep reacher out on bedside table where cassette tapes are noted, Initiated: 6/9/22. R23 had 3 Fall Risk Assessments completed on: 4/19/22: the resident is assessed to be at risk for falls 6/22/22: the resident is assessed to be at risk for falls 6/26/22: the resident is assessed to be at risk for falls Surveyor reviewed R23's EMR (Electronic Medical Record) and notes R23 had 2 un-witnessed falls. Surveyor notes there is an un-witnessed fall incident report dated 6/22/22. It is documented R23 was found on his knees in front of wheelchair. R23 then sat to left side and then on to bottom. Staff found 2 roho cushions in the resident's wheelchair. R23's shoes were on. Wheelchair was not locked. Call light was attached to R23's pants within reach. R23 did use call light for help. No documented injury for R15. The documented time of R23's fall is at 8:00 AM. Surveyor notes there are no staff statements attached to the incident report which could identify when R23 was last seen by staff, last assisted by staff or if auto lock brakes were on the wheelchair. Surveyor notes there is no update to R23's care plan in include new fall care plan interventions. Surveyor notes there is an un-witnessed fall incident report dated 6/26/22. It is documented R23 was found on the floor in the hallway outside his room, leaning on his knees leaning forward with forehead resting on the floor. Wheelchair was noted to be locked. R23 stated he was wheeling forward, and all of a sudden the wheelchair just stopped. R23 tried to wheel forward and slopped out of chair. No documented injury for R23. The documented time of R23's fall is at 7:47 AM. Immediate action taken was for therapy to assess for new interventions. R23 was seen by therapy on 6/27/22 and per documentation, placed solid seat insert under contour cushion. Surveyor notes there are no staff statements attached to the incident report which could identify when R23 was last seen and/or assisted by staff or what R23 was attempting to do at the time of the fall. Surveyor notes there is no undated to R23's care plan after this fall. On 7/26/22, at 10:26 AM, Surveyor observed R23 has nonskid shoes on, rojo cushion is sliding off the back of the wheelchair. Surveyor can see dycem on front but not holding cushion on wheelchair. On 7/28/22, at 10:43 AM, Surveyor shared the concern with Director of Nursing (DON)-B that there are no staff statements for R23's fall which could identify when R23 was last seen and assisted by staff, what fall prevention interventions were in place at the time of the fall or to identify the root cause of the fall. DON-B understands the concern and stated the expectation is to complete a thorough investigation of each fall including staff statements and to update the care plan as needed.
CONCERN (D)

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

Incontinence Care (Tag F0690)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility did not ensure 1 (R18) of 1 residents review received appropriate treatment a...

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 (R18) of 1 residents review received appropriate treatment and services related to catheter care. *R18's medical record did not indicate what type/gauge catheter R18 had and also did not include an accurate care plan. Findings include: Surveyor requested a policy and procedure related to catheter care and was provided with an infection control policy regarding catheters that did not indicate monitoring of the catheter. R18 was readmitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that include a right femur fracture, muscle weakness, retention of urine, and pain. R18's minimum data set (MDS) assessment, dated 5/28/2022, documents a BIMS (Brief Interview for Mental Status) score of 15, indicating R18 is cognitively intact for daily decision making. Section G (Functional Status) documents R18 requires extensive assistance and two-person physical assist for bed mobility and transfer needs. Section H (Bladder and Bowel) documents R18 had an indwelling catheter upon readmission to the facility. R18's care plan, initiated 5/11/2022, documents, The resident has bladder incontinence r/t (related to) Impaired mobility. Surveyor noted R18's care plan did not indicate R18 had a Foley catheter in place. R18's physician's orders with an order date of 6/11/2022, document Continue with Foley catheter. Change catheter once per month on the 21st of each month. Surveyor noted R18's physician's orders did not indicate the type or gauge catheter R18 had and Surveyor was unable to locate the information in R18's medical record. On 7/27/22, at 10:20 AM, Surveyor interviewed Registered Nurse (RN)-F. Surveyor asked RN-F how facility staff would know what type and/or gauge catheter a resident had or what kind of catheter to use if there was an order to change a resident's catheter. RN-F reported that is usually found in the physician's orders for the resident. Surveyor asked RN-F if such information could be located for R18. RN-F reviewed R18's physician's orders and reported she was unable to locate the type/gauge catheter the resident was supposed to have. RN-F reported she would get clarification and update the order. On 7/27/22, at 11:00 AM, Surveyor interviewed Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN)- E. Surveyor asked LPN-E how facility staff would know what type and gauge catheter a resident had or what to use if there was an order to change a resident's catheter. LPN-E reported that it would be found in the physician's orders. On 7/27/2,2 at 2:20 PM, Surveyor interviewed Director of Nursing (DON)-B. Surveyor asked what the expectation is for changing a Foley catheter for resident. DON-B reported the expectation is to follow the physician's orders. Surveyor asked where a staff member would find out what type of catheter and/or gauge catheter a resident should have. DON-B reported those directions should be in the physician's order as well. Surveyor shared the above concerns with DON-B regarding the R18's physician's orders not documenting the type/gauge catheter R18 required and R18's care plan not containing such information. DON-B reported she will get that updated right away. On 7/28/2022, Surveyor was provided was an additional copy of R18's care plan. R18's catheter care plan, date initiated 7/27/2022, documents The resident has an indwelling catheter due to stage 4 wound to sacrum .Interventions: CATHETER: The resident has 16 French 5cc (cubic centimeter) Foley Catheter . No additional information was provided.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0760 (Tag F0760)

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 (R29) of 1 resident was free from significant medication erro...

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 (R29) of 1 resident was free from significant medication errors. The medical record indicates on 6/1/22 R29 was given two tablets of hydrocodone/acetaminophen (narcotic for severe pain) 5/325 instead of R29's prescribed pain reliever, two tablets of Tramadol 50 mg (milligrams). The facility noticed the error during the shift to shift narcotic count and R29 was assess after the error was noticed. R29's vital signs remained stable and no other side effect noticed other than being sleepy. Findings include: R29 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses of Alzheimer's disease and dysphagia. R29's Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 6/6/22, indicate R29 has severe cognitive impairment and is dependent on staff for all ADLs (activities of daily living). The nurses note dated 6/1/22, indicate When counting narcotics with previous shift nurse, it was noted that the count was off. The resident who's (sic) medication was in front of this resident's (R29) medication had been missing two tablets. It was discovered that the resident was supposed to have received two 50 mg Tramadol at HS (at bedtime), but had received two tablets of Hydrocodone-Acetaminophen 5-325 mg of the other resident's instead. Both nurses went to assess resident and noted that resident sleeping, but did arose easily and was alert per usual. VS (vital signs) WNL (within normal limits). DON (director of nursing) called and updated, message left for primary MD (Medical Doctor), will update AM (morning) shift to call resident's son in the morning. VS q (every) shift x 24 hr started. On 7/27/22, Surveyor asked Director of Nursing (DON) B for the investigation into the medication error for R29. Surveyor reviewed the investigation of the 6/1/22 medication error. The investigation indicates RN D stated she inadvertent grabbed the incorrect medication card from the narcotic drawer. The investigation indicates RN D was reeducated on the six rights of safe medication administration and review the facility's policy on medication administration. A medication pass audit with RN D was also conducted. On 7/27/2,2 at 2:30 p.m. Surveyor interviewed DON B. Surveyor asked DON B if she reeducated all the other nurses regarding safe medication administration and audit other nurses. DON B stated she only reeducated RN D. Surveyor explained the concern since all nursing staff were not reeducated and audits completed on all the nursing staff, this significant medication error could occur again. DON B stated she understood the concern.
CONCERN (D)

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

Infection Control (Tag F0880)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation and interview the facility did not maintain an infection prevention and control program designed to provide a safe and sanitary environment and to help prevent the development and...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation and interview the facility did not maintain an infection prevention and control program designed to provide a safe and sanitary environment and to help prevent the development and transmission of communicable diseases and infections. The facility did not ensure proper cleaning and disinfecting of shared glucometers for 2 (R9 and R204) of 2 residents observed for glucometer testing. The facility did not clean and disinfect the glucometer after use and the glucometer was shared between residents. Findings include: The Facility Policy and Procedure, entitled Cleaning and Disinfecting Blood Glucose Meters, dated 07/27/2022, documents (in part) . Objective: It is the policy of the facility to clean and disinfect multi-patient use blood glucometers. Resident to resident transmission of blood-borne pathogens is a well-known risk when using lancets, needles, and blood syringes. Blood glucose monitors that are shared among residents must be cleaned and disinfected between each use. Procedure .9. Follow manufacturer's guidelines for cleaning and disinfecting glucometers . The Sani-Cloth Germicidal Disposable wipe packet documented (in part) . .To disinfect nonfood contact surfaces only: Unfold clean wipe and thoroughly wet surface. Allow treated surface to remain wet for a full two (2) minutes . On 7/27/22, at 8:17 AM, while observing medication pass on the 4 [NAME] Unit, Surveyor observed Registered Nurse (RN)-C perform blood sugar testing on R9. Surveyor noted RN-C used a glucometer that was not labeled with R9's name. After obtaining the blood sample from R9, Surveyor observed RN-C wipe the glucometer down with a Sani cloth wipe for approximately 10 seconds. Surveyor observed RN-C place the glucometer into a blue bin on top of the medication cart. Surveyor asked RN-C if residents have their own glucometers or if they share them. RN-C reported that some residents have their own glucometer, but most residents share a glucometer. Surveyor observed RN-C provide medications to R9. On 7/27/22, at 8:42 AM, Surveyor observed RN-C preparing to perform blood sugar testing for R204 using the same glucometer that was used for R9. RN-C was at the door to R204's room with the glucometer and supplies when Surveyor requested to speak to RN-C near the medication cart. Surveyor requested to observe the wipe that was used to clean the glucometer. RN-C provided surveyor with Sani-Cloth germicidal disposable wipe. Surveyor reviewed instructions on wipe with RN-C which documented to allow treated surface to remain wet for a full two minutes. Surveyor then observed RN-C wrap the glucometer in Sani cloth wipe and place on the medication cart. On 7/27/22, at 8:50am, Surveyor advised Nursing Home Administrator (NHA)-A and Director of Nursing (DON)-B of the observation of RN-C not disinfecting the glucometer properly after use. Surveyor requested a list of residents on the unit that utilize the shared glucometer and if any residents have a bloodborne pathogen. DON-B reported to Surveyor that 4 residents (R46, R34, R10, and R14) on the unit utilize the shared glucometer. Surveyor confirmed there were no residents on the unit, that use the shared glucometer, with a bloodborne pathogen. Surveyor noted the two residents (R9 and R204) observed for glucometer cleaning were not on the list of residents who use the shared glucometer provided by the facility. On 7/27/2022, at 1:35 PM, Surveyor asked DON-B what the expectation is for staff to use when cleaning the glucometers. DON-B reported the expectation is for staff is to use the Sani-Cloth Germicidal Disposable Wipe when cleaning the glucometers. DON-B reported the facility started staff education on proper procedure for cleaning the glucometer. No additional information was provided.
CONCERN (E)

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

Quality of Care (Tag F0684)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility did not ensure adequate monitoring of 4 (R4, R36, R15 and R23) of 5 residents...

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 adequate monitoring of 4 (R4, R36, R15 and R23) of 5 residents reviewed for neurological checks. *R4, R36, R15, and R23 had unwitnessed falls while at the facility and the facility did not perform complete assessments of the residents post fall. Findings Include: The Facility Policy and Procedure, entitled Cranial Check Policy, with a revision date of 10/11/2018, documents (in part) . Objective: Cranial checks are performed by professional nursing staff after an unwitnessed fall, any witnessed incident involving potential head trauma, or any incident where a change in the level of consciousness is noted. Procedure: 1) After any type of head injury, cranial checks will be performed at a minimum: a) Upon immediate/initial assessment b) Every 1 hour x (for) 3 c) Every 4 hours x 2 d) Every shift x 48 hours . 1) R4 was readmitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses that include chronic pain, history of falling, and edema. R4's Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 2/25/22, documents a BIMS (Brief Interview for Mental Status) score of 15, indicating R4 is cognitively intact for daily decision making. R4's Annual Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 4/26/22, Section G (Functional Status) documents: R4 requires supervision of one-person physical assist for bed mobility and is independent for transfer needs. On 7/14/22, at 8:15 AM, R4 is documented to have an unwitnessed fall. R4 was found on all fours in front of the recliner. Surveyor reviewed R4's neurological check lists provided by the facility. Surveyor noted date and time of neurological checks provided which documented 7/14/22 at 10:15, 11:15, 12:15, and 13:15 (1:15 PM). Surveyor noted incomplete neurological checks for R4's fall. On 7/17/22, at 08:50 AM, R4 is documented to have an unwitnessed fall. R4 was found sitting on the floor in front of the recliner. Surveyor reviewed R4's neurological check lists provided by the facility. Surveyor noted date and time of neurological checks provided which documented: 7/17/22 at 10:50, 11:50, 12:50, and 13:50 (1:50 PM). Surveyor noted incomplete neurological checks for R4's fall. On 7/28/2022 at 9:18 AM, Surveyor shared the above concern regarding incomplete neurological checks for R4 with Director of Nursing (DON)-B. No additional information was provided. 2) R36 was admitted to facility on 6/18/202,2 with diagnoses that include repeated falls, unsteadiness on feet, and abnormalities of gait and mobility. R36's admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 2/25/22, documents a BIMS (Brief Interview for Mental Status) score of 7, indicating R36 is severely cognitively impaired for daily decision making. Section G (Functional Status) documents R36 requires extensive assist of two-person physical assist for bed mobility and transfer needs. On 7/13/22, at 8:00 PM, R36 had an unwitnessed fall. R36 was found sitting on the floor of their bathroom in front of the toilet. Surveyor reviewed R36's neurological check lists provided by the facility. Surveyor noted date and time of neurological checks provided which documented 7/13/22 at 21:00 (9:00 PM), 22:00 (10:00 PM), 23:00 (11:00 PM), and 00:00 (12:00 AM). Surveyor noted incomplete neurological checks for R36's fall. On 7/28/2022 at 9:18 AM, Surveyor shared the above concern regarding incomplete neurological checks for R36 with Director of Nursing (DON)-B. No additional information was provided. 3) R15 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses of Hemiplegia and Hemiparesis Following Cerebral Infarction Affecting Unspecified Side, Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease, Chronic Kidney Disease, and Major Depressive Disorder. R15 has Health Care Power of Attorney (HCPOA). Surveyor reviewed R15's Minimum Data Set (MDS) 5 day assessment, dated 6/5/22, and notes R15's Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 14 indicates R15 is cognitively intact for daily decision making. R15's MDS also documents R15 requires extensive assistance of 2 staff for bed mobility, transfers, dressing, and toileting. R15's MDS documents R15 has both upper and lower extremity range of motion impairment on one side. Surveyor reviewed R15's electronic medical record (EMR) and notes there is an un-witnessed fall incident report dated 7/12/22. It is documented R15 was found on the ground next to the bed. R15 was on their back on the ground. R15 had stated he had slid out of bed. There is no documented injury for R15 related to this fall. The documented time of R15's fall was 10:15 PM. Surveyor notes that a neuro-check was completed with the initial assessment on 7/13/22 at 10:15 PM. The next neuro-check completed is documented on 7/13/22 at 11:15 PM. The next neuro-check completed is documented on 7/13/22 at 1:15 AM. The next neuro-check completed is documented on 7/13/22 at 2:15 AM. Surveyor notes that there is a missing hour between 11:15 PM and 1:15 AM. Surveyor notes there are no other documented neuro-checks for R15. There should be neuro-checks every 4 hours x (for) 2 and every shift x 48 hours. On 7/28/22, at 8:34 AM, Surveyor interviewed Director of Nursing (DON-B) in regards to the missing neuro-checks for R15. DON-B stated: We have been having problems with the neuro-checks and the electronic medical record being triggered per facility policy. We are looking at going on paper, but have not done that yet. DON-B confirmed the facility did not have the finished neuro-checks for R15. DON-B stated it is standard that all neuro-checks should be completed per facility policy. DON-B understands it is a concern about the missing neuro-checks for R15. 4) R23 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses of Parkinson's Disease, Essential Hypertension, Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus, Polyneuropathy, Dementia, and Major Depressive Disorder. R23 has a Health Care Power of Attorney (HCPOA). Surveyor reviewed R23's Annual Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 5/27/22, and notes R23's BIMS score to be 11, indicating R23 demonstrates moderately impaired skills for daily decision making. R23 requires extensive assistance for bed mobility, transfers, dressing, and toileting. Surveyor reviewed R23's Electronic Medical Record (EMR) and notes R23 had 2 un-witnessed falls. Surveyor notes there is an un-witnessed fall incident report dated 6/22/22. It is documented R23 was found on his knees in front of his wheelchair. There are documented injuries for R15. The documented time of R23's fall is at 8:00 AM. Surveyor was not able to locate any documentation R23 had an initial neuro-check completed at time of fall. The next neuro-check completed is documented on 6/22/22 at 11:35 AM. Surveyor notes this is 3 and one/half hours from the time of the fall. The next neuro-check completed is documented on 6/22/22 at 12:35 PM. The next neuro-check completed is documented on 6/22/22 at 1:35 PM. The next neuro-check completed is documented on 6/22/22 at 2:35 PM. The next neuro-check completed is documented on 6/22/22 at 3:35 PM. Surveyor notes that R23's neuro-checks were completed every hour x3. Surveyor notes there are no other documented neuro-checks for R23. There should be neuro-checks every 4 hours x 2 and every shift x 48 hours. Surveyor notes there is an un-witnessed fall incident report dated 6/26/22. It is documented that R23 was found on the floor in the hallway outside R23's room, leaning on R23's knees leaning forward with forehead resting on the floor. No documented injury for R23. The documented time of R23's fall is at 7:47 AM. Surveyor notes that a neuro-check was completed with the initial assessment on 6/26/22, at 7:47 AM. The next neuro-check completed is documented on 6/26/22 at 9:47 A.M The neuro-check should have been completed at 8:47 AM. The next neuro-check completed is documented on 6/26/22 at 10:47 A.M. The next neuro-check completed is documented on 6/26/22 at 11:47 A.M. The next neuro-check completed is documented on 6/26/22 at 12:47 P.M. Surveyor notes there are no other documented neuro-checks fro R23. There should be neuro-checks every 4 hours x 2 and every shift x 48 hours. On 7/28/22, at 8:34 AM, Surveyor interviewed Director of Nursing (DON-B) in regards to the missing neuro-checks for R23. DON-B stated: We have been having problems with the neuro-checks and the electronic medical record being triggered per facility policy. We are looking at going on paper, but have not done that yet. DON-B confirmed the facility did not have the finished neuro-checks for R23. DON-B stated it is standard that all neuro-checks should be completed per facility policy. DON-B understands it is a concern about the missing neuro-checks for R23.
Understanding Severity Codes (click to expand)
Life-Threatening (Immediate Jeopardy)
J - Isolated K - Pattern L - Widespread
Actual Harm
G - Isolated H - Pattern I - Widespread
Potential for Harm
D - Isolated E - Pattern F - Widespread
No Harm (Minor)
A - Isolated B - Pattern C - Widespread

Questions to Ask on Your Visit

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

Our Honest Assessment

Strengths
  • • Licensed and certified facility. Meets minimum state requirements.
Concerns
  • • Multiple safety concerns identified: 1 life-threatening violation(s), 1 harm violation(s), $75,498 in fines. Review inspection reports carefully.
  • • 35 deficiencies on record, including 1 critical (life-threatening) violation. These warrant careful review before choosing this facility.
  • • $75,498 in fines. Extremely high, among the most fined facilities in Wisconsin. Major compliance failures.
  • • Grade F (13/100). Below average facility with significant concerns.
Bottom line: Trust Score of 13/100 indicates significant concerns. Thoroughly evaluate alternatives.

About This Facility

What is Samaritan Nursing And Rehab's CMS Rating?

CMS assigns SAMARITAN NURSING AND REHAB 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 Samaritan Nursing And Rehab Staffed?

CMS rates SAMARITAN NURSING AND REHAB's staffing level at 4 out of 5 stars, which is above average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 72%, which is 25 percentage points above the Wisconsin average of 46%. High turnover can affect care consistency as new staff learn residents' individual needs. RN turnover specifically is 70%, which is notably high. RNs provide skilled clinical oversight, so turnover in this role can affect medical care quality.

What Have Inspectors Found at Samaritan Nursing And Rehab?

State health inspectors documented 35 deficiencies at SAMARITAN NURSING AND REHAB during 2022 to 2025. These included: 1 Immediate Jeopardy (the most serious level, indicating potential for serious harm or death), 1 that caused actual resident harm, and 33 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 Samaritan Nursing And Rehab?

SAMARITAN NURSING AND REHAB 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 SHLOMO HOFFMAN, a chain that manages multiple nursing homes. With 131 certified beds and approximately 69 residents (about 53% occupancy), it is a mid-sized facility located in WEST BEND, Wisconsin.

How Does Samaritan Nursing And Rehab Compare to Other Wisconsin Nursing Homes?

Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Wisconsin, SAMARITAN NURSING AND REHAB's overall rating (2 stars) is below the state average of 3.0, staff turnover (72%) is significantly higher than the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (2 stars) is below the national benchmark.

What Should Families Ask When Visiting Samaritan Nursing And Rehab?

Based on this facility's data, families visiting should ask: "What changes have been made since the serious inspection findings, and how are you preventing similar issues?" "How do you ensure continuity of care given staff turnover, and what is your staff retention strategy?" "Can I visit during a mealtime to observe dining assistance and food quality?" "How do you handle medical emergencies, and what is your hospital transfer rate?" These questions are particularly relevant given the facility's Immediate Jeopardy citations and the facility's high staff turnover rate.

Is Samaritan Nursing And Rehab Safe?

Based on CMS inspection data, SAMARITAN NURSING AND REHAB has documented safety concerns. Inspectors have issued 1 Immediate Jeopardy citation (the most serious violation level indicating risk of serious injury or death). The facility has a 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 Samaritan Nursing And Rehab Stick Around?

Staff turnover at SAMARITAN NURSING AND REHAB is high. At 72%, the facility is 25 percentage points above the Wisconsin average of 46%. Registered Nurse turnover is particularly concerning at 70%. RNs handle complex medical decisions and coordinate care — frequent RN changes can directly impact care quality. High turnover means new staff may not know residents' individual needs, medications, or preferences. It can also be disorienting for residents, especially those with dementia who rely on familiar faces. Families should ask: What is causing the turnover? What retention programs are in place? How do you ensure care continuity during staff transitions?

Was Samaritan Nursing And Rehab Ever Fined?

SAMARITAN NURSING AND REHAB has been fined $75,498 across 1 penalty action. This is above the Wisconsin average of $33,834. Fines in this range indicate compliance issues significant enough for CMS to impose meaningful financial consequences. Common causes include delayed correction of deficiencies, repeat violations, or care failures affecting resident safety. Families should ask facility leadership what changes have been made since these penalties.

Is Samaritan Nursing And Rehab on Any Federal Watch List?

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