MULDER HEALTH CARE FACILITY

713 LEONARD ST N, WEST SALEM, WI 54669 (608) 786-1600
For profit - Corporation 87 Beds ATRIUM CENTERS Data: November 2025 3 Immediate Jeopardy citations
Trust Grade
0/100
#301 of 321 in WI
Last Inspection: April 2025

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

Overview

Mulder Health Care Facility has received a Trust Grade of F, indicating significant concerns about its operations. It ranks #301 out of 321 in Wisconsin and is last in La Crosse County, placing it in the bottom tier of facilities. The facility is worsening, with issues increasing from 12 in 2024 to 24 in 2025. While staffing is a relative strength with a rating of 4 out of 5 and a turnover rate of 40%, there are serious issues that cannot be overlooked, including $319,127 in fines, which is higher than 97% of Wisconsin facilities. Recent inspections revealed critical incidents, such as a gastrointestinal outbreak affecting many residents and staff, as well as a failure to provide adequate supervision leading to a resident suffering second-degree burns. Overall, while there are some positives in staffing, the facility's critical safety and health concerns are alarming.

Trust Score
F
0/100
In Wisconsin
#301/321
Bottom 7%
Safety Record
High Risk
Review needed
Inspections
Getting Worse
12 → 24 violations
Staff Stability
○ Average
40% turnover. Near Wisconsin's 48% average. Typical for the industry.
Penalties
✓ Good
$319,127 in fines. Lower than most Wisconsin facilities. Relatively clean record.
Skilled Nurses
✓ Good
Each resident gets 47 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — more than average for Wisconsin. RNs are trained to catch health problems early.
Violations
⚠ Watch
55 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
★☆☆☆☆
1.0
Overall Rating
★★★★☆
4.0
Staff Levels
★★★★☆
4.0
Care Quality
★☆☆☆☆
1.0
Inspection Score
Stable
2024: 12 issues
2025: 24 issues

The Good

  • 4-Star Staffing Rating · Above-average nurse staffing levels
  • 4-Star Quality Measures · Strong clinical quality outcomes
  • Full Sprinkler Coverage · Fire safety systems throughout facility
  • No fines on record
  • Staff turnover below average (40%)

    8 points below Wisconsin average of 48%

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

The Bad

1-Star Overall Rating

Below Wisconsin average (3.0)

Significant quality concerns identified by CMS

Staff Turnover: 40%

Near Wisconsin avg (46%)

Typical for the industry

Federal Fines: $319,127

Well above median ($33,413)

Significant penalties indicating serious issues

Chain: ATRIUM CENTERS

Part of a multi-facility chain

Ask about local staffing decisions and management

The Ugly 55 deficiencies on record

3 life-threatening 2 actual harm
Sept 2025 4 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

Free from Abuse/Neglect (Tag F0600)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on interview and record review, the facility did not ensure each resident remained free from abuse for 1 of 8 sampled residents (R4).R4 was spoken to in a manner that is described by the residen...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview and record review, the facility did not ensure each resident remained free from abuse for 1 of 8 sampled residents (R4).R4 was spoken to in a manner that is described by the resident as abusive; the resident also states that staff did not release her wrist as requested.The facility policy, titled Abuse Prevention Program, dated last reviewed 01/2025, states, Each resident has the right to be free from abuse, neglect and corporal punishment of any type by staff or anyone. Abuse is defined as the willful infliction of injury, unreasonable confinement, intimidation, or punishment with resulting physical harm, pain, or mental anguish.R4 was admitted to the facility in 2024, with diagnoses including, gastroenteritis, rheumatoid arthritis, osteoarthritis, weakness, and anxiety disorder. R4 is alert and oriented and able to make her needs known.Surveyor interviewed R4 on 09/16/25 at 10:30 AM. When asked if she had had any recent care concerns, R4 responded that the other night a Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA), CNA G, had been haughty, condescending, and dictatorial, insisting that she move her pencil box off her bed herself. R4 stated CNA G pushed the over the bed table closer to her and insisted R4 pick it up, or she would leave. R4 stated CNA G grabbed her wrist twice. R4 stated the other gal, CNA D, called for the nurse, and the nurse came in and made CNA G leave. R4 stated CNA G had grabbed her right wrist, trying to force her to roll over. R4 stated that she told CNA G to let go but she didn't. R4 stated CNA G was yelling in her face. Surveyor asked how close CNA G was when she was in R4's face. R4 held her hand up to show the distance. Surveyor clarified, About a foot and a half away? R4 responded Yes. R4 stated CNA G was condescending, ordering her around like a 3-year-old. Other CNAs are polite. R4 stated she asked her to leave 3-4 times, but she didn't. When Surveyor asked if R4 was afraid, R4 responded, a little bit, her attitude, was more and more escalating. When asked if she had pain from being grabbed, R4 responded, it left no marks, but CNA G held it tightly. When asked if it made her cry, R4 said no. When asked if she feels CNA G was abusive to her, she stated, Yes. When asked if she was still afraid R4 stated, No, she hasn't been back. When asked if she feels safe, R4 stated, Yes, and added that overall, her care has been good. During the interview, R4 remained calm when speaking about the incident, the pace of her language did not change and she showed no changes in facial expression. Surveyor interviewed CNA D on 09/16/25 at 8:21 AM. CNA D worked with R4 on 09/09/25 at approximately 10:45 PM when the incident occurred. CNA D stated she asked CNA G to come assist her with R4's cares, as R4 requires the assistance of 2 staff, due to making false allegations towards staff. CNA D stated that when she first approached CNA G to ask for assistance with R4's cares, CNA G immediately said, No. CNA D stated she then explained no other staff were able to come assist, so CNA G came. CNA D stated that CNA G spoke to R4 in a condescending manner. CNA D stated that CNA G grabbed R4's wrist and did not let go when the resident asked. CNA D stated CNA G was scolding R4 and described the situation as a power trip.Review of CNA D's statement dated 09/09/25 at 10:45 PM reveals the following information. CNA D's statement states that CNA G told R4 she needed to move her belongings. R4 stated to move it for her. CNA G then responded, I'm not moving your belongings, you can, otherwise we can't help you. R4 then told staff, That's fine you can leave. CNA D then stated that if she leaves, I can't help you; there's no other staff that feels comfortable to help you on tonight. R4 asked who else could from other halls. CNA D stated she told her who, then CNA G stated, Do you want me to help?? and the resident said, That's fine. Staff pulled the covers down, and CNA G grabbed the resident's arm/wrist to turn her to her left side. R4 tried to pull her arm away and said, You don't have to grab my arm. CNA G said, I'm trying to put you on the bed pan. Do you want my help or not? CNA G continued to hold onto R4's arm to turn her to assist with putting resident on bed pan. R4 continued to resist. CNA D stated I went to grab the nurse because the situation was not deescalating.On 09/16/25 at 10:30 AM, Surveyor interviewed Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) F, who stated she was in the hall when she was called to R4's room. LPN F stated that when she entered the room R4's eyes were watering, and she was visibly trembling. LPN F stated CNA G was speaking aggressively and was not appropriate. LPN F stated she asked CNA G to leave a couple of times before she did. LPN F stated that CNA G got really close to R4's face and asked her if she wanted her to leave, and R4 responded that, Yes she wanted her to leave. CNA G responded fine, and then left. When asked if she noticed anything with R4's wrist, LPN F stated the arm was slightly red, near the wrist. When asked if R4 was upset, while she continued with the cares, LPN F stated that R4 calmed as soon as CNA G left the room. When asked if she felt CNA G was abusive to R4, LPN G responded, Yes. LPN F stated she called the Director of Nursing (DON) right away to report the incident and began to gather statements for an investigation. LPN F stated she was surprised that CNA G was not removed from the building during the investigation. LPN F stated that CNA G continued to work the rest of the night shift on the 100 hall.
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Report Alleged Abuse (Tag F0609)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on interview and record review the facility did not ensure all alleged violations involving abuse, neglect, exploitation or mistreatment, are reported immediately, but not later than 2 hours aft...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview and record review the facility did not ensure all alleged violations involving abuse, neglect, exploitation or mistreatment, are reported immediately, but not later than 2 hours after the allegation is made, if the events that cause the allegation involve abuse or result in serious bodily injury, or not later than 24 hours if the events that cause the allegation do not involve abuse and do not result in serious bodily injury, to the administrator of the facility and to other officials (including to the State Survey Agency and adult protective services where state law provides for jurisdiction in long-term care facilities) in accordance with State law through established procedures for 1 of 1 resident incidents reviewed. (R4)R4 was spoken to in a manner that is described by the resident as abusive; the resident also stated that staff did not release her wrist as requested. This was not reported to the state survey agency within 24 hours.This is evidenced by:The facility policy, titled Abuse Prevention Program, dated last reviewed 01/2025, states in part:Reporting/Response All alleged or suspected violations are to be reported immediately to the Administrator or Director of Nursing, which are responsible to notify required officials, including to the State Survey Agency, .All alleged violations involving abuse, neglect, exploitation or mistreatment, including injuries of unknown source and misappropriation of resident property are reported immediately, but not later than 2 hours after the allegation is made if the events that cause the allegation involve abuse or result in serious bodily injury. Not later than 24 hours if the events that cause the allegation do not involve abuse and do not result in serious bodily injury.R4 was admitted to the facility in 2023, with diagnoses including, gastroenteritis, rheumatoid arthritis, osteoarthritis, weakness, and anxiety disorder. R4 is alert and oriented and able to make her needs known. R4's Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 06/29/25, indicated that her brief interview for mental status (BIMS) score is 15/15, indicating intact cognitive function. Surveyor interviewed R4 on 09/16/25 at 10:30 AM. When asked if she had had any recent care concerns, R4 responded that the other night a Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA), CNA G, had been haughty, condescending, and dictatorial, insisting that she move her pencil box off her bed herself. R4 stated CNA G pushed the over the bed table closer to her and insisted R4 pick it up, or she would leave. R4 stated CNA G grabbed her wrist twice. R4 stated the other gal, CNA D, called for the nurse, and the nurse came in and made CNA G leave. R4 stated CNA G had grabbed her right wrist, trying to force her to roll over. R4 stated that she told the CNA to let go, but she didn't. R4 stated CNA G was yelling in her face, to roll over. Surveyor asked how close CNA G was when she was in her face. R4 held her hand up to show the distance. Surveyor clarified, About a foot and a half away? R4 responded, Yes. R4 stated CNA G was condescending, ordering her around like a 3-year-old. Other CNAs are polite. R4 stated she asked CNA G to leave 3-4 times, but she didn't. When asked if she was afraid, R4 responded, a little bit, her attitude was more and more escalating. When asked if she had pain from being grabbed, R4 responded it left no marks, but CNA G held it tightly. When asked if it made her cry, R4 said no. When asked if she feels CNA G was abusive to her, R4 stated, Yes. When asked if she was still afraid, R4 stated, No, she hasn't been back. When asked if she feels safe, R4 stated, Yes, and added that overall, her care has been good. During the interview, R4 remained calm when speaking about the incident, the pace of her language did not change and she showed no changes in facial expression. Surveyor interviewed CNA D on 09/16/25 at 8:20 AM. CNA D worked with R4 on 09/09/25 at approximately 10:45 PM when the incident occurred. CNA D stated she asked CNA G to come assist her with R4's cares, as R4 requires the assistance of 2 staff, due to making false allegations towards staff. CNA D stated that when she first approached CNA G to ask for assistance with R4's cares, CNA G immediately said, No. CNA D stated she then explained no other staff were able to come assist, so CNA G came. CNA D stated that CNA G spoke to R4 in a condescending manner. CNA D stated that CNA G grabbed R4's wrist and did not let go when the resident asked. CNA D stated CNA G was scolding R4 and described the situation as a power trip.Review of CNA D's witness statement dated 09/09/25 at 10:45 PM reveals the following information. CNA D's statement states that CNA G told R4 she needed to move her belongings. R4 stated to move it for her. CNA G then responded, I'm not moving your belongings, you can, otherwise we can't help you. R4 then told staff, That's fine you can leave. CNA D then stated that if she leaves, I can't help you; there's no other staff that feels comfortable to help you on tonight. R4 asked who else could from other halls. CNA D stated she told her who, then CNA G stated, Do you want me to help? and the resident said, That's fine. Staff pulled the covers down, and CNA G grabbed the resident's arm/wrist to turn her to her left side. Resident tried to pull her arm away and said, You don't have to grab my arm. CNA G said, I'm trying to put you on the bed pan. Do you want my help or not? CNA G continued to hold onto R4's arm to turn her to assist with putting resident on bed pan. Resident continued to resist. CNA D stated I went to grab the nurse because the situation was not deescalating.On 09/16/25 at 10:30 AM, Surveyor interviewed Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) F, who stated she was in the hall when she was called to R4's room. LPN F stated that when she entered the room R4's eyes were watering, and she was visibly trembling. LPN F stated CNA G was speaking aggressively and was not appropriate. LPN F stated she asked CNA G to leave a couple of times before she did. LPN F stated that CNA G got really close to R4's face and asked her if she wanted her to leave, and R4 responded that, Yes she wanted her to leave. CNA G responded fine, and then left. When asked if she noticed anything with R4's wrist, LPN F stated the arm was slightly red, near the wrist. When asked if R4 was upset, while she continued with the cares, LPN F stated that R4 calmed as soon as CNA G left the room. When asked if she felt CNA G was abusive to R4, LPN G responded, Yes. LPN F stated she called the Director of Nursing (DON) right away to report the incident and began to gather statements for an investigation. LPN F stated she was surprised that CNA G was not removed from the building during the investigation. LPN F stated that CNA G continued to work the rest of the night shift on the 100 hall.Review of LPN F's witness statement dated 09/09/25 states in part, Nurse called to resident room by CNA D stating, CNA G and R4 were arguing. The nurse walked into CNA G demanding resident roll. Resident had a look of fear and distress, so the nurse immediately asked CNA G to leave. CNA G told resident she's got it, and she will continue cares. The nurse said no I'll take over. To which CNA G responded no I got it. This nurse then said in a stern voice, You need to leave now. CNA G then turned to resident leaning in inches from her face and kept repeating, Do you want me to leave [R4]? This nurse repeated herself for the third time asking CNA G to leave as well as resident stating again that she would like CNA to leave. This nurse then repeated to CNA to leave. CNA finally left and continued to talk aggressively to resident on her way out. Nurse reported incident to DON within 30 minutes of interaction. Review of the facility self-report indicates it was reported to the state on 09/12/2025. The self-report indicates the incident occurred on 09/09/25.
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

Accident Prevention (Tag F0689)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on interview and record review, 1 of 8 sampled residents (R1) was not provided with supervision to prevent accidents.R1 was being transferred to the bathroom via EZ stand when her shoulder was b...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview and record review, 1 of 8 sampled residents (R1) was not provided with supervision to prevent accidents.R1 was being transferred to the bathroom via EZ stand when her shoulder was bumped into the door frame; the CNA staff who were assisting the resident at the time did not report this incident to the charge nurse.This is evidenced by: The facility policy, titled Resident Incident/Accident Reporting Protocol, dated reviewed 01/2025, states, All incidents and accidents (regardless of how minor they may present) must be reported to the Charge Nurse immediately upon discovery with a completed applicable event report and communicated to the oncoming shift.R1 was admitted to the facility with diagnoses including, right sided hemiplegia, impaired mobility, hypertensive intracerebral hemorrhage, chronic pain, and osteoarthritis.Surveyor reviewed a witness statement written by Registered Nurse (RN) C on 08/23/25, which states in part: During AM medication pass, resident was complaining of 10/10 pain in right arm. Resident stated last night (8/22) . was being transferred by EZ stand to bathroom, arm was hit on the door frame on accident. R1 indicated the Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) stated sorry after.After this incident was reported by the resident on 08/23/25, the facility gathered other statements including the ones below.Surveyor reviewed a witness statement written by CNA D on 08/23/25, which states in part: I assisted with putting resident on toilet, her right arm was brushed against the door due to easy stand barely fits and resident arm was hanging, Resident stated it hurt but it was fine. It occurred on 08/22/25, at approximately 9:15 PM.Surveyor reviewed a witness statement written by CNA E which states in part was using EZ stand with resident to use the bathroom and while pushing her in to the bathroom her right arm hit the frame of the door. I apologized and repeatedly asked if she wanted an ice pack, and she said no. It occurred on 08/22/25, at approximately 9:30 PM.Surveyor reviewed R1's medical record and could not locate any information related to the above incident in the medical record on 08/22/25, when the incident occurred.Interview with DON B on 09/15/25 at 3:40 PM confirmed that CNAs did not report the incident to the nurse working with R1 at the time of the incident, or the charge nurse, or to the oncoming shift, as the policy directs.
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

Investigate Abuse (Tag F0610)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to put measures in place to prevent further abuse, following an allegation of abuse, for 1 of 1 allegation reviewed. This has the potential to...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to put measures in place to prevent further abuse, following an allegation of abuse, for 1 of 1 allegation reviewed. This has the potential to affect a pattern of the facility's 75 residents. On 09/09/25, allegations of potential abuse were reported against Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) G. CNA G was allowed to continue working with residents for the rest of that shift and worked again on 09/11/25 and 09/12/25 during the facility's investigation. This is evidenced by:The facility policy, titled Abuse Prevention Program, dated last reviewed 01/2025, states in part: Upon recognizing signs/symptoms of stressed staff, the observer will take action which may include but is not limited to. relieve the staff member of direct care duties.The investigation must include but not limited to: Identify alleged perpetrator, remove from resident care area immediately, suspend pending investigation conclusion, obtain statement.R4 was admitted to the facility in 2023, with diagnoses including, gastroenteritis, rheumatoid arthritis, osteoarthritis, weakness, and anxiety disorder. R4 is alert oriented and able to make her needs known. R4's Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 06/29/25, indicated that her brief interview for mental status (BIMS) score is 15/15, indicating intact cognitive function. Surveyor interviewed R4 on 09/16/25 at 10:30 AM. When asked if she had had any recent care concerns, R4 responded that the other night a CNA, CNA G, had been haughty, condescending, and dictatorial, insisting that she move her pencil box off her bed herself. R4 stated CNA G pushed the over the bed table closer to her and insisted R4 pick it up, or she would leave. R4 stated CNA G grabbed her wrist twice. R4 stated the other gal, CNA D, called for the nurse, and the nurse came in and made CNA G leave. R4 stated CNA G had grabbed her right wrist, trying to force her to roll over. R4 stated that she told the CNA to let go, but she didn't. R4 stated CNA G was yelling in her face, to roll over. Surveyor asked how close CNA G was when she was in her face. R4 held her hand up to show the distance. Surveyor clarified, About a foot and a half away? R4 responded, Yes. R4 stated CNA G was condescending, ordering her around like a 3-year-old. Other CNAs are polite. R4 stated she asked CNA G to leave 3-4 times, but she didn't. When asked if she was afraid, R4 responded, a little bit her attitude, was more and more escalating. When asked if she had pain from being grabbed, R4 responded it left no marks, but CNA G held it tightly. When asked if it made her cry, R4 said no. When asked if she feels CNA G was abusive to her, she stated, Yes. When asked if she was still afraid, R4 stated, No, she hasn't been back. When asked if she feels safe, R4 stated, Yes, and added that overall, her care has been good. During the interview, R4 remained calm when speaking about the incident, the pace of her language did not change and she showed no changes in facial expression.Surveyor interviewed CNA D on 09/16/25 at 8:20 AM. CNA D worked with R4 on 09/09/25 at approximately 10:45 PM when the incident occurred. CNA D stated she asked CNA G to come assist her with R4's cares, as R4 requires the assistance of two staff, due to making false allegations towards staff. CNA D stated that when she first approached CNA G to ask for assistance with R4's cares, CNA G immediately said, No. CNA D stated she then explained no other staff were able to come assist, so CNA G came. CNA D stated that CNA G spoke to R4 in a condescending manner. CNA D stated that CNA G grabbed R4's wrist and did not let go when the resident asked. CNA D stated CNA G was scolding R4 and described the situation as a power trip.Review of CNA D's witness statement dated 09/09/25 at 10:45 PM reveals the following information. CNA D's statement states that CNA G told R4 she needed to move her belongings. R4 stated to move it for her. CNA G then responded, I'm not moving your belongings, you can, otherwise we can't help you. R4 then told staff, That's fine you can leave. CNA D then stated that if she leaves, I can't help you; there's no other staff that feels comfortable to help you on tonight. R4 asked who else could from other halls. CNA D stated she told her who, then CNA G stated, Do you want me to help? and the resident said, That's fine. Staff pulled the covers down, and CNA G grabbed the resident's arm/wrist to turn her to her left side. Resident tried to pull her arm away and said, You don't have to grab my arm. CNA G said, I'm trying to put you on the bed pan. Do you want my help or not? CNA G continued to hold onto R4's arm to turn her to assist with putting resident on bed pan. R4 continued to resist. CNA D stated I went to grab the nurse because the situation was not deescalating.On 09/16/25 at 10:30 AM, Surveyor interviewed Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) F who stated she was in the hall when she was called to R4's room. LPN F stated that when she entered the room R4's eyes were watering, and she was visibly trembling. LPN F stated CNA G was speaking aggressively and was not appropriate. LPN F stated she asked CNA G to leave a couple of times before she did. LPN F stated that CNA G got really close to R4's face and asked her if she wanted her to leave, and R4 responded that, Yes she wanted her to leave. CNA G responded, Fine, and then left. When asked if she noticed anything with R4's wrist, LPN F stated the arm was slightly red, near the wrist. When asked if R4 was upset, while she continued with the cares, LPN F stated that R4 calmed as soon as CNA G left the room. When asked if she felt CNA G was abusive to R4, LPN G responded, Yes. LPN F stated she called the Director of Nursing (DON) right away to report the incident and began to gather statements for an investigation. LPN F stated she was surprised that CNA G was not removed from the building during the investigation. LPN F stated that CNA G continued to work the rest of the night shift on the 100 hall.Review of LPN F's witness statement dated 09/09/25 states in part, Nurse called to resident room by CNA D stating CNA G and R4 were arguing. The nurse walked into CNA G demanding resident roll. R4 had a look of fear and distress, so the nurse immediately asked CNA G to leave. CNA G told resident she's got it and she will continue cares. The nurse said no I'll take over. To which the CNA G responded no I got it. This nurse then said in a stern voice, You need to leave now. CNA G then turned to resident, leaning in inches from her face, and kept repeating, Do you want me to leave [R4]? This nurse repeated herself for the third time asking CNA G to leave as well as resident stating again that she would like CNA G to leave. This nurse then repeated to CNA to leave. CNA finally left and continued to talk aggressively to R4 on her way out. Nurse reported incident to DON within 30 minutes of interaction.On 09/15/25 at 4:19 PM, Surveyor interviewed Nursing Home Administrator (NHA) A who stated that following the incident, CNA G continued to work the rest of her shift, until 6:30 AM on the 100 hall. NHA A later provided information which stated that CNA G worked on 09/11/25 from 6 AM - 2:30 PM and on 09/12/25 from 6 AM - 2:30 PM. While working CNA G primarily worked on one of the facility's 4 halls, but she had the potential to assist with any of the residents on any of the halls.Review of the facility's roster matrix provided on 09/15/25 revealed that 16 residents resided on the 100 hall on 09/09/25.
Apr 2025 20 deficiencies 2 IJ (1 facility-wide)
CRITICAL (J)

Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) - the most serious Medicare violation

Deficiency F0741 (Tag F0741)

Someone could have died · 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 have sufficient staff with appropriate competencies and...

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 have sufficient staff with appropriate competencies and skill sets to provide direct nursing and behavioral health related services to assure resident safety for each resident to attain or maintain their highest practicable physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being for 1 of 1 sampled resident (R11) and 1 of 1 supplemental residents reviewed (R55). R11 had expressed suicidal ideations related to his chronic pain (phantom limb pain) multiple times in the two months preceding R11 stabbing himself in the chest with scissors due to unrelieved pain. R11 was hospitalized for a self-inflicted stab wound to his chest and placed on an emergency psychiatric detention as a result of his suicide attempt. Following this incident, the resident returned to the facility and continued to express suicidal ideation and uncontrolled pain. Although R11 has had sharp objects removed from his room since the incident on 5/24/24, adequate supervision has not been provided when R11 expresses suicidal ideations. R55 expressed suicidal ideations multiple times between 8/5/24 and 4/10/25. Over this time, R55 obtained sharp objects on occasions. On 4/10/25, scissors were removed from R55's room, after which the resident stated that if he had them he would use them like this and proceeded to hold his hand up to his throat. The facility's failure to provide residents with sufficient staffing that had the appropriate competencies and skill sets to provide direct nursing and behavioral health related services to assure safety needs were met to attain or maintain their highest practicable physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being to address behavioral health needs such as monitoring, on going assessments, and interventions to improve or stabilize R11 or R55's condition created a finding of immediate jeopardy that began on 5/30/24. NHA A (Nursing Home Administrator) was notified of the immediate jeopardy on 4/10/25 at 2:46 PM. The immediate jeopardy was removed on 4/15/25. However, the deficient practice continues at a scope/severity of D (potential for more than minimal harm/isolated) as the facility continues to implement its action plan. This is evidenced by: The facility policy titled, Notification of Change, reviewed 1/2025, states in part: . The Residents physician and responsible party must be notified when an event involving the resident occurs or when the resident experiences a change in condition, potential discharge, room transfer or death .Notification Parameters: [Corporation Name] has adopted the current INTERACT Tools Change in Condition: When to report to the MD (Medical Doctor)/NP (Nurse Practitioner)/PA (Physician Assistant) . ASSESSMENT: 1. When made aware of a change in condition of a resident the Licensed nurse will perform an assessment based on their professional judgement . NOTIFY THE PHYSICIAN IMMEDIATELY IF THE RESIDENT REQUIRES IMMEDIATE ACTION . NOTIFICATION: . 4. Document each attempt in the residents medical record. 5. Notify the Director of Nursing of the Residents condition change. 6. The Licensed nurse is to provide frequent checks on the residents condition while waiting for a call back from the Physician and or NP. Alert the direct care givers of residents condition change and signs and symptoms to be watching for . 8. Inform the physician of the services available in the facility vs. automatic transfer of the resident to the emergency room or admission to the hospital . The facility policy titled, Pain Management Policy, reviewed 1/2025, states in part: . Purpose: to provide an approach to pain management that provides the resident with optimal comfort, dignity and quality of life. Resident experiencing pain will be treated using non-pharmacological and pharmacological methods to optimally control pain, maximize function and promote quality of life . 5. Each resident's plan of care will include interventions to effectively manage pain, including pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions . 6. Pain will be reassessed after interventions to evaluate the effectiveness of the intervention and to recognize undesirable side effects and documented in the medical record. 7. The provider will be notified if comfort is not achieved following pain management interventions, for changes in pain characteristics and/or with new onset pain or breakthrough pain . The facility policy titled, Trauma Informed Care, reviewed 1/2025, states in part: . It is the policy of this facility to provide care and services which, in addition to meeting professional standards, are delivered using approaches which are culturally-competent, account for experiences and preferences, and address the needs of trauma survivors by minimizing triggers and/or re-traumatization . Trauma results from an event, series of events, or set of circumstances that is experienced by an individuals as physically or emotionally harmful or life threatening and that has lasting adverse effects on the individuals' functioning and mental, physical, social, emotional, or spiritual well-being. Common sources of trauma may include, but are not limited to: . d. Physical, sexual, mental, and/or emotional abuse (past or present) e. Rape . i. Traumatic life events . Trauma-Informed Care is an approach to delivering care that involves understanding, recognizing and responding to the effects of all types of trauma. A trauma-informed approach to care delivery recognizes the widespread impact and signs and symptoms of trauma in residents, and incorporates knowledge about trauma into care plans, policies, procedures and practices to avoid re-traumatization .Policy Explanation and Compliance Guidelines: 1. The facility will work to facilitate the principles of trauma informed care which include: a. Safety - Ensuring residents have a sense of emotional and physical safety . 2. The facility will use a multi-pronged approach to identifying a resident's history of trauma . This will include asking the resident about triggers that may be stressors or may prompt recall of a previous traumatic event, as well as screening and assessment tools . 6. The facility will identify triggers which may re-traumatize residents with a history of trauma. Trigger-specific interventions will identify ways to decrease the resident's exposure to triggers which re-traumatize the resident, as well as identify ways to mitigate or decrease the effect of the trigger on the resident, and will be added to the resident's care plan .7. Trauma-specific care plan interventions will recognize the interrelation between trauma and symptoms of trauma such as . depression and anxiety . 10. In situations where a trauma survivor is reluctant to share their history, the facility will still try to identify triggers which may re-traumatize the resident, and develop care plan interventions which minimize or eliminate the effect of the trigger on the resident. The facility policy titled, Behavioral Health Services, reviewed 1/2025, states, in part: . It is the policy of this facility to ensure residents receive necessary behavioral health services to assist them in reach and maintain their highest level of mental and psychosocial functioning. Policy Explanation and Compliance Guidelines: 1. The facility will ensure that necessary behavioral health care services are person-centered and provided to each resident. 2. Behavioral health care and services shall be provided in an environment that is conducive to mental and psychosocial well-being. 3. Conditions that may require specialized services and supports include, but are not limited to: a. Depression b. Anxiety . 4. The facility utilizes assessments for identifying and assessing a resident's mental and psychosocial status providing person-centered care. This process includes, but is not limited to: . b. Obtaining history regarding mental, psychosocial, and emotional health. c. Ongoing monitoring of mood and behavior. d. Care plan development and implementation. e. Evaluation . 6. All facility staff, including contracted staff and volunteers, shall receive education to ensure appropriate competencies and skill sets for meeting the behavioral health needs of residents. Education shall be based on the role of the staff member and resident needs identified through the facility assessment. Behavioral health training as determined by the facility assessment will include, but is not limited to, the competencies and skills necessary to provide the following: a. Person-centered care and services that reflect the resident's goals of care. b. Interpersonal communication that promotes mental and psychosocial well-being. c. Meaningful activities which promote engagement and positive meaningful relationships. d. An environment and atmosphere that is conducive to mental and psychosocial well-being. e. Individualized, non-pharmacological approaches to care . 7. Facility staff will implement person-centered care approaches designed to meet the individual goals and needs of each resident, which includes non-pharmacological interventions . 8. The Social Services Director shall serve as the contact person for questions regarding behavioral services provided by the facility and outside sources such as physician, psychiatrists, or neurologists . Surveyor reviewed the facility's assessment, last reviewed on 8/2/24, to determine the need for staff with skills and competencies in order to provide nursing and related behavioral health services to maintain safety for R11 and R55. Facility assessment indicates: .Purpose The purpose of the assessment is to determine what resources are necessary to care for residents competently during both day-to-day operations and emergencies. The use [sic] this assessment to make decisions about your direct care staff needs, as well as your capabilities to provide services to the residents at our facility. Using a competency-based approach focuses on ensuring that each resident is provided care that allows the resident to maintain or attain their highest practicable physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being. The intent of the facility is for the facility to evaluate its resident population and identify the resources needed to provide the necessary person-centered care and services the residents require. The assessment is organized in three parts: 1. Resident profile including numbers, diseases/conditions, physical and cognitive disabilities, acuity, and ethnic/cultural/religious factors that impact care 2. Services and care offered based on Resident needs (includes types of care your Resident population requires) 3. Facility resources needed to provide competent care for Residents, including staff, staffing plan, staff training/education and competencies, education and training, physical environment and building needs, and other resources, including agreements with third parties, health information technology resources and systems, a facility-based and community-based risk assessment, and other information that you may choose Part 1 of the facility assessment, titled, Our Resident Profile with sub-heading, Diseases/Conditions, physical and cognitive disabilities indicates that the facility accepts residents with Psychiatric/Mood Disorders such as: Depression, Impaired Cognition, Mental Disorder, Bipolar Disorder (Mania/Depression), Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), Anxiety Disorder, Schizophrenia, Insomnia, Mood Adjustment Disorder, and Behavior that needs interventions. The facility is also able to accept residents with neurological disorders such as Alzheimer's Disease, Non-Alzheimer's Dementia, Down Syndrome, Traumatic Brain Injuries, Autism, Huntington's Disease, Tourette's Syndrome, and Cerebral Palsy. Part 2 of the facility assessment, titled, Services and Care We Offer Based on our Residents' Needs, indicates that the facility can provide care for residents with mental health and behavior needs, to include: managing the medical conditions and medication-related issues causing psychiatric symptoms and behavior, identify and implement interventions to help support individuals with issues such as dealing with anxiety, care of someone with cognitive impairment, care of individuals with depression, trauma/PTSD, other psychiatric diagnoses, and intellectual or developmental disabilities. This section also indicates that the facility can provide care for residents with a need for psycho/social/spiritual support, to include: finding out what resident's preferences and routines are, what makes a good day for the resident, what upsets him or her and incorporate this information into the care planning process, making sure staff care for the resident have this information, recording and discussing treatment and care preferences, supporting resident's emotional and mental well-being, supporting helpful coping mechanisms, providing opportunities for social activities and life enrichment, and identifying hazards and risks for residents. In the section titled, Contingency Planning for Staff, the facility assessment indicates in case of an emergency event requiring additional staffing: the administrator will direct available department heads to contact available staff to elicit ability to work, non-nursing staff will complete tasks to alleviate burden from nursing staff as allowed without certification or license, contact company affiliated facilities to determine availability to assist, contact the Regional Director of Operations to approve use of current company agency staffing contracts and offer additional incentives for staff to pick up open shifts such as bonuses. In the section titled, Staff training/education and competencies the facility assessment indicates various education, training, and competencies that are necessary for staff to provide the level and types of support and care needed for the facility's resident population. Trauma informed care is listed under the training section. Under annual competencies, the facility assessment indicates person-centered care, including care planning, resident and family education about treatments and medications, along with caring for residents with mental and psychosocial disorders, as well as residents with a history of trauma and/or post-traumatic stress disorder, and implementing non-pharmacological interventions. Surveyor requested training provided by the facility to staff regarding suicidal ideation and precautions since R11's attempted suicide on 5/24/24. The education provided is print-outs of slide-show presentations titled, Behavioral Health Services and Non-Pharmacological Interventions. Surveyor reviewed the document provided by the facility regarding staff education. This document is untitled and undated. The earliest Completion Date reviewed noted by Surveyor was 2/1/24 and the latest date noted by Surveyor was 3/19/25. The Course Name of trainings include Behavioral Health Services, Non-Pharmacological Interventions (Pain and Behavior), and New Hire Behavioral Health. The titles of staff members include Registered Nurses (RN), Licensed Practical Nurses (LPN), Certified Nursing Assistants (CNA), Dietary staff, housekeeping staff, Activities Staff, and Maintenance Staff. Out of the 15 RNs reviewed, only 8 completed all three trainings, indicating a 53% training completion rate. Out of the 12 LPNs reviewed, 9 completed all three trainings, indicating a 75% training completion rate. Out of the 51 CNAs reviewed, 32 completed all three trainings, indicating a 63% training completion rate. SS N (Social Services) only completed the New Hire Behavioral Health training, according to the documentation provided. (Of note: This list does not include any therapy or agency staff.) According to the National Library of Medicine, risk factors for suicide include, in part: older populations, male, past suicide attempts, adverse childhood experiences, socioeconomic challenges, access to lethal means, recent diagnosis of terminal or chronic illnesses. Example 1: R11 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses that include: amputation of right toes, type 2 diabetes with diabetic polyneuropathy (damage to multiple peripheral nerves causing pain, tingling, burning, numbness, or sensitivity to touch), acquired absence of limb (amputation), phantom limb syndrome w/pain (sensation that limb is still attached to body and can include feelings of pain, numbness, tingling, or temperature changes), and other chronic pain. According to the National Library of Medicine, phantom limb pain is the perception of pain or discomfort in a limb that is no longer there. This pain most commonly presents as a result of amputation. While the cause of the pain is not completely understood, it is thought to originate with the trauma to the nerves surrounding the amputation site and involve neurons in both the spinal cord and brain as well. This pain is often described as tingling, throbbing, sharp, pins/needles in the limb that is no longer there. Pain severity varies and tends to be intermittent in frequency. Treatment has not been proven to be very effective for phantom limb pain and focuses on symptomatic control. Medication options include acetaminophen (Tylenol), ibuprofen, opioids, antidepressants, anticonvulsants (anti-seizure medications), beta blockers, topical anesthetics like Capsaicin, botulinum toxin injections, and local anesthetics. Phantom limb pain is very complex and difficult to treat and is best managed by an interprofessional team involving mental health professionals, pharmacists, and pain management physicians. R11's most recent Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS), with Assessment Reference Date of 1/9/25, states that R11 has a BIMS (Brief Interview for Mental Status) of 15 out of 15, indicating that R11 is cognitively intact. Section D indicates that R11 never has self-isolating behavior. Section J indicates R11 experiences pain frequently, the pain frequently interferes with his sleep and day-to-day activities. Physician orders include: May be treated by house Psychiatrist as needed . Start date: 4/1/24. End date: 5/30/24. Start date: 5/30/24. TENS (electrical current stimulates nerve cells and blocks the transmission of pain signals) unit may be applied for 20 minutes. Staff must assist resident with application and removal. TENS unit to be stored in med (medication) cart . Start date: 1/7/25 Due to suicidal ideation and attempt check room for sharp objects and remove every shift. May complete with 2 staff if needed. Three Times A Day . Start date: 10/25/24. Progress note each shift on resident status - include pain scale and mood/behaviors. Include nursing therapeutic interventions communication and interventions used. Every Shift . Start date: 5/31/24. End date: 9/9/24. Start date: 9/9/24. Pain Assessment every 4 hours - MUST BE COMPLETED. Must offer PRN (as needed) interventions and document progress note with interventions if pain is over 6/10. Special Instructions: 0 - 10 Scale. 0 = No Pain, 1-3 Mild, 4-6 Moderate, 7-10 Severe. Every Shift . Start date: 5/30/24. Behavior Monitoring: Yelling=1, Refusal of Care/Services=2, Combative=3, Hallucinations=4, Agitation=5, Delusions=6, Other=7 (if other please note specific behavior), None=8. Special Instructions: Interventions=calm/slow approach=1, avoid over-stimulation=2, reassurance=3, re-approach=4, re-direct=5, diversional activity=6, offer toileting/snack/drink=7, exercise=8, pain relief=9, other=10, n/a (not applicable)=11. Every Shift . Start date: 5/30/24. R11's current Comprehensive Care Plan indicates, in part: Problem: Resident displays physical and verbal behavioral symptoms that impact resident by putting them at risk for physical injury, interferes with participation in activities or social interactions and impacts others (staff and residents) by placing them at risk of physical injury and disrupts care or living environment. Start date: 9/23/24 . Interventions: Approach: Obtain a psych consult/psychosocial therapy as needed. Start: 9/23/24. Approach: Administer medications as ordered. Monitor and record effectiveness. Report adverse side effects. Start: 9/23/24. Approach: Maintain a calm environment and approach to the resident. Start: 9/23/24. Approach: Assess whether the behavior endangers the resident and/or others. Intervene if necessary. Start: 9/23/24. Approach: Observe for changes in behavior, document, and report to doctor. Start: 9/23/24. Approach: Observe for change in mental status, document and notify physician. Start: 9/23/24. Approach: Offer reassurance to resident as necessary. Start: 9/23/24. Approach: Allow distance in seating other residents around resident. Start: 9/23/24. Approach: Remove resident from group activities when behavior is unacceptable. Start: 9/23/24. Approach: Provide opportunity for resident to vent feelings. Listen in non-judgmental manner. Start: 9/23/24. Approach: Prepare and organize supplies before caring for resident. Avoid delays and interruptions in care. Start: 9/23/24. Approach: When resident becomes physically abusive, move resident to a quiet, calm environment. Start: 9/23/24. Approach: Maintain a calm, slow, understandable approach with the resident. Start: 9/23/24 Approach: When resident becomes physically abusive, keep distance between resident and others: staff, other residents, visitors. Start: 9/23/24. Approach: Seat resident where frequent observation is possible. Start: 9/23/24 Approach: Avoid over-stimulation: added noise, crowding, other physically active residents. Start: 9/23/24. Approach: Encourage (R11) to NOT use his motorized wheelchair when intoxicated. Assist to provide him alternate mobilization. Start: 9/23/24 Problem: Resident has expressed thoughts of being better off dead. Start date: 4/5/24. Last revised: 1/17/25 Interventions: Approach: Resident to be placed on 15 minute checks. To be completed if/when resident is making suicidal comments. Start date: 4/5/24. Approach: Provide 1:1 sessions with staff as needed. Start date: 4/5/24. Approach: Monitor for decline in resident's mood and report to physician for evaluation as needed. Start date: 4/5/24 Approach: Obtain a psych consult/psychosocial therapy PRN. Start date: 4/5/24 Approach: During acute phase, do not make demands on resident. Remove excess stimulation. Start date: 4/5/24. Approach: Convey an attitude of acceptance toward the resident. Start date: 4/5/24. Approach: Maintain a calm environment and approach to the resident. Start date: 4/5/24. Approach: Assess if mood endangers the resident and/or others. Intervene if necessary. Start date: 4/5/24. Approach: Encourage to verbalize feelings, concerns and fears. Clarify misconceptions. Start date: 4/5/24. Approach: Establish a trusting relationship with the resident and family. Start date: 4/5/24. Approach: Use distraction, relaxation, breathing techniques, etc. during acute phases. Monitor and record effectiveness. Start date: 4/5/24. Approach: Provide reassurance and comfort during acute periods. Start date: 4/5/24. Approach: Resident has a history of making thoughts of being better off dead, these statements are often made when experiencing pain. Offer pain interventions when states are made. Start date: 5/8/24. Approach: When resident makes suicidal ideation statements, contact provider (on-call during off hours). Start date: 10/24/24. Approach: Resident's room to be assessed every shift for sharp objects or other objects or forms of hurting oneself. May be completed with 2 staff as needed. Start date: 11/11/24 Problem: Resident has pain R/T: phantom limb syndrome with pain. Start date: 4/2/24. Last Revised/Reviewed: 1/17/25 Interventions: Approach: Monitor and record any non-verbal signs of pain: guarding, moaning, restlessness, grimacing, diaphoresis, withdrawal. Start date: 4/2/24 Approach: Evaluate effectiveness of pain management interventions. Adjust if ineffective or adverse side effects emerge. Start date: 4/2/24 Approach: Allow sufficient uninterrupted rest periods. Start date: 4/2/24 Approach: Handle gently and try to eliminate any environmental stimuli. Start date: 4/2/24 Approach: Position for comfort with physical support as necessary. Start date: 4/2/24 Approach: Administer medications as ordered. Monitor and record effectiveness. Start date: 4/2/24 Approach: Use pain relief measures such as distraction, imagery, relaxation, heat/cold, massage, etc. Monitor and record effectiveness. Start date: 4/2/24 Approach: Assess past effective and ineffective pain relief measures. Start date: 4/2/24 Approach: Monitor and record any complaints of pain: location, duration, quantity, quality, alleviating factors, aggravating factors. Start date: 4/2/24 Approach: Resident to have a pain assessment done every 4 hours. Start date: 5/31/24 Approach: Resident will hit his lower extremities and reports that this behavior is to treat the phantom pain he experiences. Offer pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions when he is doing this. Resident often refuses additional interventions when displaying this behavior. Start date: 10/24/24 Approach: TENS Unit for Pain Relief: Resident is independent with use of TENS Unit for pain management of right foot phantom limb pain. Assist with charging unit as needed. Start date: 12/4/24 On 4/1/24, R11 was admitted to the facility with orders that indicate in part: capsaicin cream, 0.025%, scheduled to apply to right foot four times a day for pain, along with an order to apply to R11's skin as needed once a day for pain. Nortriptyline 25 mg scheduled every evening for nerve pain. Venlafaxine capsule, 24 hour extended release, for a total amount of 187.5 mg, scheduled daily. Acetaminophen (Tylenol) 1,000 mg, every 6 hours as needed for pain, Max dosing 3,000 mg in 24 hours. Diclofenac sodium get 1%, apply 4 grams to skin four times daily as needed for joint damage causing pain and loss of function. Complete a pain assessment every shift with a scale of 0-10, with 0 indicating no pain, 1-3 indicating mild pain, 4-6 indicating moderate pain, and 7-10 indicating severe pain. On 4/2/24 at 5:00 PM, a Progress Note was written by ADON K (Assistant Director of Nursing) that states, in part: Provider, [NP L's Name], NP (Nurse Practitioner) notified of resident's request to keep pain creams at bedside and to have a PRN muscle relaxant. Provider notified staff that the resident has an appointment with pain medicine on April 9th, the resident is willing to wait until this appointment to address muscle relaxer and medication management of pain . On 4/3/24, R11's Medication Administration Record (MAR) indicates R11 reported 7 out of 10 pain to Day shift. On 4/3/24 at 10:46 PM, R11's MAR indicates R11 received 1000 mg of PRN acetaminophen which was indicated to be Not Effective. On 4/3/24, MAR indicates R11 reported 7 out of 10 pain to Evening shift. On 4/4/24 at 12:30 AM, R11's MAR indicates R11 received 1000 mg of PRN acetaminophen for 9 out of 10 pain, which was indicated to be Somewhat Effective. 4 grams of diclofenac gel was also administered and marked to be Not Effective. On 4/4/24, R11's MAR indicates R11 reported 7 out of 10 pain to Day shift. On 4/4/24 at 7:55 AM, R11's MAR indicates R11 received 1000 mg of PRN acetaminophen for 7 out of 10 pain, which was indicated to be Not Effective. On 4/4/24 at 11:56 AM, a Progress Note was written by RN M (Registered Nurse), that states, in part: Resident c/o (complaining) of [sic] 9/10 R (right) foot/ankle pain in his R foot. Resident was heard hollering and yelling out in pain, and when this writer went into room to assess, resident was moaning and crying. Stated that he couldn't take the pain anymore, and stated he just wants the lord to take him, he can't live like this, it's been like this for years. Resident said that he hasn't slept in 3 days, since he's been here, and the Tylenol and cream you guys hive [sic] me doesn't do f**king s**t. Asked resident if there is anything that has worked in the past, and resident replied oxycodone (opioid medication) has helped me sleep and taken the pain away before. Resident was provided diclofenac (non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug) cream as well, this did help resident. Reduced pain from 9/10, down to a 3/10 in about 10-15 minutes. Resident then requested more of it because pain was coming back. The writer asked resident what he meant by he wants the lord to take him, and he stated this pain makes me suicidal. This writer asked him if he had a plan, he replied no he did not, but this has been going on for years and none of these f**king doctors understand that this pain makes me not want to be alive anymore. DON (Director of Nursing), ADON, and social worker all updated about these comments, as well as APNP (Advanced Practice Nurse Prescriber) [NP L's Name] . On 4/4/24 at 12:15 PM, a Progress Note was written by DON B, that states, in part: Writer notified of resident's suicidal comments made this shift. Writer had 1:1 conversation with resident. Resident stated this pain is so bad, I just want to die. Resident denied having a plan. Resident sitting up in bed, with flat affect during conversation. Resident stated this isn't new to me, it happens all the time. Resident placed on 15 minute checks. [NP L's Name] NP aware and met with resident in house. NP reviewed residents history, and stated these comments and c/o pain are not new for resident. Resident is followed by pain clinic and has appointment next week. New orders received from [NP L's Name] . On 4/4/24, R11's Physician Orders indicate new orders were placed for: acetaminophen (Tylenol) 650 mg, scheduled three times a day for pain, not to exceed 4,000 mg in 24 hours. Voltaren (diclofenac sodium) gel, 1% apply 2 grams to the right lower extremity four times a day as needed for pain. On 4/4/24 at 3:49 PM, a Progress Note was written by SS N (Social services), that states: The writer followed up with resident regarding the suicidal ideation comments. Resident stated that he is in pain and the medication he is receiving is not helping. This writer made sure resident does not have a plan. (Of note: No PHQ-9 (Patient Health Questionnaire-9, a screening tool for depression) was completed at this time.) On 4/4/24, MAR indicates R11 reported 7 out of 10 pain to Evening shift. On 4/5/24, R11's Comprehensive care plan problem is created for, Resident has expressed thoughts of being better off dead. Interventions as noted above, including initiating 15 minute checks when R11 makes suicidal comments. On 4/5/24, MAR indicates R11 reported 9 out of 10 pain to Day shift. On 4/5/24 at 7:31 AM, R11's MAR indicates R11 received 4 grams of diclofenac gel and is marked to be Effective. On 4/7/24 at 3:13 PM, a Progress Note was written by LPN O (License Practical Nurse), that states: Resident reported 8/10 pain to right stump most of the shift. Rubbing stump occasionally in an attempt to minimize pain. Scheduled and PRN creams applied, resident reports not effective. Resident insisted he had a cream that is now used up that did work but not sure the name of that medication. Resident became upset when writer unable to provide him with the name or tube of medicated cream that he reported was effective. Resident reported he thought it may be lidocaine; however, he does not currently have order for Lidocaine ointment. Left note with resident's request for provider to follow up on (Of note: R11's MAR indicates the resident reported pain of 1/10, 3/10, and 0/10 for each shift of 4/7/24) On 4/8/24, MAR indicates R11 reported 8 out of 10 pain to Day shift. On 4/8/24 at 3:41 AM, R11's MAR indicates R[TRUNCATED]
CRITICAL (L)

Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) - the most serious Medicare violation

Infection Control (Tag F0880)

Someone could have died · This affected most or all residents

⚠️ Facility-wide issue

Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to maintain an infection prevention and control program designed to help prevent the development and transmission of communicable disease and ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to maintain an infection prevention and control program designed to help prevent the development and transmission of communicable disease and infections. This had the potential to affect all residents residing within the facility at the time of an outbreak on 1/2/25. This outbreak involved 49 out of 83 residents and 37 staff. As of 1/2/25, the facility was in a GI (gastrointestinal) outbreak with 2 staff and 1 resident with noted signs and symptoms of GI outbreak. - Facility staff line listings were not completed contemporaneously. - Temporary Care plans were not started for residents with GI signs and symptoms. - Residents with orders for Laxatives and Diuretics continued to take their prescribed medication without any monitoring for dehydration or bowel movement consistency and frequency. - Staff returned to work too soon following GI signs and symptoms. - Facility does not indicate when residents were taken off precautions following GI signs and symptoms. - Housekeeping did not ensure they cleaned non symptomatic resident rooms prior to those residents with GI signs and symptoms. - Housekeeping did not use any type of clothing barrier (e.g., apron) when sorting dirty laundry. - Facility did not notify DPH (Department of Public Health) of the outbreak until 1/6/25. The outbreak started on 1/2/25. - Facility did not complete a timeline of the outbreak. - Facility did not complete lessons learned following the GI outbreak. - Facility did not have an Ad Hoc QAPI meeting to discuss the GI outbreak. The facility's failure to mitigate the spread of the GI outbreak created a finding of immediate jeopardy that began on 1/3/25. NHA A (Nursing Home Administrator) and DON B (Director of Nursing) were notified of the immediate jeopardy on 4/10/25 at 2:46 PM. The immediate jeopardy was removed on 1/14/25; however, the deficient practice continues at a severity/scope level of F (potential for more than minimal harm/widespread) as the facility continues to implement its action plan. This is evidenced by: The facility policy titled, Norovirus Prevention and Control, last reviewed 1/2025, states in part . Policy: This facility will implement infection control measures to prevent the transmission of norovirus infection. Procedure: 1. Place residents with symptoms of norovirus gastroenteritis on Contact Precautions in a private room. If a private room cannot be accommodated efforts must be attempted to separate symptomatic resident from asymptomatic residents. 2. Residents with norovirus gastroenteritis will be placed on Contact Precautions for a minimum of 48-72 hours after the resolution of symptoms. Longer periods of isolation or cohorting for medically complex residents may be considered. 3. Minimize symptomatic resident's movements within the unit; restrict recovering residents during 48-72 hour recover time frame also from leaving the resident-care area unless it is for essential care or treatment; and suspend group activities (e.g., dining events) for the duration of an outbreak. 4. During outbreak, frequent hand hygiene after providing care or having contact with residents suspected or confirmed with norovirus gastroenteritis. 5. Transfers may be limited to Contact Precautions are not able to be maintained; or transfers may be postponed until residents no longer require Contact Precautions. 6. Perform additional cleaning and disinfection of frequently touched environmental surfaces and equipment in resident care areas, resident with isolation and cohorted areas, as well as high-traffic clinical areas. Frequently touched surfaces include, but not limited to, commodes, toilets, faucets, hand/bed railing, telephones, door handles, computer equipment, and kitchen preparation surfaces. Clean and disinfect shared equipment between residents using EPA-registered products with label claims for use in healthcare which lists activity against norovirus. Follow the manufacturer's recommendations for application and contact times. 7. Clean and disinfect surfaces starting from the areas with a lower likelihood of norovirus (e.g., toilets, bathroom fixtures). Change mop heads when a new bucket of cleaning solution is prepared or after cleaning large spills of emesis or fecal material. 8. During outbreaks, change privacy curtains when they are visibly soiled and upon resident discharge or transfer. 9. Handle soiled linens carefully, without agitating them, to avoid dispersal of virus. Use Standard Precautions, including the use of appropriate PPE (e.g., gloves and gowns), to minimize the likelihood of cross-contamination. 10. Staff who work with, prepare or distribute food will be excluded from duty immediately if they develop symptoms of acute gastroenteritis. Any staff presenting with norovirus symptoms will be off work and not to return until a minimum of 48 hours after the resolution of symptoms or longer upon recommendation from Infection Control Preventionist or Infection Control Committee. The facility policy titled, Infection Control Program Introduction, last reviewed 1/2025, states in part . Introduction: Infections are among the most frequent and significant problems facing nursing facility residents today. They account for a large proportion of morbidity and mortality, and for many hospital transfers. This Infection Control Manual will provide information for the essential functions and practices of the facility and also be flexible enough to fit a facility's specific environment and able to accommodate new issues or requirements. Purpose of Infection Control Program: The major purposes of Infection Control Programs in the nursing facility are to minimize the effects of infections on residents and employees, and to educate the staff. A successful Infection Control Program requires an underlying commitment and facility-wide participation. It should not just be seen as a way to meet paperwork requirements but as a way to analyze and use information effectively to improve and prevent problems. Coordination and Oversight: The Director of Nursing has the responsibility of coordination and oversight of the Infection Control Program. The Director of Nursing may appoint a clinical staff person with interest and additional training in infection prevention and control to assist in the coordination and oversight of the Infection Control Program. All infections are tracked and logged regularly. The Infection Control Committee or its equivalent should review Elements of an Infection Control Program: The success of this Infection Control Program is base as facility-wide effort involving all disciplines and individuals. It should also be considered an integral part of a facility's overall quality assurance and performance improvement program, and have the active support of administration, residents, families, clinical, support staff, and attending physicians. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) require the long-term care facilities to establish and maintain an Infection Control Program designed to provide a safe, sanitary and comfortable environment and to help prevent the development and transmission of disease and infection. All infections are tracked and to be logged regularly. The Infection Control Committee or its equivalent should review summaries of this information at least quarterly. Policies and Procedures: This review should also assess how well and how consistently the staff has complied with existing policies and regulations, and any trends or significant problems since the previous review. Surveillance: Surveillance refers to a system for recognizing the occurrence of infections, recording their number and frequency, detecting outbreaks and epidemics, monitoring employee infections, and detecting unusual pathogens with infection control implications. Prevention and treatment begin with recognizing the kinds of infections that occur and the signs and symptoms of their onset. Infections among the residents are not always obvious. Therefore, medical criteria and standardized definitions of infections are needed to help recognize and manage infections, (Corporation Name) will utilize McGeer's criteria to assist in the recognition of infections and ensure antibiotic usage is appropriate as part of their Stewardship program. The facility policy titled, Cleaning and Disinfecting Residents' Rooms, undated, states in part . Resident Room Cleaning: 9. When possible, precaution/isolation rooms should be cleaned last, and water discarded after cleaning room. 11. Clean curtains, window blinds and walls when they are visibly soiled and dirty. The facility policy titled, Standard Precautions, undated, states in part . Gowning: Wear a gown that is appropriate to the task, to protect skin and prevent soiling or contamination of clothing during procedures and resident-care activities when contact with blood, body fluids, secretions, or excretions is anticipated. Appropriated handling of laundry: Handle, transport, process used linen to avoid contamination of air, surfaces and persons. All soiled linens should be bagged prior to exiting room. Washing of linens will be in accordance with CMS (Centers for Medicare and Medicaid) requirements and per Chapter 5, Water Temperatures; Maintenance Manual. On 12/31/24, two staff members developed signs and symptoms related to GI outbreak. CNA (Certified Nursing Assistant) Q (NOC shift) was placed on the line list with vomiting and diarrhea and BOM (Business Office Manager) P was placed on the line list for diarrhea. On 1/2/25, R17, a resident on the 200 wing was placed on the line list for GI (gastrointestinal) s/sx (signs and symptoms). R17's symptoms included nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea. Surveyor reviewed R17's eMAR (electronic medication administration record) and eTAR (electronic treatment administration record) and noted that the facility was monitoring R17's bowel movements but not the consistency or frequency. On 1/3/25, R8, R18, R34, R64, and R70, were all noted to have GI s/sx. These five residents encompassed all 4 units of the facility. Surveyor reviewed R8's eMAR and eTAR. R8 had orders for Senokot tablet 8.6 mg (milligrams). Give 1 tablet PO (by mouth) daily for constipation, once daily. During the period in which R8 was experiencing s/sx of GI outbreak she continued to receive her Senokot without bowel monitoring in place for frequency and consistency. The facility did not update the physician or consider holding the medication while R8 was experiencing GI related s/sx. R8 had orders in the eMAR and eTAR to enter a progress note every shift to include symptoms present/not present related to acute gastroenteritis: nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, abdominal cramping, fever, chills, start 1/5/25 to 1/6/25. R8 was noted to be added to the line list for the GI outbreak on 1/3/25 with a well date of 1/4/25, indicating R8 was not being monitored for GI s/sx until after her well date. Surveyor reviewed R18's eMAR and eTAR. R18 had orders for furosemide tablet 20 mg (a diuretic.) Take 1 tablet by mouth daily for fluid in the lungs due to chronic heart failure. During the period in which R18 was experiencing s/sx of GI outbreak he continued to receive his furosemide without fluid monitoring. The facility did not update the physician or consider holding the medication while R18 was experiencing GI related s/sx. R18's eMAR and eTAR note that the facility was monitoring R18's bowel movements but not the consistency or frequency. Surveyor reviewed R34's eMAR and eTAR. R34 had orders for furosemide tablet 40 mg. Give 1 tablet daily for high blood pressure. During the period in which R34 was experiencing s/sx of GI outbreak she continued to receive her furosemide without fluid monitoring. The facility did not update the physician or consider holding the medication while R34 was experiencing GI related s/sx. R34's eMAR and eTAR note that the facility was monitoring R34's bowel movements but not the consistency or frequency. R34 had orders in the eMAR and eTAR to enter progress note every shift to include symptoms present/not present related to acute gastroenteritis: nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, abdominal cramping, fever, chills, start 1/5/25 to 1/7/25. R34 was noted to be added to the line list for the GI outbreak on 1/3/25 with a well date of 1/5/25, indicating R34 was not being monitored for GI s/sx until after her well date. Surveyor reviewed R64's eMAR and eTAR. R64 had orders for Senna-S tablet 8.6-50 mg. Take 1 tablet by mouth daily for constipation. During the period in which R64 was experiencing s/sx of GI outbreak she continued to receive her Senna-S without bowel monitoring in place for frequency and consistency. The facility did not update the physician or consider holding the medication while R64 was experiencing GI related s/sx. eMAR and eTAR note that the facility was monitoring R64's bowel movements but not the consistency or frequency. R64's eMAR and eTAR also include orders to monitor GI symptoms: Monitor lung sounds, vitals, and for additional symptoms Q (every) shift x (times) 72 hours TID (three times a day), start date 1/5/25 and end date 1/7/25. R64's GI s/sx started on 1/3/25 with a well date of 1/6/25, indicating R64 was not being monitored for GI s/sx until 2 days after he began experiencing s/sx. Surveyor reviewed R70's eMAR and eTAR. R70 had orders for Senokot-S tablet 8.6-50 mg. Give 2 tablets by mouth 2 times a day for constipation prevention. Hold for loose stools. During the period in which R70 was experiencing s/sx of GI outbreak he continued to receive his Senokot-S without bowel monitoring in place for frequency and consistency. The facility did not update the physician or consider holding the medication while R70 was experiencing GI related s/sx. R70 has orders in the eMAR and eTAR to enter progress note every shift to include symptoms present/not present related to acute gastroenteritis: nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, abdominal cramping, fever, chills, start 1/5/25 to 1/6/25. R70 was noted to be added to the line list for the GI outbreak on 1/3/25 with a well date of 1/4/25, indicating R70 was not being monitored for GI s/sx until after her well date. On 4/9/25 at 9:30 AM, Surveyor interviewed RNC/IP C (Regional Nurse Consultant/infection preventionist). Surveyor asked RNC/IP C when outbreak should have been called. RNC/IP C stated, after the second resident but can't give you the date. Surveyor gave RNC/IP C the infection control logs to review. RNC/IP C stated, 1/2/25 would have been the outbreak but I was not the IP at that time and cannot say when she called the outbreak. I was not notified of any outbreak until 1/4/25. Note: The facility should have considered this an outbreak starting on 1/2/25. However, the facility has no evidence they identified the outbreak until they contacted DPH (Department of Public Health) on 1/6/25. Note: Facility has no timeline or documentation to show when the outbreak was identified. Note: The facility has no documentation that shows that they updated any of the residents' PCPs (Primary Care Physicians) or the Medical Director of the outbreak. On 1/4/25, R1, R12, R38, R40, R46, R50, R60, R71, and R240 were all noted to be experiencing GI s/sx. These nine residents encompassed the 200, 300, and 400 units of the facility. Surveyor reviewed R1's eMAR and eTAR. R1's eMAR and eTAR note that the facility was monitoring R64 's bowel movements but not the consistency or frequency. R1's eMAR and eTAR include orders to monitor for 72 hours lung sounds and VS (vital signs) due to GI illness starting on 1/4/25 and ending on 1/5/25 and to enter progress note every shift to include symptoms present/not present related to acute gastroenteritis: nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, abdominal cramping, fever, chills, start 1/5/25 to 1/7/25. R1 was noted to be added to the GI outbreak line list on 1/4/25 with a well date of 1/8/25, indicating monitoring of R1 did not start until the day after sx began and ended a day prior to symptoms ending. R1's eMAR and eTAR also indicate R1 was placed on contact precautions on 1/4/25 and precautions were discontinued on 1/7/25. R1 had a well date of 1/8/25, indicated precautions were stopped the day prior to R1's well date. Surveyor reviewed R12's eMAR and eTAR. R12 had orders for furosemide tablet 20 mg, give 1 tablet PO daily for visible water retentions and furosemide 0.5 mg tablet (10 mg) PO in the afternoon for visible water retention. During the period in which R12 was experiencing s/sx of GI outbreak she continued to receive all but one dose of her furosemide without fluid monitoring. The facility did not update the physician or consider holding the medication while R12 was experiencing GI related s/sx. R12's eMAR and eTAR note that the facility was monitoring R12's bowel movements but not the consistency or frequency. R12 had orders in the eMAR and eTAR to enter progress note every shift to include symptoms present/not present related to acute gastroenteritis: nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, abdominal cramping, fever, chills, start 1/5/25 to 1/8/25. R12 was noted to be added to the line list for the GI outbreak on 1/4/25 with a well date of 1/9/25, indicating R12's monitoring did not start until the day after sx began and ended a day prior to symptoms ending. Surveyor reviewed R38's eMAR and eTAR. R38 had orders for Miralax 17 gram/dose, dissolve 17 grams into at least 8 ounces of beverage of choice and drink daily for bowel management, hold for loose stools/high volume ostomy output, increase to 2x (two times) daily if constipation and Sennosides-docusate sodium tablet 8.6-50 mg, take 1 tablet by mouth 2 times a day for bowel management, hold for loose stools/high volume ostomy output. During the period in which R38 was experiencing s/sx of GI outbreak he continued to receive his Miralax and Sennosides-docusate sodium without bowel monitoring in place for frequency and consistency. R38's eMAR and eTAR note that the facility was monitoring R38's bowel movements but not the consistency or frequency. R38 had orders in the eMAR and eTAR for GI symptoms: Monitor for and chart symptoms and temp Q shift x72 hours, start 1/7/25 to 1/7/25. R38 was noted to be added to the line list for the GI outbreak on 1/4/25 with a well date of 1/5/25, indicating R38's monitoring did not start until 3 days after s/sx began and 2 days after R38's well date. R38's eMAR and eTAR also indicate that R38's isolation precautions were discontinued on 1/7/25. Facility does not have time of well date for discontinuation of isolation precautions, unable to determine from documentation and interviews if precautions discontinued appropriately. Surveyor reviewed R40's eMAR and eTAR. R40 had orders in the eMAR and eTAR to enter progress note every shift to include symptoms present/not present related to acute gastroenteritis: nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, abdominal cramping, fever, chills, start 1/5/25 to 1/6/25. R40 was noted to be added to the line list for the GI outbreak on 1/4/25 with a well date of 1/5/25, indicating R40's monitoring did not begin until her well date and ended the following day. R40's eMAR and eTAR also indicates that R40's isolation precautions were discontinued on 1/7/25. Facility does not have time of well date for discontinuation of isolation precautions, unable to determine from documentation and interviews if precautions discontinued appropriately. Surveyor reviewed R46's eMAR and eTAR. R46's eMAR and eTAR note that the facility was monitoring R46's bowel movements but not the consistency or frequency. R46 also has orders to encourage fluids each shift, this is signed out every shift but does not include amounts of intake. R46's eMAR and eTAR orders include GI Symptoms: Monitor lung sounds, vitals, and for additional symptoms Q shift x 72 hours, start 1/5/25 to 1/7/25. R46 was added to the line list for the GI outbreak on 1/4/25 with a well date of 1/5/25, indicating R46's monitoring did not start until her well date. Surveyor reviewed R50's eMAR and eTAR. R50 had orders for Miralax 17 gram/dose. Give 17g (grams) PO BID (twice a day) for emptying of the bowel, titrate to have 1 BM (bowel movement) per day and Senokot-S tablet, 8.6-50 mg, take 1 tab PO BID for constipation. R50 was added to the GI line list for s/sx on 1/4/25 with a well date of 1/5/25. During the time that R50 was experiencing GI s/sx she continued to receive Miralax and Senokot-S BID. R50's eMAR and eTAR note that the facility was monitoring R50's bowel movements but not the consistency or frequency. R50 had orders in the eMAR and eTAR to enter progress note every shift to include symptoms present/not present related to acute gastroenteritis: nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, abdominal cramping, fever, chills, start 1/5/25 on PM shift and ending 1/7/25 on PM shift. R50's eMAR and eTAR also includes vitals x 72 hours each shift, plus lung sounds, start date 1/4/25 at 11:00 PM and ending on 1/5/25 at 11:00 PM. According to eMAR and eTAR R50's isolation precautions were discontinued on 1/7/25. Facility did not document the time of R50's last symptoms making it difficult to determine if isolation precautions were discontinued appropriately. Surveyor reviewed R60's eMAR and eTAR. R60 had orders for furosemide 20 mg, administer 1 tablet (20 mg) by mouth daily for hypertension. R60 was added to the GI line list for s/sx on 1/4/25 with a well date of 1/5/25. During the period in which R60 was experiencing s/sx of GI outbreak she continued to receive all doses of her furosemide without fluid monitoring. The facility did not update the physician or consider holding the medication while R60 was experiencing GI related s/sx. R60's eMAR and eTAR note that the facility was monitoring R60's bowel movements but not the consistency or frequency. R60's eMAR and eTAR includes an order for GI Symptoms: Monitor and chart for symptoms and temp Q shift x 72 hours, start date of 1/5/25 and end date of 1/7/25. R60's eMAR and eTAR note that the facility was monitoring bowel movements but not the consistency or frequency. Note: R60's monitoring for GI symptoms did not begin until her well date. Surveyor reviewed R71's eMAR and eTAR. R71 was added to the facility line listing for GI s/sx on 1/4/25 and a well date of 1/5/25. R71's eMAR and eTAR note that the facility was monitoring R71's bowel movements but not the consistency or frequency. R71 had orders in the eMAR and eTAR to enter progress note every shift to include symptoms present/not present related to acute gastroenteritis: nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, abdominal cramping, fever, chills, start 1/5/25 on PM shift and ending 1/7/25 on NOC (night) shift. R71's well date on the GI line list is documented as 1/5/25. R71's monitoring did not begin until the date of his listed well date. R71's eMAR and eTAR indicates Vitals x 72 hours each shift, plus lung sounds each shift, start date 1/4/25 and end date 1/5/25. Note: The vitals monitoring for R71 were started on 1/4/25 but only completed on 1/5/25. Surveyor reviewed R240's eMAR and eTAR. R240 was added to the facility line listing for GI s/sx on 1/4/25 and a documented well date 1/5/25. R240's eMAR and eTAR note that the facility was monitoring R240's bowel movements but not the consistency or frequency. R240 had orders in the eMAR and eTAR to enter progress note every shift to include symptoms present/not present related to acute gastroenteritis: nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, abdominal cramping, fever, chills, start 1/5/25 on PM shift and ending 1/7/25 on PM shift. Facility does not have time of well date for discontinuation of isolation precautions, unable to determine from documentation and interviews if precautions discontinued appropriately. On 1/5/25, R10, R56, and R239 were noted to be experiencing GI s/sx. These three residents encompassed the 200, 300, and 400 units. Surveyor reviewed R10's eMAR and eTAR. R10 was added to the facility line listing for GI s/sx on 1/5/25 and a documented well date of 1/6/25. R10 had orders for sennosides-docusate sodium tablet 8.6-50 mg. Give 2 tabs po BID for constipation. Torsemide tablet 10 mg (a diuretic.) Give 1 tablet (10 mg) with 20 mg tablet for total of 30 mg daily for edema. Torsemide tablet 20 mg. Give 1 tablet (20 mg) with 10 mg tablet for total of 30 mg daily for edema. During the period in which R10 was experiencing s/sx of GI outbreak she continued to receive all doses of torsemide and sennosides-docusate sodium without fluid monitoring. R10's eMAR and eTAR note that the facility was monitoring R10's bowel movements but not the consistency or frequency. R10 had orders in the eMAR and eTAR to enter progress note every shift to include symptoms present/not present related to acute gastroenteritis: nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, abdominal cramping, fever, chills, start 1/5/25 on PM shift and ending 1/8/25 on NOC shift. Facility does not have time of well date for discontinuation of isolation precautions on 1/8/25; unable to determine from documentation and interviews if precautions discontinued appropriately. Surveyor reviewed R56's eMAR and eTAR. R56 was added to the facility line listing for GI s/sx on 1/5/25 and a documented well date of 1/6/25. R56 had orders for Miralax 17 grams. Give 17 g PO daily for constipation. HOLD for loose stools. During the period in which R56 was experiencing s/sx of GI outbreak she received Miralax as scheduled aside from 1/6/25 when medication was held. R56's eMAR and eTAR notes that the facility was monitoring R56's bowel movements but not the consistency or frequency. R56's eMAR and eTAR include an order for GI Symptoms: Monitor and chart for symptoms and temp Q shift x 72 hours, start date of 1/5/25 AM shift and end date of 1/7/25 PM shift. Surveyor reviewed R239's eMAR and eTAR. R239 was added to the facility line listing for GI s/sx on 1/5/25 and a documented well date of 1/6/25. R239 had orders for Citrucel tablet 500 mg. Take 1 tab PO BID for constipation. Take with plenty of water. During the period in which R239 was experiencing GI s/sx her Citrucel was held on only 2 occasions, 1/5/25 AM shift and 1/7/25 PM shift. R239 received all other doses during this time frame. R239's eMAR and eTAR notes that the facility was monitoring R239's bowel movements but not the consistency or frequency. R239 had orders in the eMAR and eTAR to enter progress note every shift to include symptoms present/not present related to acute gastroenteritis: nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, abdominal cramping, fever, chills, start 1/5/25 on PM shift and ending 1/8/25 on PM shift. On 1/6/25, R5, R9, R16, R21, R22, R51, R54, R67, R80, and R242 were noted to be experiencing GI s/sx. These residents resided among all four units of the facility. There were also six staff (COTA (Certified Occupational Therapy Assistant) GG, AA (Activities Assistant) HH, PT (Physical Therapist) II, CNA JJ, CNA KK, CNA LL) that were experiencing GI s/sx. COTA GG was placed on the staff GI line list on 1/6/25 with symptoms of vomiting and diarrhea. COTA GG has no well date or return to work date listed. AA HH was placed on the staff GI line list on 1/6/25 with symptoms of nausea, vomiting, and abdominal cramping. AA HH has no well date listed but returned to work on 1/13/25. PT II was placed on the staff GI outbreak line list on 1/6/25 with symptoms of nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea. PT II has no well date or return to work date listed. CNA JJ was placed on the staff GI outbreak line list on 1/6/25 with symptoms of nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea. CNA JJ has no well date listed but returned to work on 1/9/25. CNA KK was placed on the staff GI outbreak line list on 1/6/25 with symptoms of nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea. CNA KK has no well date listed but returned to work on 1/12/25. CNA LL was placed on the GI outbreak line list on 1/6/25 with symptoms of nausea and vomiting. CNA LL has no well date listed but returned to work on 1/10/25. On 1/6/25, DPH was notified of the facility GI outbreak by the DON (Director of Nursing). At this point the facility had 28 residents and eight staff with GI signs and symptoms. Surveyor reviewed R5's eMAR and eTAR. R5 was added to the facility line listing for GI s/sx on 1/6/25 and a documented well date of 1/7/25. R5 had orders for furosemide tablet 20 mg for accumulation of fluid resulting from CHF (congestive heart failure), edema. Miralax 17 gram/dose. Mix 17 grams in drink of choice PO every other day for constipation and Senokot-S tablet 8.6-50 mg. Give 1 tablet PO daily for constipation. During the period in which R5 was experiencing s/sx of GI outbreak she continued to receive all doses of furosemide without fluid monitoring. R5 also continued to receive all doses of Miralax and Senokot-S. R5's eMAR and eTAR notes that the facility was monitoring R5's bowel movements but not the consistency or frequency. Surveyor reviewed R9's eMAR and eTAR. R9 was added to the facility line listing for GI s/sx on 1/6/25 and a documented well date of 1/7/25. R9's eMAR and eTAR notes that the facility was monitoring R9's bowel movements but not the consistency or frequency. R9's eMAR and eTAR include an order for GI Symptoms: Monitor and chart for symptoms and temp Q shift x 72 hours, start date of 1/6/25 AM shift and end date of 1/8/25 NOC shift. Surveyor reviewed R16's eMAR and eTAR. R16 was added to the facility line listing for GI s/sx on 1/6/25 and a documented well date of 1/9/25. R16 had orders for senna tablet 8.6 mg. Give 2 tablets by mouth daily for constipation. During the period in which R16 was experiencing s/sx of GI outbreak she continued to receive all doses of senna without monitoring frequency or consistency of bowel movements. R16 had orders in the eMAR and eTAR to enter progress note every shift to include symptoms present/not present related to acute gastroenteritis: nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, abdominal cramping, fever, chills, start 1/6/25 on PM shift and ending 1/9/25 on NOC shift. Surveyor reviewed R21's eMAR and eTAR. R21 was added to the facility line listing for GI s/sx on 1/6/25 and a documented well date of 1/7/25. R21 had orders for furosemide 20 mg. Give 0.5 tablet (10 mg) PO daily for chronic BLE (bilateral lower extremity) edema and Senna with Docusate Sodium tablet 8.6-50 mg. Give 2 tablets po BID for constipation. Hold for loose stools. During the period in which R21 was experiencing s/sx of GI outbreak she continued to receive all doses of furosemide and Senna with Docusate Sodium without monitoring frequency or consistency of bowel movements or fluid hydration. R21 had orders in the eMAR and eTAR to enter progress note every shift to include symptoms present/not present related to acute gastroenteritis: nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, abdominal cramping, fever, chills, start 1/6/25 on PM shift and ending 1/9/25 on NOC shift. Surveyor reviewed R22's eMAR and eTAR. R22 was added to the facility line listing for GI s/sx on 1/6/25 and a documented well date of 1/7/25. R22 had orders for Miralax 17 grams/dose. Give 17 grams PO in beverage of choice daily for constipation and psyllium husk powder. Give 3.4 grams in beverage of choice BID for constipation. During the period in which R22 was experiencing s/sx of GI outbreak he continued to receive all doses of Miralax and psyllium husk powder without monitoring frequency or consistency of bowel movements. Surveyor reviewed R51's eMAR and eTAR. R51 was added to the facility line listing for GI s/sx on 1/6/25 and a documented well date of 1/7/25. R51's eMAR and eTAR notes that the facility was monitoring R51's bowel movements but not the consistency or frequency. R51 had orders in the eMAR and eTAR to enter progress note every shift to include symptoms present/not present related to acute gastroenteritis: nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, abdominal cramping, fever, chills, start 1/6/25 on AM shift and ending 1/8/25 on NOC shift. R51's eMAR and eTAR include an order for GI Symptoms: Monitor and chart for symptoms and temp Q shift x 72 hours, start date of 1/6/25 AM shift and end date of 1/6/25 PM shift, this was documented as completed. Facility does not have time of well date for discontinuation of isolation precautions on 1[TRUNCATED]
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

Deficiency F0692 (Tag F0692)

A resident was harmed · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure residents received adequate fluid intake to ma...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure residents received adequate fluid intake to maintain acceptable parameters of hydration for 1 of 4 Residents (R19) reviewed for nutrition. On 3/7 - 3/13/25 R19 was hospitalized with aspiration pneumonia and received intravenous fluids during his hospitalization. On 3/17-3/19/25 R19 was hospitalized with dehydration requiring intravenous fluids. R19 was consistently not meeting his daily recommended fluid intake of greater than 1,400 ml (milliliters). R19 had a significant weight loss of 10.9% from 3/7/25 - 3/26/25. The facility failed to ensure R19 received adequate fluid intakes to maintain acceptable parameters of hydration by failing to total and assess daily fluid intake; accurately assess and complete on going assessments for signs and symptoms of dehydration (e.g., sunken eyes, cool/clammy skin, dry tongue, dark colored urine, and sticky saliva); failure to weigh resident weekly; failure to weigh resident upon readmission to the facility; failure to add/revise care plan interventions to prevent further dehydration and weight loss; failure to timely communicate weight changes to provider. This is evidenced by: Facility Policy entitled 'Dehydration/Fluid Maintenance, reviewed 1/2025, states in part: Purpose: To determine the risk status of residents to develop dehydration and to implement measures to assure adequate fluid/maintenance hydration. Goal: To prevent dehydration from happening by identifying risk factors which lead to dehydration and provide the resident with sufficient fluid intake to maintain proper hydration and health. Procedure: At the time of each resident's admission, readmission, quarterly review, or significant change in condition, a Nutritional Assessment will be completed by the DTR/RD with input from the interdisciplinary team. The attending physician will be notified of the results of the assessment if the resident is found to be at risk for dehydration and the appropriate recommendations will be written and protocols will be implemented to promote hydration. Risk factors include: a. Fluid loss exceeds the amount of fluids consumed, b. Elevated temperatures or infection, c. Dependence on staff for the provision of fluid intake, e. Renal disease, f. Dysphagia, g. Limited fluid intake lacking thirst sensation, h. Refusal of fluids. Once risk factors are identified, a plan of care will be initiated to provide sufficient fluid and maintain proper hydration. Plan for the amount of fluid provided at each meal, snack and additional fluids provided by nursing staff. Based on medical condition, ability to consume adequate fluids, and/or any resident that presents with a diagnosis of dehydration will have a care plan that addresses the potential for dehydration/fluid maintenance. Assessing and Care Planning: Follow the standard care process of identification, assessment, treatment and monitoring when addressing dehydration. Interventions should be individualized, aggressive, and revised as needed based on the residents responses, outcome and needs. Creative Suggestions include: (consider using to keep residents well hydrated) Offer additional fluids during medication time (4-8 ounces), Assist residents to drink fluids, Ensure that clients received thickened liquids are encouraged to consume adequate fluids due to their high risk of dehydration. According to Strategies for Ensuring Good Hydration in the Elderly, Dehydration is a frequent etiology of morbidity and mortality in elderly people. It causes the hospitalization of many patients and its outcome may be fatal. Indeed, dehydration is often linked to infection, and if it is overlooked, mortality may be over 50%. Older individuals have been shown to have a higher risk of developing dehydration than younger adults. Modifications in water metabolism with aging and fluid imbalance in the frail elderly are the main factors to consider in the prevention of dehydration. Particularly, a decrease in the fat free mass, which is hydrated and contains 73% water, is observed in the elderly due to losses in muscular mass, total body water, and bone mass. Since water intake is mainly stimulated by thirst, and since the thirst sensation decreases with aging, risk factors for dehydration are those that lead to a loss of autonomy or a loss of cognitive function that limit the access to beverages. The prevention of dehydration must be multidisciplinary. Caregivers and health care professionals should be constantly aware of the risk factors and signs of dehydration in elderly patients. Strategies to maintain normal hydration should comprise practical approaches to induce the elderly to drink enough. This can be accomplished by frequent encouragement to drink, by offering a wide variety of beverages, by advising to drink often rather than large amounts, and by adaptation of the environment and medications as necessary. https://onlinelibrary.[NAME].com/doi/pdf/10.1111/j.1753-4887.2005.tb00151.x The facility policy, Weight and Height Records Policy, revised 8/2023, documents, in part, as follows: In order to provide appropriate and resident centered care the facility staff will obtain and monitor resident weights as follows: Weight loss or gain of 3# (pounds) less for those residents 100# will resident in a resident being reweighed. Weights greater than 100# will follow weight bariance [sic] reporting for CMS/MDS (Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services/Minimum Data Set) guidelines as follows: 5% +/-30 days, 7.5% +/-90 days, 10% +/-180 days. Weights will be recorded in EMR (electronic medical record) when obtained. Dietician/CDM (Certified Dietary Manager) weight range will not exceed +/-10% (percent). R19 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including, but not limited to, as follows: multiple sclerosis (a central nervous system condition that disrupts communication between the brain and body), chronic kidney disease stage 3 (a moderate decline in kidney function), weakness, and dysphagia oropharyngeal phase (difficulty with the oral prepatory phase - trouble forming the food bolus before swallowing). On 3/27/24 RD G (Registered Dietician) completed the following Initial Assessment: Diet Fluids >1,400 ml/day (greater than 1,400 milliliters per day) On 9/27/24 DON B (Director of Nursing) ordered the following for R19: Weekly weight. Once a day on Monday R19 is a DNR (Do Not Resuscitate). It is noted in R19's record, R19's APOAHC (Activated Power of Attorney for Health Care) made the decision to enroll R19 in comfort care on 3/28/25. Of note, R19's APOAHC declined hospice care. R19's Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] indicates R19 has a Brief interview of Mental Status (BIMS) of 10 out of 15 indicating he is moderately cognitively impaired. R19's family member is his APOAHC (Activated Power of Attorney for Health Care). R19's comprehensive care plan documents, in part, as follows: (Problem Start Date: 3/19/25) R19 is at end of life, is receiving comfort care. (Approach start date: 3/28/25) R19's APOAHC (Activated Power of Attorney for Health Care) declined hospice services stating she would only like the facility staff to care for him and no other staff. R19's comprehensive care plan documents, in part as follows: (Problem Start Date: 4/7/23) Nutritional Status-Resident triggers at risk for malnutrition based on MNA (mini nutritional assessment), PMH (past medical history), mechanically altered diet textures, and disease progression. Goal: Resident will receive adequate nutrition/hydration. Approach: .(Approach Start Date: 4/7/23) Diet provides >1,920 cc's of fluids per day. Encourage nectar thick fluids at bedside and with activities. Monitor for signs & symptoms of fluid imbalance (i.e. swelling, shortness of breath, dry mucous membranes, dry skin, poor skin turgor). Monitor meal intake/record. Offer substitutes if consumes <50% of meals. On 1/20/25 R19 weighed 204.1 On 1/27/25 R19 weighed 202.9 On 2/10/25 R19 weighed 203.1 It is important to note, the facility is collecting intakes, however, the facility is not totaling R19's daily fluid intakes, therefore not assessing the data they are collecting. R19's intakes (calculated by Surveyor) leading up to hospitalization are as follows: 3/3: 200 ml 3/4: 900 ml 3/5: 400 ml 3/6: 800 ml Of note, R19 did not reach his fluids needs. On 3/6/25 the Nurse Practitioner wrote the following order: Encourage fluids/hydration throughout the shift. 7:00 AM - 3:00 PM, 3:00 PM - 11:00 PM and 11:00 PM - 7:00 AM R19 was hospitalized [DATE] -3/13/25 for aspiration pneumonia. R19 received IV (intravenous) fluids during this hospitalization. *See RD G's (Registered Dietician) note below. On 3/13/25 at 4:04 PM, RD G (Registered Dietician) documented the following Progress Note: Nutrition Update: Noted resident's return from the hospital following sepsis. Received IVF (intravenous fluids) d/t (due to) hydration needs. *Received an estimated total of 5,124 ml between 3/7-3/8, with an average of 731 ml per day over 7 days. Current diet order in place: Pureed with nectar thick liquids. Continue to monitor chewing/swallowing ability at this facility, SLP (Speech-Language Pathology) to eval (evaluate) in-house, RD G will continue to monitor and f/u (follow up) quarterly/prn (as needed) to assess intake, wt (weight) status, and diet tolerance. R19's intakes (calculated by Surveyor) leading up to hospitalization are as follows: 3/13: 320 ml 3/14: 580 ml 3/15: 370 ml 3/16: 680 ml Of note, R19 did not reach his fluids needs, the facility did not provide documentation of a dehydration assessment. The facility did not weigh R19 from 3/13 - 3/17/25. R19 was hospitalized 3/17-3/19/25 with dehydration requiring IV (intravenous) fluids. R19's hospital report documents, in part, as follows: Creatinine: 2.28 (High). Estimate GFR: 29 (High) Sodium: 144 (Reference Range 135-145) The hospital physician documents, in part, as follows: Patient was admitted to inpatient on 3/17/25 for Somnolence (excess sleepiness). admitted for infection vs dehydration causing AMS (Altered Mental Status) - appeared hemoconcentrated (increase in red blood cells, white blood cells and platelets in the blood due to a reduction in the volume of plasma (liquid portion of the blood).), high specific gravity. Urine and blood cultures negative at 24 hours, abx (antibiotics) discontinued. Patient continued to do well. Returned to baseline mentation after fluid administration - *feel this was dehydration with lack of infectious etiologies. The hospital has the following weights documented for R19: 3/7/25: 218.4 3/17/25: 208.3 - It is important to note, R19 lost over ten (10) pounds in 10 days. (Significant weight loss) = -4.62% 3/18/25: 206.1 = - 5.63% 3/19/25: 207.8 = -4.85% On 3/19/25 R19 was readmitted to the facility following a hospital stay. The facility did not obtain R19's weight upon readmission. On 3/20/25 at 3:05 PM, RD G (Registered Dietician) documented the following Progress Note: Nutrition Update: Noted resident's return from the hospital following an event of somnolence. Received IVF (intravenous fluids) d/t hydration needs. *Received an estimated total of 5,800 ml (milliliters) between 3/17-3/18/25, with an average of 834 ml per day over 7 days. Current diet order in place: Pureed with nectar thick liquids. Continue to monitoring chewing/swallowing ability at this facility, SLP (Speech-Language Pathology) to eval (evaluate) in-house. RD G will continue to monitor and f/u (follow up) quarterly/prn (as needed) to assess intake, wt (weight) status, and diet tolerance. (Of note: R19 has received over 10,000ml of IV fluids during hospitalization in less than 2 weeks.) On 3/26/25 R19 weighed 194.6 at the facility there is no documentation indicating R19's Physician/provider was updated. (It is important to note, R19 returned to the facility following a hospitalization on 3/19/25. The facility did not weigh R19 until 3/26/25. During this time, R19 continued to lose weight.) From 3/19/25 - 3/26/25 R19 experienced a 6.35% weight loss. On 3/27/25 at 4:28 PM, RD G (Registered Dietician) documented the following Progress Note: Nutrition update: Noted resident's updated weight status, and 195 lbs (pounds) on 3/26/25. 9 lb loss over the past 1.5 months. The loss was anticipated r/t (related to) multiple hospitalizations within this timeframe. Continue to monitor wt (weight) status for goal of stabilization. Continue current diet textures and feeding precautions in place. RD G will continue to monitor and f/u (follow up) prn (as needed). Of note, there is no documentation of any weights/monitoring until eight (8) days after R19's readmission to the facility. There are no new care plan interventions indicated as being implemented upon R19's return after being hospitalized related to dehydration. No documentation was provided indicating nurses are monitoring or documenting signs and symptoms for R19 related to dehydration. On 4/7/25 R19 weighed 200 .9 On 4/14/25 at approximately 12:00 PM, Surveyor observed CNA CCC (Certified Nursing Assistant) assisting R19 with his lunch in the dining room. Surveyor observed R19 had ample fluids and food on his tray for the meal. R19 had 480 ml (milliliters) of fluid on his tray. Surveyor observed R19 drank 240 ml. On 4/14/25 at 1:00 PM, Surveyor spoke with RN DDD (Registered Nurse). Surveyor asked RN DDD, who documents fluid intakes. RN DDD stated, the nurses document fluid intakes at the end of the shift. RN DDD stated, nurses and CNA's (Certified Nursing Assistants) document in the same place. Surveyor asked RN DDD, who is responsible for totaling daily fluid intakes. RN DDD stated, she is unsure and the computer system may automatically. Surveyor asked RN DDD, what are symptoms of dehydration that require monitoring. RN DDD stated, staff should monitor output, skin turgor, dry lips, low blood pressure, etc. RN DDD stated, staff really have to be on top of offering R19 fluids while he is in his room. RN DDD stated, R19 needs assistance with eating and drinking and he has end stage MS (Multiple Sclerosis), a degenerative disease. On 4/14/25 at 1:40 PM, Surveyor spoke with CNA CCC (Certified Nursing Assistant). Surveyor asked CNA CCC (Certified Nursing Assistant) if R19 has difficulty eating or drinking. CNA CCC stated, sometimes R19 gets too sleepy so she will take a break or ask if R19 is finished. CNA CCC stated, R19 has better days than others. CNA CCC stated, sometimes R19 will hold food in his mouth and she will follow up and offer him juice to help get the food down. CNA CCC stated, R19 does not normally have any difficulty swallowing liquids. Surveyor asked CNA CCC, do you record fluid intakes for R19. CNA CCC stated, she records intakes or tells the CNA's what R19 ate or drank. CNA CCC stated, R19 had 480 milliliters of fluids on his tray and R19 drank 240 ml (milliliters) between nectar thick milk and orange juice at lunch today. CNA CCC stated, R19 was unable to finish the meal as he got too sleepy to finish the rest. CNA CCC stated, R19 would drop his head down. CNA CCC stated, R19 has fluids in his room such as apple juice (out of reach for safety reasons) that staff will offer R19 and give him a couple sips. On 4/14/25 at 2:00 PM, Surveyor spoke with DON B (Director of Nursing). Surveyor asked DON B, is she aware that R19 was dehydrated during the 3/17-3/19/25 hospitalization. DON B stated, she does not remember if the facility has that documented or not. Surveyor shared RD G's (Registered Dietician) Progress Notes (above). DON B stated, yes, the facility is aware. Surveyor asked DON B, are you aware that R19's received IVF (intravenous fluids) during his prior hospitalization from 3/7-3/13/25. DON B stated, yes, she is aware of that. Surveyor asked DON B, what is the facility doing to address this. DON B stated, R19 has an order in place to encourage fluids. DON B stated, R19 is following up with ST (Speech Therapy) & OT (Occupational Therapy). DON B stated, R19 is currently actively participating in ST and OT. Surveyor asked DON B, who is responsible for totaling R19's daily fluid intakes. DON B stated, she is unsure. DON B added, RD G may calculate the fluid totals. (Note, per interview with RD G (below), she does not calculate fluid totals on a daily basis. Currently, nobody at the facility totals daily fluid intakes. Subsequently, daily fluid intakes are not being monitored on a daily basis.) Surveyor asked DON B, how do you know that R19 is meeting his daily fluid needs when his fluid intakes are not totaled on a daily basis. DON B stated, there's no way to know if R19 is meeting his daily fluid needs. DON B stated, staff would need to add the fluid totals. Surveyor asked DON B, would you expect staff to total fluid intakes. DON B stated, yes. Surveyor asked DON B, why is this important. DON B stated to make sure R19 is adequately hydrated. DON B stated, we did recently have a goal of cares switched from Full Code to DNR (Do Not Resuscitate) due to weight loss and overall decline. Surveyor asked DON B, when were intakes put in place for R19. DON B stated, this started on 10/14/24 to encourage fluids. Surveyor asked DON B, what was this in response to. DON B stated, this was to a high Creatinine lab. Surveyor asked DON B, are staff to be encouraging fluids. DON B stated, yes. Surveyor asked DON B, should R19 have fluid in his room. DON B stated, staff can bring fluids when they check in on him and offer. DON B stated staff should be assisting him with fluids and should leave them out of R19's reach as R19 requires supervision with drinking and eating. Surveyor asked DON B, should the provider have been notified with R19's significant weight loss. DON B stated, yes. On 4/14/25 at 2:19 PM, Surveyor spoke with RD G (Registered Dietician). Surveyor asked RD G, where do staff record fluid intakes. RD G stated, she believes staff document intakes under vital signs and that's where she looks for intakes. Surveyor asked RD G, do staff document fluid intakes in any other locations. RD G stated, no, not that she is aware. Surveyor asked RD G, who is responsible for totaling daily fluid intakes. RD G stated, that would be the nursing realm. RD G stated she looks at fluid intakes as a whole picture and does not total them on a daily basis. Surveyor asked RD G, why is important to ensure that residents are getting enough fluids and adequately hydrated. RD G stated, to ensure residents do not become dehydrated. RD G stated, for R19 the facility provides nectar thick fluids, Magic Cups (supplement), encourage milk, juice, and water with all meals. The facility failed to ensure R19 received adequate fluid intakes to maintain acceptable parameters of hydration
CONCERN (D)

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

Abuse Prevention Policies (Tag F0607)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on interview and record review, facility did not implement written policies and procedures that prohibit and prevent abuse, neglect, and exploitation of residents and misappropriation of residen...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview and record review, facility did not implement written policies and procedures that prohibit and prevent abuse, neglect, and exploitation of residents and misappropriation of resident property. The facility did not conduct thorough background checks on 2 of 8 employees that were randomly selected. Findings include The facility's abuse prevention program states, in part: *The facility will conduct thorough investigations of histories of prospective staff, in addition to inquiry of the state, nurse aid registry or licensing authorities prior to employment. *The facility will obtain verification of screening prior to employment or engagement for prospective consultants, contractors, volunteers, caregivers and students and its nurse aid training program and students from affiliated academic institutions, including therapy, social, and activity programs. Screening may be conducted by the facility itself, third party agency, or academic institution. It is recognized that state specific regulatory requirements may require additional limitations to be followed. The facility will require these individuals to be subject to the same scrutiny prior to placement in the facility. The facility should maintain documentation of the screening that has occurred. *All applicants for employment will be checked from previous and/or current employers and make reasonable efforts to uncover information about any past criminal prosecutions. Applicants will be asked to supply references of previous work history. *The facility will ensure specific additional state requirements for criminal background checks and state law be followed that may prevent certain convicted crimes from working in a long term care facility. *The national background check program or specific state licensure requirements that may address criminal background checks will be referenced and followed. *No applicant will be hired/employed or otherwise engaged if there exists any indication of unfitness for employment. On 4/8/25, Surveyors randomly selected 8 facility staff to conduct background checks. Of the 8 records provided, CNA D (Certified Nursing Assistant), was hired on 3/7/25, CNA D did not have a Georgia state background check despite CNA D acknowledging on her BID (Background Information Disclosure) with the state of Wisconsin that she currently lived in Georgia. The facility hired RN E on 3/15/25, but her Wisconsin BID was filled out and signed on 5/27/23. The facility did not run a new background check on RN E (Registered Nurse), including a Florida background check despite RN E acknowledging on her application that she was currently living in Florida. It should be noted that RN E is an agency nurse while CNA D was recently an agency nurse that was hired by the facility. On 4/8/25 at 2:55 PM, Surveyor interviewed NHA A (Nursing Home Administrator) who stated that RN E was working with her current agency at a different facility in the state of Wisconsin, so the facility used that BID and subsequent Wisconsin background check from 5/27/23 from this other facility. The facility ran new background checks, including out of state checks, for RN E and CNA D on 4/9/25. The facility has policies to conduct background checks on prospective employees, but did not implement those policies before RN E and CNA D began working in the facility.
CONCERN (D)

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

Report Alleged Abuse (Tag F0609)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on interview and record review, the facility did not ensure that all alleged violations involving abuse, neglect, exploitation, or mistreatment, are reported immediately to the administrator of ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview and record review, the facility did not ensure that all alleged violations involving abuse, neglect, exploitation, or mistreatment, are reported immediately to the administrator of the facility and to other officials, including the State Survey Agency, in accordance with State law through established procedures for 2 of 22 sampled residents (R45 & R18) reviewed for abuse. Facility did not report an incident of resident-to-resident altercation involving R45 and R18 to the State Agency (SA). Evidenced by: The facility Abuse Prevention Program Policy and Procedure reviewed 01/2025, includes, in part, the following: VII. Reporting/Response. All alleged or suspected violations are to be reported immediately to the Administrator or Director of Nursing, which are responsible to notify required official, including to the State Survey Agency, . and any other agencies in accordance with State law through established procedures. All alleged violations involving abuse, neglect, exploitation or mistreatment, including injuries of unknown source and misappropriation of resident property, and reported immediately, but not later than 2 hours after the allegation is made if the events that cause the allegation involve abuse or result in serious bodily injury. Reporting results of all investigations to required officials in accordance with State law, including to the State Survey Agency, within 5 working days of the incident, and if the alleged violation is verified appropriate corrective action must be taken. Example 1 On 4/7/25 at 1:55 PM Surveyor interviewed R45. R45 stated in early March he had an altercation with his former roommate (R18). R45's Resident Progress Notes include, in part, the following: 03/04/2025 08:31 PM Resident and roommate had altercation this shift. Roommate did not like that resident had tv on loud and was speaking on phone on speaker. Roommate started saying negative things to resident. Resident stated, Quit saying those things about me or I am going to beat you. This made roommate very angry, and staff had to separate roommate from room. Notified ADON (Assistant Director of Nursing) and Social Services of situation. Roommate moved into separate room. 03/04/2025 05:36 PM[Recorded as Late Entry on 03/06/2025 10:38 AM] Writer notified that resident and roommate were arguing this evening. Resident was utilizing profanities, in which roommate disagreed with. Writer immediately spoke with resident along with SW (Social Worker). Resident declined to move, so roommate was moved to different room for the evening. Writer educated resident on appropriate language while in the facility. Resident apologized and stated understanding. Resident stated well I just don't like the way he talks sometimes. R18's Resident Progress Notes include, in part, the following: 03/04/2025 8:38 PM Resident and Roommate had an altercation this shift. Resident did not like the tv noise and speaker phone noise coming from the roommate's room. Resident said bad things about roommate to roommate. Roommate said, Quit saying those things about me or I am going to beat you. Resident got mad and put call light on and demanded to be separated from resident. Writer later spoke to resident, and they stated that they were fearful for their life. Writer notified ADON (Assistant Director of Nursing) and Social Services of the incident. Resident separated and place [sic] into different room. On 4/9/25 at 4:45 PM Surveyor interviewed NHA A (Nursing Home Administrator). Surveyor asked NHA A if the interaction between R45 and R18 that occurred on 3/4/25 had been reported to the State Agency. NHA A stated no it had not been reported. Surveyor asked NHA A if the interaction between R45 and R18 should have been reported. NHA A stated yes.
CONCERN (D)

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

Investigate Abuse (Tag F0610)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on interview and record review, the facility did not have evidence that all alleged violations of abuse were thoroughly investigated for 2 of 22 sampled residents (R45 and R18) reviewed for abus...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview and record review, the facility did not have evidence that all alleged violations of abuse were thoroughly investigated for 2 of 22 sampled residents (R45 and R18) reviewed for abuse. Facility did not fully investigate an incident of resident-to-resident altercation involving R45 and R18 to the State Agency (SA). Evidenced by: The facility Abuse Prevention Program Policy and Procedure reviewed 01/2025, includes, in part, the following: V. Investigation. 1. The Administrator and or Director of Nursing are to initiate and coordinate completion of a thorough investigation. Investigations must be initiated immediately and concluded as soon as possible not to exceed (5) days. Example 1 On 4/7/25 at 1:55 PM Surveyor interviewed R45. R45 indicated in early March he had altercation with his former roommate (R18). R45's Resident Progress Notes include, in part, the following: 03/04/2025 08:31 PM Resident and roommate had altercation this shift. Roommate did not like that resident had tv on loud and was speaking on phone on speaker. Roommate started saying negative things to resident. Resident stated, Quit saying those things about me or I am going to beat you. This made roommate very angry, and staff had to separate roommate from room. Notified ADON (Assistant Director of Nursing) and Social Services of situation. Roommate moved into separate room. 03/04/2025 05:36 PM[Recorded as Late Entry on 03/06/2025 10:38 AM] Writer notified that resident and roommate were arguing this evening. Resident was utilizing profanities, in which roommate disagreed with. Writer immediately spoke with resident along with SW. Resident declined to move, so roommate was moved to different room for the evening. Writer educated resident on appropriate language while in the facility. Resident apologized and stated understanding. Resident stated well I just don't like the way he talks sometimes. R18's Resident Progress Notes include, in part, the following: 03/04/2025 8:38 PM Resident and Roommate had an altercation this shift. Resident did not like the tv noise and speaker phone noise coming from the roommate's room. Resident said bad things about roommate to roommate. Roommate said, Quit saying those things about me or I am going to beat you. Resident got mad and put call light on and demanded to be separated from resident. Writer later spoke to resident, and they stated that they were fearful for their life. Writer notified ADON (Assistant Director of Nursing) and Social Services of the incident. Resident separated and place into different room. On 4/9/25 at 4:45 PM Surveyor interviewed NHA A (Nursing Home Administrator). Surveyor asked NHA A if the interaction between R45 and R18 that occurred on 3/4/25 had been fully investigated. NHA A stated no it had not been investigated. Surveyor asked NHA A if the interaction between R45 and R18 should have been investigated. NHA A stated yes.
CONCERN (D)

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

Transfer Requirements (Tag F0622)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to permit a resident to return to the facility following a hospitaliza...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to permit a resident to return to the facility following a hospitalization for 1 of 1 sampled resident (R11) and 1 of 1 supplemental residents (R55) reviewed. R11 was not permitted to return to the facility following an emergency facility-initiated transfer to the hospital. The facility discharged R11 and stated they would not allow R11 to return. R55 was not permitted to return to the facility following an emergency facility-initiated transfer to the hospital. The facility discharged R55 and would not allow R55 to return. It should be noted R55's guardian wished for R55 to return to the facility and R55 was pending Medicaid approval at the time of discharge. Example 1 R11 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses that include: type 2 diabetes with diabetic polyneuropathy (damage to multiple peripheral nerves causing pain, tingling, burning, numbness or sensitivity to touch), acquired absence of limb (amputation), phantom limb syndrome with pain (sensation that limb is still attached to body and can include feelings of pain, numbness, tingling, or temperature changes), and other chronic pain. On 4/10/25, according to facility progress notes, R11 was discharged to a hospital emergency room with a recommendation to transfer resident to an inpatient mental health facility. On 4/14/25 at 1:54 PM, Surveyor interviewed RNC C (Regional Nurse Consultant). Surveyor asked RNC C to describe R11's discharge on [DATE]. RNC C indicated facility staff spoke with R11 and he was willing to go to the hospital to have his pain evaluated. RNC C also indicated that facility staff discussed alternative placement with R11 at [Facility Name], a new inpatient mental health facility. RNC C indicated that this facility would not admit directly from a skilled nursing facility so R11 needed to go to the hospital first. RNC C also indicated their facility was not appropriate for R11 because they could not manage his behaviors. Surveyor asked RNC C if she advised the social worker at the hospital that R11 was not going to be accepted back to the facility. RNC C indicated she spoke with the hospital social worker and provided her with the inpatient mental health facility's contact information but that R11 would not be accepted back to the nursing home. Surveyor asked RNC C if R11 wishes, can he return to the facility. RNC C indicated, no because of safety concerns as the facility is unable to provide adequate staffing to maintain his safety. Example 2 R55 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that include: centrilobular emphysema (chronic lung disease that causes damage to the upper lobes of the lungs), chronic respiratory failure with hypercapnia (high levels of carbon dioxide in blood due to respiratory failure), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, dysphagia (difficulty swallowing), heart failure, unspecified intellectual disabilities, Barrett's esophagus without dysplasia (tissue lining of esophagus changes due to long-term irritation causing symptoms of difficulty swallowing, heartburn, and chest pain), and anxiety disorder. On 4/10/25 at 7:00 PM, a Progress Note is dated and indicated to be a late entry from 4/11/25 at 7:55 AM, was written by RNC C (Regional Nurse Consultant,) and states in part: Discharge Note: [Resident Name] did leave the facility at 1808 (6:09 PM). Writer did speak with [Social Worker Name] SW (Social Worker) at [Hospital Name]. He did state that he was going to harm himself with scissors. Hospice RN was giving [Resident Name] scissors on her visits with him . Call was placed and discussed with hospice that [Resident Name] was not able to be continuous 1:1 with staff for maintaining safety. They did agree and he was transferred to the hospital. He was admitted to the hospital last evening on the oncology floor for safety and monitoring. Hospice will explore alternative placement for safety. On 4/14/25 at 1:54 PM, Surveyor interviewed RNC C. Surveyor asked RNC C to describe R55's discharge on [DATE]. RNC C indicated facility staff spoke with R55, and he was willing to go to the hospital. RNC C also indicated that facility staff worked with R55's hospice service, who agreed to R55's transfer. RNC C indicated R55 needed to be hospitalized where he could have more supervision, and he was ultimately discharged because he needed a higher level of supervision than the facility could provide. Surveyor asked RNC C if she advised the social worker at the hospital that R55 was not going to be accepted back to the facility. RNC C indicated she spoke with the hospital social worker and indicated that he would not be accepted back. Surveyor asked RNC C if R55 wishes, can he return to the facility. RNC C indicated, no because of safety concerns as the facility is unable to provide adequate staffing to maintain his safety. On 4/14/25 at 2:13 PM, Surveyor interviewed FM (Family Member) JJJ, who is one of R55's guardians. Surveyor asked FM JJJ if she was notified by the facility prior to R55 being transferred to the hospital. FM JJJ indicated that she was not and found out he was taken to the hospital when the hospital called FM JJJ to ask about R55. Surveyor asked FM JJJ if she knows R55 was discharged from the facility. FM JJJ indicated she was told by the hospital social worker that the facility would not take R55 back. Surveyor asked FM JJJ if she would like R55 to return to the facility. FM JJJ indicated yes, and that she told the facility this on Friday when she spoke to facility staff. Surveyor asked FM JJJ where R55 is currently. FM JJJ indicated R55 is still in the hospital. On 4/14/25 at 2:25 PM, Surveyor interviewed FM KKK, who is R55's other guardian. Surveyor asked FM KKK if he was notified by the facility prior to R55 being transferred to the hospital. FM KKK indicated he was not. FM KKK also indicated himself and FM JJJ were visiting the facility on Thursday 4/10/25 around 2:00 PM and no one at the facility informed them of the incident that happened earlier that day. Surveyor asked when FM KKK was notified of R55's transfer. FM KKK indicated he was called on Friday, 4/11/25 by ADON K (Assistant Director of Nursing) who told him at that time that R55 was in the hospital and the facility would not let R55 return to the facility due to not having a working plan to deal with R55's mental health problems. FM KKK also indicated he was told the facility could not provide the services need for R55's mental health problems such as one on one care. FM KKK also indicated R55 is in the process for applying to Medicaid and was told R55 would have to share a room once his Medicaid was approved. It should be noted a facility must permit a resident to return to the facility pending a hospital transfer. The facility must have evidence that the resident's status at the time the resident seeks to return to the facility (not at the time the resident was transferred for acute care) meets one of the criteria at §483.15(c)(1)(i)(A) through (D). R11 and R55 were emergently transferred to the hospital and then the facility elected to discharge them from the facility not permitting R11 or R55 to return.
CONCERN (D)

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

Transfer Notice (Tag F0623)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to notify the Office of the State Long-Term Care Ombudsman of a facili...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to notify the Office of the State Long-Term Care Ombudsman of a facility-initiated discharge, failed to ensure the written notice contained all pertinent information for a discharge notice including the location to which the resident is transferred or discharged , a statement of the resident's appeal rights, and the name and address of the Office of the State Long-Term Care Ombudsman for 1 of 1 sampled resident (R11) and 1 of 1 supplemental residents (R55) reviewed for facility-initiated discharge. The facility failed to notify R11 and R55 in writing prior to a facility-initiated discharge, did not give R11 or R55 a chance to appeal the facility-initiated discharge, and did not appropriately prepare R11 or R55 for the facility-initiated discharge. This is evidenced by: The facility policy titled, Resident Transfers and Discharge Notification, dated 1/2025, states in part: . Procedure: Facility-initiated transfer or discharge - Involuntary Discharge The facility will provide written notice in a language the resident or resident's representative can understand. The notice must also be provided to an immediate family member or legal representative. Written notice will be given at least 30 days before the proposed discharge. In specific circumstances written notice may need to be given less than 30 days, prior to discharge. The facility will utilize and complete all appropriate State forms that include the reason for the discharge, the date of the proposed discharge, the location to which the person will be discharged and their right to appeal the discharge by requesting a hearing . Example 1 R11 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses that include: type 2 diabetes with diabetic polyneuropathy (damage to multiple peripheral nerves causing pain, tingling, burning, numbness or sensitivity to touch), acquired absence of limb (amputation), phantom limb syndrome with pain (sensation that limb is still attached to body and can include feelings of pain, numbness, tingling, or temperature changes), and other chronic pain. R11's most recent Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS), with Assessment Reference Date of 1/9/25, states that R11 has a BIMS (Brief Interview for Mental Status) of 15 out of 15, indicating that R11 is cognitively intact. Section D indicates that R11 never has self-isolating behavior. Section J indicates R11 experiences pain frequently, the pain frequently interferes with his sleep and day-to-day activities. On 4/10/25, according to facility progress notes, R11 was discharged to a hospital emergency room with a recommendation to transfer resident to an inpatient mental health facility. Progress notes do not indicate R11 was provided a written notice 30 days prior to discharge that included the reason for discharge, the effective date of discharge, the location to which R11 is being discharged , a statement of R11's appeal rights, or the contact information for R11's Ombudsman. (Of note: The Ombudsman was not notified of R11's facility-initiated discharge.) On 4/14/25 at 1:54 PM, Surveyor interviewed RNC C. Surveyor asked RNC C to describe R11's discharge on [DATE]. RNC C indicated facility staff spoke with R11, and he was willing to go to the hospital to have his pain evaluated. RNC C also indicated that facility staff discussed alternative placement with R11 at [Facility Name], a new inpatient mental health facility. RNC C indicated that the mental health facility would not admit directly from a skilled nursing facility so R11 needed to go to the hospital first. RNC C also indicated the nursing home was not appropriate for R11 because they could not manage his behaviors. Surveyor asked RNC C if the Ombudsman, family, and R11 were notified of the transfer. RNC C indicated R11 was notified, however the ombudsman and family were not notified. Surveyor asked RNC C if the facility did a bed hold for R11. RNC C indicated a bed hold was provided. Surveyor asked RNC C if the facility initiated a facility-initiated discharge and will not take R11 back, should the facility provide R11 with a 30-day notice prior to being discharged and give R11 the right to appeal. RNC C stated, technically, and indicated the facility was more concerned with R11's safety. Surveyor asked if a written notice was provided to R11 prior to transfer. RNC C indicated a written notice was not provided. Surveyor asked RNC C if she advised the social worker at the hospital that R11 was not going to be accepted back to the facility. RNC C indicated she spoke with the hospital social worker and provided her with the inpatient mental health facility's contact information and that resident would not be accepted back. Surveyor asked RNC C if R11 wants to return to the facility, will the facility accept R11 back. RNC C indicated, no because of safety concerns as the facility is unable to provide adequate staffing to maintain his safety. On 4/14/25 at 2:40 PM, Surveyor contacted OM HHH (Ombudsman) and asked if they had received a 30-day notice for R11's facility-initiated discharge. OM HHH indicated she did not receive any notification for R11's facility-initiated discharge. Example 2 R55 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that include: centrilobular emphysema (chronic lung disease that causes damage to the upper lobes of the lungs), chronic respiratory failure with hypercapnia (high levels of carbon dioxide in blood due to respiratory failure), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, dysphagia (difficulty swallowing), heart failure, unspecified intellectual disabilities, Barrett's esophagus without dysplasia (tissue lining of esophagus changes due to long-term irritation causing symptoms of difficulty swallowing, heartburn, and chest pain), and anxiety disorder. R55's most recent Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS), with Assessment Reference Date of 2/12/25, states that R55 has a BIMS (Brief Interview for Mental Status) of 13 out of 15, indicating that R55 is cognitively intact. Section D indicates that R55 never has self-isolating behaviors. R55's Level 2 Preadmission Screening and Resident Review (PASRR) evaluation summary indicates that a nursing facility may choose to admit or retain R55 because it was decided that R55 is appropriate for nursing facility placement. R55's Comprehensive Care Plan, indicates, in part: Problem: Resident is unable to care for self at home AEB (As Evidenced By) requiring 24 hour [sic] care/supervision and will be a long-term placement in nursing facility due to: End of Life-Hospice Care. Start date: 8/5/24. Interventions: Approach: Allow resident to make choices and decisions regarding care as long as they are safe and appropriate. Start date: 8/5/24. Approach: Facility to provide 24 hour [sic] care/supervision while maintain resident's dignity and safety. Start date: 8/5/24. Approach: Staff to provide cues/reminders/encouragement to promote resident's independence and autonomy. Start date: 8/5/24. On 4/10/25 at 5:48 PM, a Progress Note was written by LPN III, that states, in part: Call placed to [Hospice Provider Name] this evening. Spoke to [Nurse Name], RN and updated her regarding sending resident into the ED (Emergency Department) for evaluation due to the incident from earlier. Call placed to POA (Power of Attorney) - no answer and unable to leave a voicemail. Call placed to second ER contact, his brother, [Family Member Name]. Updated him on resident going to the ED (Emergency Department) and why. All questions were answered. Brother stated that he would get ahold of his sister, [Family Member Name] (POA) and notify her as well. ADON (Assistant Director of Nursing) did contact [Emergency Medical Service Name]. On 4/10/25 at 6:11 PM, a Progress Note was written by DON B (Director of Nursing), that states, in part: Writer explained to resident that hospice requested he be sent to ER (Emergency Room) due to suicidal ideation, statements, and gestures made today. Resident stated good, then they can look at my stomach too. (Of note: Progress note does not contain notification of R55's discharge, only a transfer. Additionally, R55 has a guardian and is not his own person.) On 4/10/25 at 7:00 PM, a Progress Note is dated and indicated to be a late entry from 4/11/25 at 7:55 AM, that was written by RNC C that states, in part: Discharge Note: [Resident Name] did leave the facility at 1808 (6:08 PM). Writer did speak with [Social Worker Name] SW (Social Worker) at [Hospital Name]. He did state that he was going to harm himself with scissors. Hospice RN was giving [Resident Name] scissors on her visits with him . Call was placed and discussed with hospice that [Resident Name] was not able to be continuous 1:1 with staff for maintaining safety. They did agree and he was transferred to the hospital. He was admitted to the hospital last evening on the oncology floor for safety and monitoring. Hospice will explore alternative placement for safety. On 4/14/25 at 1:54 PM, Surveyor interviewed RNC C. Surveyor asked RNC C to describe R55's discharge on [DATE]. RNC C indicated facility staff spoke with R55, and he was willing to go to the hospital. RNC C also indicated that facility staff worked with R55's hospice service, who agreed to R55's transfer. RNC C indicated R55 needed to be hospitalized where he could have more supervision, and he was ultimately discharged because he needed a higher level of supervision than the facility could provide. Surveyor asked RNC C if the Ombudsman, family, and R55 were notified of the transfer. RNC C indicated R55's family, hospice service, and provider were notified of R55's transfer. Surveyor asked RNC C if the facility did a bed hold for R55. RNC C indicates a bed hold was provided. Surveyor asked RNC C if the facility initiated a facility-initiated discharge and will not take R55 back, should the facility provide R55 with a 30-day notice prior to being discharged and give R55 the right to appeal. Surveyor asked RNC C if R55 should have been given a 30-day notice prior to being discharged by the facility. RNC C stated, technically, and indicated the facility was more concerned with R55's safety. Surveyor asked if a written notice was provided to R55's guardian prior to transfer. RNC C indicated a written notice was not provided. Surveyor asked RNC C if she advised the social worker at the hospital that R55 was not going to be accepted back to the facility. RNC C indicated she spoke with the hospital social worker and indicated that he would not be accepted back. Surveyor asked RNC C if R55 wanted to return to the facility, would the facility accept R55 back. RNC C indicated, no because of safety concerns as the facility is unable to provide adequate staffing to maintain his safety. (Of note: The Ombudsman was not notified of R55's facility-initiated discharge.) On 4/14/25 at 2:13 PM, Surveyor interviewed FM JJJ (Family Member), who is one of R55's guardians. Surveyor asked FM JJJ if she was notified by the facility prior to R55 being transferred to the hospital. FM JJJ indicated that she was not and found out he was taken to the hospital when the hospital called FM JJJ to ask about R55. Surveyor asked FM JJJ if she knows R55 was discharged from the facility. FM JJJ indicated she was told by the hospital social worker that the facility would not take R55 back. Surveyor asked FM JJJ if she would like R55 to return to the facility. FM JJJ indicated yes, and that she told the facility this on Friday when she spoke to facility staff. Surveyor asked FM JJJ where R55 is currently. FM JJJ indicates R55 is still in the hospital. On 4/14/25 at 2:25 PM, Surveyor interviewed FM KKK, who is R55's other guardian. Surveyor asked FM KKK if he was notified by the facility prior to R55 being transferred to the hospital. FM KKK indicated he was not. FM KKK also indicated himself and FM JJJ were visiting the facility on Thursday 4/10/25 around 2:00 PM and no one at the facility informed them of the incident that happened earlier that day. Surveyor asked when FM KKK was notified of R55's transfer. FM KKK indicated he was called on Friday, 4/11/25 by ADON K who told him at that time that R55 was in the hospital and the facility would not let R55 return to the facility due to not having a working plan to deal with R55's mental health problems. FM KKK also indicated he was told the facility could not provide the services needed for R55's mental health problems such as one on one care. FM KKK also indicated R55 is in the process for applying to Medicaid and was told R55 would have to share a room once his Medicaid was approved. R11 and R55 were transferred to the hospital, the facility's intent is to discharge both R11 and R55. The facility did not provide a 30-day notice, did not afford R11 or R55 the right to appeal the discharge, and did not notify the Ombudsman of the facility-initiated discharges.
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 F0624 (Tag F0624)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to provide and document sufficient preparation and orientation to resi...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to provide and document sufficient preparation and orientation to residents to ensure safe and orderly transfer or discharge from the facility for 1 of 1 sampled resident (R11) and 1 of 1 supplemental residents (R55) reviewed for facility-initiated discharge. The facility failed to notify R11 and R55 in writing prior to a facility-initiated discharge, and did not appropriately prepare R11 or R55 for the facility-initiated discharge. This is evidenced by: The facility policy titled, Resident Transfers and Discharge Notification, dated 1/2025, states in part: . Procedure: Facility-initiated transfer or discharge - Involuntary Discharge The facility will provide written notice in a language the resident or resident's representative can understand. The notice must also be provided to an immediate family member or legal representative. Written notice will be given at least 30 days before the proposed discharge. In specific circumstances written notice may need to be given less than 30 days, prior to discharge. The facility will utilize and complete all appropriate State forms that include the reason for the discharge, the date of the proposed discharge, the location to which the person will be discharged and their right to appeal the discharge by requesting a hearing . Example 1 R11 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses that include: type 2 diabetes with diabetic polyneuropathy (damage to multiple peripheral nerves causing pain, tingling, burning, numbness or sensitivity to touch), acquired absence of limb (amputation), phantom limb syndrome with pain (sensation that limb is still attached to body and can include feelings of pain, numbness, tingling, or temperature changes), and other chronic pain. R11's most recent Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS), with Assessment Reference Date of 1/9/25, states that R11 has a BIMS (Brief Interview for Mental Status) of 15 out of 15, indicating that R11 is cognitively intact. Section D indicates that R11 never has self-isolating behavior. Section J indicates R11 experiences pain frequently, the pain frequently interferes with his sleep and day-to-day activities. On 4/10/25, according to facility progress notes, R11 was abruptly discharged to a hospital emergency room with a recommendation to transfer resident to an inpatient mental health facility. Progress notes do not indicate R11 was provided appropriate orientation and preparation transfer and discharge. R11 was abruptly discharged and facility staff stated R11 would not be allowed to return. On 4/14/25 at 1:54 PM, Surveyor interviewed RNC C. Surveyor asked RNC C to describe R11's discharge on [DATE]. RNC C indicated facility staff spoke with R11, and he was willing to go to the hospital to have his pain evaluated. RNC C also indicated that facility staff discussed alternative placement with R11 at [Facility Name], a new inpatient mental health facility. RNC C indicated that the mental health facility would not admit directly from a skilled nursing facility so R11 needed to go to the hospital first. RNC C also indicated the nursing home was not appropriate for R11 because they could not manage his behaviors. Surveyor asked RNC C if the Ombudsman, family, and R11 were notified of the transfer. RNC C indicated R11 was notified, however the ombudsman and family were not notified. Surveyor asked RNC C if the facility did a bed hold for R11. RNC C indicated a bed hold was provided. Surveyor asked RNC C if the facility initiated a facility-initiated discharge and will not take R11 back, should the facility provide R11 with a 30-day notice prior to being discharged and give R11 the right to appeal. RNC C stated, technically, and indicated the facility was more concerned with R11's safety. Surveyor asked if a written notice was provided to R11 prior to transfer. RNC C indicated a written notice was not provided. Surveyor asked RNC C if she advised the social worker at the hospital that R11 was not going to be accepted back to the facility. RNC C indicated she spoke with the hospital social worker and provided her with the inpatient mental health facility's contact information and that resident would not be accepted back. Surveyor asked RNC C if R11 wants to return to the facility, will the facility accept R11 back. RNC C indicated, no because of safety concerns as the facility is unable to provide adequate staffing to maintain his safety. Example 2 R55 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that include: centrilobular emphysema (chronic lung disease that causes damage to the upper lobes of the lungs), chronic respiratory failure with hypercapnia (high levels of carbon dioxide in blood due to respiratory failure), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, dysphagia (difficulty swallowing), heart failure, unspecified intellectual disabilities, Barrett's esophagus without dysplasia (tissue lining of esophagus changes due to long-term irritation causing symptoms of difficulty swallowing, heartburn, and chest pain), and anxiety disorder. R55's most recent Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS), with Assessment Reference Date of 2/12/25, states that R55 has a BIMS (Brief Interview for Mental Status) of 13 out of 15, indicating that R55 is cognitively intact. Section D indicates that R55 never has self-isolating behaviors. On 4/10/25 at 5:48 PM, a Progress Note was written by LPN III, that states, in part: Call placed to [Hospice Provider Name] this evening. Spoke to [Nurse Name], RN and updated her regarding sending resident into the ED (Emergency Department) for evaluation due to the incident from earlier. Call placed to POA (Power of Attorney) - no answer and unable to leave a voicemail. Call placed to second ER contact, his brother, [Family Member Name]. Updated him on resident going to the ED (Emergency Department) and why. All questions were answered. Brother stated that he would get ahold of his sister, [Family Member Name] (POA) and notify her as well. ADON (Assistant Director of Nursing) did contact [Emergency Medical Service Name]. On 4/10/25 at 6:11 PM, a Progress Note was written by DON B (Director of Nursing), that states, in part: Writer explained to resident that hospice requested he be sent to ER (Emergency Room) due to suicidal ideation, statements, and gestures made today. Resident stated good, then they can look at my stomach too. (Of note: Progress note does not contain notification of R55's discharge, only a transfer. Additionally, R55 has a guardian and is not his own person.) On 4/10/25 at 7:00 PM, a Progress Note is dated and indicated to be a late entry from 4/11/25 at 7:55 AM, that was written by RNC C that states, in part: Discharge Note: [Resident Name] did leave the facility at 1808 (6:08 PM). Writer did speak with [Social Worker Name] SW (Social Worker) at [Hospital Name]. He did state that he was going to harm himself with scissors. Hospice RN was giving [Resident Name] scissors on her visits with him . Call was placed and discussed with hospice that [Resident Name] was not able to be continuous 1:1 with staff for maintaining safety. They did agree and he was transferred to the hospital. He was admitted to the hospital last evening on the oncology floor for safety and monitoring. Hospice will explore alternative placement for safety. Of note, the facility abruptly discharged the resident without allowing the resident to return. On 4/14/25 at 1:54 PM, Surveyor interviewed RNC C. Surveyor asked RNC C to describe R55's discharge on [DATE]. RNC C indicated facility staff spoke with R55, and he was willing to go to the hospital. RNC C also indicated that facility staff worked with R55's hospice service, who agreed to R55's transfer. RNC C indicated R55 needed to be hospitalized where he could have more supervision, and he was ultimately discharged because he needed a higher level of supervision than the facility could provide. RNC C indicated a written notice was not provided. Surveyor asked RNC C if she advised the social worker at the hospital that R55 was not going to be accepted back to the facility. RNC C indicated she spoke with the hospital social worker and indicated that he would not be accepted back. Surveyor asked RNC C if R55 wanted to return to the facility, would the facility accept R55 back. RNC C indicated, no because of safety concerns as the facility is unable to provide adequate staffing to maintain his safety. On 4/14/25 at 2:13 PM, Surveyor interviewed FM JJJ (Family Member), who is one of R55's guardians. Surveyor asked FM JJJ if she was notified by the facility prior to R55 being transferred to the hospital. FM JJJ indicated that she was not and found out he was taken to the hospital when the hospital called FM JJJ to ask about R55. Surveyor asked FM JJJ if she knows R55 was discharged from the facility. FM JJJ indicated she was told by the hospital social worker that the facility would not take R55 back. Surveyor asked FM JJJ if she would like R55 to return to the facility. FM JJJ indicated yes, and that she told the facility this on Friday when she spoke to facility staff. Surveyor asked FM JJJ where R55 is currently. FM JJJ indicates R55 is still in the hospital. On 4/14/25 at 2:25 PM, Surveyor interviewed FM KKK, who is R55's other guardian. Surveyor asked FM KKK if he was notified by the facility prior to R55 being transferred to the hospital. FM KKK indicated he was not. FM KKK also indicated himself and FM JJJ were visiting the facility on Thursday 4/10/25 around 2:00 PM and no one at the facility informed them of the incident that happened earlier that day. Surveyor asked when FM KKK was notified of R55's transfer. FM KKK indicated he was called on Friday, 4/11/25 by ADON K who told him at that time that R55 was in the hospital and the facility would not let R55 return to the facility due to not having a working plan to deal with R55's mental health problems. FM KKK also indicated he was told the facility could not provide the services needed for R55's mental health problems such as one on one care. FM KKK also indicated R55 is in the process for applying to Medicaid and was told R55 would have to share a room once his Medicaid was approved. R11 and R55 were transferred to the hospital, the facility's intent is to discharge both R11 and R55 without proper notice, prepartation or orientation for discharge.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0625 (Tag F0625)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review the facility did not provide written information to the resident or resident representative...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review the facility did not provide written information to the resident or resident representative regarding the bed hold policy for 1 (R55) of 1 supplemental resident's reviewed for facility-initiated discharge R55 is not his own person and has two guardians. Neither guardian was provided with a written bed hold prior to R55 being transferred to the hospital on 4/10/24. This is evidenced by: The facility policy entitled, Bed Hold, dated, 1/2025, states, in part: . Policy: Our facility allows residents to hold or reserve a bed while absent from the facility due to hospitalization or therapeutic leave. This policy applies to all residents regardless of payment source and will be provided to the resident or resident's representative at the time of admission and again with any emergency transfer from the community . Procedure: 1. The facility Social Worker or designee will provide a copy of the bed hold policy to the resident and/or the resident representative at the time of admission and again prior to a transfer due to hospitalization or therapeutic leave. The signed copies will be maintained in the resident's financial personal file. 2. The facility shall provide the bed hold policy Acknowledgement to the resident or the resident representative with any . transfer to alternative healthcare community including hospital admission . R55 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that include, in part: centrilobular emphysema (chronic lung disease that causes damage to the upper lobes of the lungs), chronic respiratory failure with hypercapnia (high levels of carbon dioxide in blood due to respiratory failure), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, dysphagia (difficulty swallowing), heart failure, unspecified intellectual disabilities, Barrett's esophagus without dysplasia (tissue lining of esophagus changes due to long-term irritation causing symptoms of difficulty swallowing, heartburn, and chest pain), and anxiety disorder. Facility provided Surveyor with a document titled, WI - Bed-Hold Acknowledgement, that was signed and dated by DON B (Director of Nursing) on 4/10/25. The document is checked next to the statement, 1. I agree to pay the facility the continuing daily rate I am charged for the period of the resident's absence from the facility. I will notify the facility anytime during the absence if I do not want to continue holding the bed. Bed-hold charges will cease the day following removal of the resident's belongings. On the signature line marked, Resident/Responsible Party, it states, verbal consent given. On 4/14/25 at 2:13 PM, Surveyor interviewed FM JJJ (Family Member), who is one of R55's guardians. Surveyor asked FM JJJ if she was notified by the facility prior to R55 being transferred to the hospital. FM JJJ indicated that she did not and found out he was taken to the hospital when the hospital called FM JJJ to ask about R55. Surveyor asked FM JJJ if she knows R55 was discharged from the facility. FM JJJ indicates she was told by the hospital social worker that the facility would not take R55 back. On 4/14/25 at 2:25 PM, Surveyor interviewed FM KKK, who is R55's other guardian. Surveyor asked FM KKK if he was notified by the facility prior to R55 being transferred to the hospital. FM KKK indices he was not. FM KKK also indicates himself and FM JJJ were visiting the facility on Thursday 4/10/25 around 2:00 PM and no one at the facility informed them of the incident that happened earlier that day. Surveyor asked when FM KKK was notified of R55's transfer. FM KKK indicates he was called on Friday, 4/11/25 by ADON K who told him at that time that R55 was in the hospital and the facility would not let R55 return to the facility due to not having a working plan to deal with R55's mental health problems.
CONCERN (D)

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

Safe Transfer (Tag F0626)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to permit 1 of 1 sampled resident (R11) and 1 of 1 supplemental reside...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to permit 1 of 1 sampled resident (R11) and 1 of 1 supplemental residents (R55) reviewed for facility-initiated discharge to return to the facility after a hospitalization and the ability to return to the facility. R11 and R55 were not allowed to return to the facility following an emergency facility-initiated transfer to the emergency room. The facility stated they would be discharging R11 and R55 due to inability to provide the staffing level needed to care for R11 and R55. It should be noted R11 signed a bed hold and the facility had a bed hold for R55 that stated the family gave verbal consent to hold the bed and would pay the bed hold charges. Example 1 R11 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses that include: type 2 diabetes with diabetic polyneuropathy (damage to multiple peripheral nerves causing pain, tingling, burning, numbness or sensitivity to touch), acquired absence of limb (amputation), phantom limb syndrome w/pain (sensation that limb is still attached to body and can include feelings of pain, numbness, tingling, or temperature changes), and other chronic pain. R11's most recent Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS), with Assessment Reference Date of 1/9/25, states that R11 has a BIMS (Brief Interview for Mental Status) of 15 out of 15, indicating that R11 is cognitively intact. Section D indicates that R11 never has self-isolating behavior. Section J indicates R11 experiences pain frequently, the pain frequently interferes with his sleep and day-to-day activities. On 4/10/25, according to facility progress notes, R11 was discharged to a hospital emergency room with a recommendation to transfer resident to an inpatient mental health facility. On 4/14/25 at 1:54 PM, Surveyor interviewed RNC C (Registered Nurse Consultant). Surveyor asked RNC C to describe R11's discharge on [DATE]. RNC C indicated facility staff spoke with R11, and he was willing to go to the hospital to have his pain evaluated. Surveyor asked RNC C if the facility did a bed hold for R11. RNC C indicates a bed hold was provided. Surveyor asked RNC C if she advised the social worker at the hospital that R11 was not going to be accepted back to the facility. RNC C indicates she spoke with the hospital social worker and provided her with the inpatient mental health facility's contact information but that R11 would not be accepted back. Surveyor asked RNC C if R11 wishes, can he return to the facility? RNC C indicated, no because of safety concerns as the facility is unable to provide adequate staffing to maintain his safety. Example 2 R55 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that include: centrilobular emphysema (chronic lung disease that causes damage to the upper lobes of the lungs), chronic respiratory failure with hypercapnia (high levels of carbon dioxide in blood due to respiratory failure), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, dysphagia (difficulty swallowing), heart failure, unspecified intellectual disabilities, Barrett's esophagus without dysplasia (tissue lining of esophagus changes due to long-term irritation causing symptoms of difficulty swallowing, heartburn, and chest pain), and anxiety disorder. On 4/10/25 at 7:00 PM, a Progress Note is dated and indicated to be a late entry from 4/11/25 at 7:55 AM, that was written by RNC C that states in part: Discharge Note: [Resident Name] did leave the facility at 1808 (6:08 PM). Writer did speak with [Social Worker Name] SW (Social Worker) at [Hospital Name]. He did state that he was going to harm himself with scissors. Hospice RN was giving [Resident Name] scissors on her visits with him . Call was placed and discussed with hospice that [Resident Name] was not able to be continuous 1:1 with staff for maintaining safety. They did agree and he was transferred to the hospital. He was admitted to the hospital last evening on the oncology floor for safety and monitoring. Hospice will explore alternative placement for safety. On 4/14/25 at 1:54 PM, Surveyor interviewed RNC C. Surveyor asked RNC C to describe R55's discharge on [DATE]. RNC C indicated facility staff spoke with R55, and he was willing to go to the hospital. RNC C also indicated that facility staff worked with R55's hospice service, who agreed to R55's transfer. RNC C indicates R55 needed to be hospitalized where he could have more supervision, and he was ultimately discharged because he needed a higher level of supervision than the facility could provide. RNC C indicates a bed hold was provided. Surveyor asked RNC C if she advised the Social Worker at the hospital that R55 was not going to be accepted back to the facility. RNC C indicated she spoke with the hospital Social Worker and indicated that R55 would not be accepted back. Surveyor asked RNC C if R55 wishes, can he return to the facility? RNC C indicated, no because of safety concerns as the facility is unable to provide adequate staffing to maintain his safety. R11 and R55 were transferred from the skilled nursing facility to the emergency room without permitting either resident to return to the facility.
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

ADL Care (Tag F0677)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility did not ensure that a resident who is unable to carry out activi...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility did not ensure that a resident who is unable to carry out activities of daily living receives the necessary services to maintain good grooming and personal hygiene for 1 of 22 residents reviewed for ADLs (Activities of Daily Living) (R34). R34 requested to use the bathroom. CNA EEE (Certified Nursing Assistant) told R34 she is on a two (2) hour toileting schedule and will need to wait. R34 was waiting approximately 1 hour and 20 minutes before being assisted to the bathroom. Evidenced by: The facility's policy, Activities of Daily Living, dated 3/2023, includes, in part, as follows: It is the policy of the facility to specify the responsibility to create and sustain an environment that humanizes and individualizes each resident's quality of life by ensuring all staff, across all shifts and departments, understand the principles of quality of life, and honor and support these principles for each resident; and that the care and services provided are person-centered, and honor and support each resident's preferences, choices, values and beliefs. The facility will provide care and services for the following activities .Elimination-toileting. A resident who is unable to carry out activities of daily living will receive the necessary services to maintain good grooming and personal hygiene . R34 was admitted to the facility 10/18/24 with diagnoses including, but not limited to, need for assistance with personal care, encounter for orthopedic aftercare following surgical amputation, acquired absence of left foot, and osteoarthritis of knee. R34's MDS (Minimum Data Set) assessment dated [DATE] notes a Brief Interview of Mental Status score of 13/15 indicating R34 is cognitively intact. R34 requires extensive assist of 2 staff for toileting. R34 is her own decision maker. R34's comprehensive care plan documents, in part, as follows: (Problem Start Date: 10/29/24) Urinary Incontinence: Resident is occasionally incontinent of bladder. Continent of bowel. Uses bedpan or commode. Long Term Goal Target Date 5/1/25 Resident will be clean, dry and odor free. Approach: .(Approach Start Date: 10/29/24) Provide staff assistance for all toileting and incontinence needs. R34's comprehensive care plan documents, in part, as follows: Resident at risk for falls related to recent surgery/amputation of partial right foot, general weakness. Goal: Resident will be free from falls and injury due to fall. Approach: (Approach Start Date: 10/29/24) Resident is NWB (non weight bearing)to right leg, Hoyer lift (full body), assist of 2. On 4/7/25 at 10:35 AM, Surveyor spoke with R34. R34 stated, about 15 minutes ago she asked CNA EEE (Certified Nursing Assistant) for assistance to use the bathroom. R34 stated, CNA EEE, told her she was on a two (2) hour toileting schedule and would need to wait. Surveyor asked R34, how did this make you feel. R34 stated, There ain't nothing I can do about it if I have to wait. R34 added, I didn't know I was on a 2 hour toileting schedule again. Note, R34 is not a two (2) hour toileting schedule. On 4/07/25 at 10:37 AM, Surveyor spoke with CNA EEE (Certified Nursing Assistant). Surveyor asked CNA EEE, how long she has been working at the facility. CNA EEE stated, two (2) years. Surveyor asked CNA EEE, is R34 on a two (2) hour toileting schedule. CNA EEE stated, yes, from what she has been told. Surveyor asked, CNA EEE, when R34 asked her to use the bathroom about 15 minutes prior, what did she tell R34. CNA EEE stated, I told her she's on a toileting schedule and I need to take care of other residents first. Surveyor asked CNA EEE, what should you do when a resident is on a toileting schedule and asks to use bathroom in between the two (2) hour window. CNA EEE stated, Probably take them right away. CNA EEE stated, CNA JJ (Certified Nursing Assistant) is on break and she needs to wait for him. On 4/7/25 at 10:42 AM, Surveyor observed CNA JJ (Certified Nursing Assistant) come to R34's room. Surveyor observed CNA JJ state to CNA EEE, R34 is not in her room did she go to the activity. On 4/7/25 at 10:56 AM, Surveyor spoke with CNA JJ (Certified Nursing Assistant). Surveyor asked CNA JJ, how long he has worked at the facility. CNA JJ stated, he has worked at the facility for 1 1/2 years. Surveyor asked CNA JJ, is R34 on a two (2) hour toileting schedule. CNA JJ stated, he honestly has no idea and some staff say they take R34 to the bathroom when she requests. CNA JJ stated, when he sees her call light on he takes her to the bathroom. CNA JJ stated, R34 declined when he followed up with her. Surveyor asked CNA JJ, when did you asked R34. CNA JJ stated, around 10:45 AM. Note, Surveyor observed CNA JJ filling water mugs, however, CNA JJ did not follow up with R34 while she was in the activity as Surveyor was observing during the time R34 was in the activity. On 4/7/25 from 10:35 AM - 11:30 AM, Surveyor observed R34 in an activity. Surveyor observed that no staff approached R34 to ask if she needs to use the bathroom. On 4/7/25 at 11:30 AM, Surveyor observed R34 enter her room and activate her call light. On 4/7/25 at 11:30 AM, Surveyor asked R34, did any staff ask if you needed to use the bathroom since you went to the activity. R34 stated, no. On 4/7/25 at 11:38 AM, Surveyor observed CNA EEE and CNA JJ enter R34's room and assist her to the bathroom. On 4/9/25 at 3:45 PM, Surveyor spoke with R34. Surveyor asked R34, how did being told she needed to wait two (2) hours in between toileting and staff would not assisting her make her feel. R34 stated, she did not want to go in her pants. R34 added, she can't remember if she had an accident. On 4/10/25 at 1:20 PM, Surveyor spoke with DON B (Director of Nursing). Surveyor asked DON B, if a resident requests to be toileted what do you expect staff to do. DON B stated, staff should respond to the need ASAP (As Soon As Possible). Surveyor asked DON B, what if a resident is on a two (2) hour toileting schedule. DON B stated, same answer, as soon as they have time to respond to whatever need is requested by the resident. Surveyor asked DON B, what is a reasonable amount of time for a resident to wait for assistance to use the bathroom. DON B stated, the call light average is 7-10 minutes at the absolute most. Surveyor stated, on 4/7/25 at approximately 10:15-10:20 AM, R34 asked CNA EEE to use the bathroom. Surveyor stated, R34 waited approximately 1 hour and 20 minutes. Surveyor asked DON B, is this an acceptable amount of time for a resident to wait to be toileted. DON B stated, no. Surveyor asked DON B, what should CNA EEE have done. DON B stated, CNA EEE should find any other staff member (to assist). Surveyor asked DON B, what should CNA JJ (Certified Nursing Assistant) have done. DON B stated, CNA JJ should have checked in with R34 to see if she needed to use the bathroom. DON B stated, R34 prefers to not have CNA JJ care for her but she has allowed him to perform cares. DON B added, at that time if she did not allow CNA JJ to assist her CNA JJ should have found other staff. Surveyor asked DON B, should staff have approached R34 during the activity and discreetly asked if she needed to use the bathroom. DON B stated, yes, staff should have asked R34. Surveyor asked DON B, is R34 on a two (2) hour toileting schedule. DON B stated, not that she is aware. R34 requested to use the bathroom. CNA EEE told R34 she is on a two (2) hour toileting schedule and will need to wait. R34 was waiting approximately 1 hour and 20 minutes before being assisted to the bathroom.
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, interview and record review, the facility did not ensure a resident receives care, consistent with profess...

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 a resident receives care, consistent with professional standards of practice, to prevent pressure ulcers for 1 of 2 residents reviewed for pressure injuries (R73). R73 had a pressure reducing air mattress for pressure injury healing and was observed laying on the mattress with multiple layers under R73. Findings include A study published on the National Library of Medicine titled The Effect of Multiple Layers of Linens on Surface Interface Pressure: Results of a Laboratory Study concluded that excessive linen usage for patients on therapeutic support surfaces (such as air mattresses) should be discouraged. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23749661/ R73 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and has diagnoses that include malignant neoplasm of bone (bone cancer) and an unstageable pressure ulcer of sacral region (resident's bottom). R73 was admitted to the facility with orders for an air mattress. Surveyor confirmed this air mattress was in place on 4/7/25. On 4/7/25 at 12:42 PM during R73's wound care, it was observed by Surveyor that R73 was lying on an incontinence pad. The incontinence pad was lying on top of a sheet folded into three layers on itself, which was then lying on top of the bedsheet and air mattress. Again on 4/9/25 8:52 AM Surveyor observed the resident lying on top of the incontinence pad which was on top of a sheet folded thrice (three times) which was then on top of the bed sheet and air mattress. On 4/8/25 at 3:57 PM Surveyor interviewed CNA H (Certified Nursing Assistant) who stated that staff typically have put additional sheets and incontinence pads underneath R73. CNA H indicated that this had been done for a while. Additionally, on 4/10/25 at 1:45 PM CNA I and CNA J both stated that R73 has had the extra sheet and incontinence pad the whole time he has been at the facility. On 4/9/25 at 9:14 AM, Surveyor interviewed DON B (Director of Nursing) who indicated that she was not sure if placing multiple layers on top of an air mattress was a standard of practice or not. DON B stated that removing the blanket and incontinence pad wouldn't hurt in better assisting R73's wounds. On 4/14/25 at 11:15 AM, Surveyor interviewed RNC C (Regional Nurse Consultant). RNC C stated that the facility did not have any documentation indicating that placing additional layers of blankets and linens on top of an air mattress was a standard of practice. R73 was observed laying on multiple layers between him and the airmattress.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0745 (Tag F0745)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility did not provide medically related social services to attain or ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility did not provide medically related social services to attain or maintain the highest practicable physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being of each resident for 1 of 1 sampled resident (R11) and 1 of 1 supplemental resident (R55). R11 stabbed himself with a pair of scissors after experiencing uncontrolled phantom limb pain. Prior to this, R11 had expressed suicidal ideations related to his chronic pain multiple times in the two months prior to this event. R11 was hospitalized for a self-inflicted stab wound to his chest and placed on an emergency psychiatric detention as a result of his suicide attempt. Following this incident, the resident returned to the facility and continued to express suicidal ideation and uncontrolled pain. No trauma assessment was completed or PHQ-9s (depression screening) following suicidal statements. R55 expressed suicidal ideations multiple times between his admission date of 8/5/24 and his discharge date of 4/10/25. Over this time, the resident obtained sharp objects on occasions. On 4/10/25, scissors were removed from the resident's room, after which the resident stated that if he had them he would use them like this and proceeded to hold his hand up to his throat. No trauma assessment was completed. PHQ-9s (depression screening) were not completed following suicidal statements. This is evidenced by: The facility policy entitled, Behavioral Health Services, reviewed 1/2025, states, in part: . It is the policy of this facility to ensure residents receive necessary behavioral health services to assist them in reach and maintain their highest level of mental and psychosocial functioning. Policy Explanation and Compliance Guidelines: 1. The facility will ensure that necessary behavioral health care services are person-centered and provided to each resident . 3. Conditions that may require specialized services and supports include, but are not limited to: a. Depression b. Anxiety . 4. The facility utilizes assessments for identifying and assessing a resident's mental and psychosocial status providing person-centered care. This process includes, but is not limited to: . b. Obtaining history regarding mental, psychosocial, and emotional health. c. Ongoing monitoring of mood and behavior. d. Care plan development and implementation. e. Evaluation . 6. All facility staff, including contracted staff and volunteers, shall receive education to ensure appropriate competencies and skill sets for meeting the behavioral health needs of residents. Education shall be based on the role of the staff member and resident needs identified through the facility assessment. Behavioral health training as determined by the facility assessment will include, but is not limited to, the competencies and skills necessary to provide the following: a. Person-centered care and services that reflect the resident's goals of care. b. Interpersonal communication that promotes mental and psychosocial well-being. c. Meaningful activities which promote engagement and positive meaningful relationships. d. An environment and atmosphere that is conducive to mental and psychosocial well-being. e. Individualized, non-pharmacological approaches to care . 8. The Social Services Director shall serve as the contact person for questions regarding behavioral services provided by the facility and outside sources such as physician, psychiatrists, or neurologists . The facility policy entitled, Trauma Informed Care, reviewed 1/2025, states in part: . It is the policy of this facility to provide care and services which, in addition to meeting professional standards, are delivered using approaches which are culturally-competent, account for experiences and preferences, and address the needs of trauma survivors by minimizing triggers and/or re-traumatization . Trauma results from an event, series of events, or set of circumstances that is experienced by an individuals as physically or emotionally harmful or life threatening and that has lasting adverse effects on the individuals' functioning and mental, physical, social, emotional, or spiritual well-being. Common sources of trauma may include, but are not limited to: . d. Physical, sexual, mental, and/or emotional abuse (past or present) e. Rape . i. Traumatic life events . Trauma-Informed Care is an approach to delivering care that involves understanding, recognizing and responding to the effects of all types of trauma. A trauma-informed approach to care delivery recognizes the widespread impact and signs and symptoms of trauma in residents, and incorporates knowledge about trauma into care plans, policies, procedures and practices to avoid re-traumatization .Policy Explanation and Compliance Guidelines: 1. The facility will work to facilitate the principles of trauma informed care which include: a. Safety - Ensuring residents have a sense of emotional and physical safety . 2. The facility will use a multi-pronged approach to identifying a resident's history of trauma . This will include asking the resident about triggers that may be stressors or may prompt recall of a previous traumatic event, as well as screening and assessment tools . 6. The facility will identify triggers which may re-traumatize residents with a history of trauma. Trigger-specific interventions will identify ways to decrease the resident's exposure to triggers which re-traumatize the resident, as well as identify ways to mitigate or decrease the effect of the trigger on the resident, and will be added to the resident's care plan .7. Trauma-specific care plan interventions will recognize the interrelation between trauma and symptoms of trauma such as . depression and anxiety . 10. In situations where a trauma survivor is reluctant to share their history, the facility will still try to identify triggers which may re-traumatize the resident, and develop care plan interventions which minimize or eliminate the effect of the trigger on the resident. Example 1: R11 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses that include, in part: type 2 diabetes with diabetic polyneuropathy (damage to multiple peripheral nerves causing pain, tingling, burning, numbness or sensitivity to touch), acquired absence of limb (amputation), phantom limb syndrome w/ pain (sensation that limb is still attached to body and can include feelings of pain, numbness, tingling, or temperature changes), and other chronic pain. R11's most recent Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS), with Assessment Reference Date of 1/9/25, states that R11 has a BIMS (Brief Interview for Mental Status) of 15 out of 15, indicating that R11 is cognitively intact. Section D indicates the R11 never has self-isolating behavior. Section J indicates R11 experiences pain frequently, the pain frequently interferes with his sleep and day-to-day activities. R11's current Comprehensive Care Plan indicates, in part: Problem: Resident has expressed thoughts of being better off dead. Start date: 4/5/24. Last revised: 1/17/25 Interventions: Approach: Obtain a psych consult/psychosocial therapy PRN. Start date: 4/5/24 .Approach: Monitor for decline in resident's mood and report to physician for evaluation as needed. Start date: 4/5/24 . Surveyor requested R11's trauma assessment. The facility indicated that no trauma assessment was conducted for R11. Surveyor reviewed R11's PHQ-9 assessments. The only PHQ-9 assessments that could be found were associated with R11's Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessments on the following dates: 4/8/25 (admission MDS), 6/3/24, 7/9/24, 7/15/24, 10/9/24, 1/9/25. R11 scored a zero on all of these assessments, indicating minimal depression. On 4/4/24 at 11:56 AM, a Progress Note is written by RN M (Registered Nurse), that states, in part: Resident c/o (complaining) of [sic] 9/10 R (right) foot/ankle pain in his R foot. Resident was heard hollering and yelling out in pain, and when this writer went into room to assess, resident was moaning and crying. Stated that he couldn't take the pain anymore, and stated he just wants the lord to take him, he can't live like this, it's been like this for years. Resident said that he hasn't slept in 3 days, since he's been here, and the Tylenol and cream you guys hive me doesn't do f**king sh*t . (Of note: Surveyor conducted record review and was unable to find a PHQ-9 that was conducted as a result of the R11 making this statement). On 4/8/24 at 6:49 PM, a Progress Note is written by ADON K (Assistant Director of Nursing) that states: Resident tearful and voiced depressive statements to staff prior to supper tonight. Resident stated I would be better off dead than deal with this pain, and Just kill me, it would hurt less. Writer did sit with resident who immediately stated, I don't want to hurt myself, I just don't want to hurt anymore. Resident denied having a plan to self harm when asked by writer . (Of note: Surveyor conducted record review and was unable to find a PHQ-9 that was conducted as a result of the R11 making this statement). On 5/8/24 at 11:02 PM, a Progress Note is written by MR (Medical Records) S that states: Went into resident's room to speak with him about appointments and questions he had. Resident started crying and saying he was in so much pain and thinking suicidal thoughts because he didn't like being in so much pain. He made comments about the pain being at a 7-8. Resident kept saying he just wanted the pain to go away, and he didn't want to be here anymore so the pain would go away. He made comments about hanging his head out of the window . On 5/8/24 at 12:59 PM, a Progress Note is written by SS N (Social Services) that states: This writer spoke with resident regarding the suicidal thoughts. Resident stated he does not have a plan. Resident stated that the Tylenol and pain cream he is receiving is not enough for the pain. Resident mentioned strong medication such as Oxycodone to keep the pain below a 5. Followed up with charge nurse who is addressing concerns with provider. Another appointment for pain management was scheduled. (Of note: Surveyor conducted record review and was unable to find a PHQ-9 that was conducted as a result of the R11 making this statement and SS N following up with R11). On 5/24/24 at 10:23 PM a Progress Note is written by RN W that R11 attempted suicide by stabbing himself with a pair of scissors. As a result, R11 was hospitalized and placed on an emergency psychiatric hold. On 11/11/24 at 9:54 AM, a Progress Note is written by DON B, that states, in part: . Writer had 1:1 conversation with resident and resident stated Writer asked to speak with resident this AM regarding resident yelling out at staff and refusing medication. Writer has 1:1 conversation with resident .Resident stated give me a gun and get it over with. Resident then stated give me a knife so I can use it on my leg to cut it off. resident was immediately placed on 1:1 . NP in house and immediately updated . New order received to send resident to [Hospital Name] ER due to pain and suicidal ideation . (Of note: Surveyor conducted record review and was unable to find a PHQ-9 that was conducted as a result of the R11 making this statement and SS N following up with R11). On 4/7/25 at 1:58 AM, a Progress Note is written by LPN Y (Licensed Practical Nurse), that states, in part: . nurses performed a safety check in residents room where metal utensil and a pair of scissors were found. The scissors were hidden in 2 socks [sic] and put under bed (Of note: Surveyor conducted record review and was unable to find a PHQ-9 that was conducted as a result of finding sharp objects hidden in R11's room and no evidence of SS N following up with R11). On 4/9/25 at 11:03 AM, Surveyor entered R11's room for an interview. Surveyor observed R11 holding his right leg, rocking back and forth, crying, with his noted favorite music playing on his television. Surveyor asked R11 if he needed a nurse. R11 indicated his pain treatments don't help so he did not want a nurse. Surveyor asked R11 if they could ask a few questions. R11 indicated he did not mind, put his leg back down and lay still on the bed. Surveyor asked R11 where he obtained the scissors when he hurt himself in May. R11 indicated the scissors were left on the windowsill next to his bed. Before Surveyor could ask another question, Surveyor observed R11's affect become flat, and his voice monotone as he indicated that he was laying in bed and squeezing a washcloth because his pain was overwhelming and excruciating, he had just had enough, he reached out, grabbed the scissors, and stabbed himself. R11 also indicated that he just didn't want to live like this anymore. R11 looked at Surveyor, with a flat affect and monotone voice, and stated, You know . I'm just disappointed the scissors were so small, and it didn't cut me deep enough. R11 looked back at the ceiling and Surveyor asked R11 if staff were still leaving scissors in his room. R11 indicates they are, and that he is disappointed that he can't do activities or play cards because he is worried about bothering the other residents if he needs to grab his foot to soothe his pain. Surveyor asked if R11 would tell Surveyor were he is still getting scissors and other sharp objects from. R11 indicates staff leave them in his room and that he takes them off maintenance carts and the facility desks. Surveyor also notes R11's roommate receives metal silverware with his meals that he eats in his room. Immediately following this conversation, Surveyor approached RNC (Regional Nurse Consultant) C and advised her that R11 is still obtaining sharp objects and that Surveyor is concerned for his safety. RNC C indicated staff would ensure R11's safety. On 4/9/25 at 3:15 PM, a Progress Note is written by CNA J that states: Writer notified by administrator that a state surveyor observed scissors in resident room. The writer and administrator went to resident's room and did an assessment on the room to locate scissors. No scissors were found. (Of note: Surveyor conducted record review and was unable to find a PHQ-9 that was conducted as a result of the R11 making this statement and SS N (Social Services) following up with R11). On 4/9/25 at 4:38 PM, Surveyor interviewed SS N. Surveyor asked SS N what her process is for monitoring residents with depression. SS N indicates she completes a PHQ-9 on admission along with a BIMS score. SS N also indicates if the resident triggers they do a care plan and monitor for one week. SS N indicates her monitoring also depends on which resident it is, sometimes its venting, sometimes its figuring out a plan, and for residents with amputations she tries to reconnect and help them achieve a level of peace. Surveyor asked SS N how often she conducts PHQ-9 assessments. SS N indicates she does them every 3 months, with a change of status, and if a nurse reports signs and symptoms of depression. SS N also indicates she talks with the resident about activities, brainstorms with them to see how she can help, tries to identify residents with specific triggers, monitor residents who are on medications, monitors residents' mood, and refers residents to behavior health services if it is appropriate. Surveyor asked SS N if she conducts trauma assessments. SS N indicates she completes a trauma assessment on admission if the resident has a history of PTSD. Surveyor asked SS N about R11's day-to-day mood. SS N indicates R11 has spurts of depression related to not being able to go home, his significant other having financial difficulties, difficulties with his financial applications, feeling defeated about not being able to discharge from the facility, and his pain levels. Surveyor asked SS N who is responsible for monitoring R11's depression. SS N indicates it is the clinical team's responsibility. (of note: SS N indicated she is aware of R11 having spurts of depression, and has not provided additional services or monitoring for R11.) On 4/10/25 at 7:58 AM, Surveyor interviewed SS N. Surveyor asked SS N (Social Services) if a resident makes suicidal ideation statements, should a PHQ-9 be conducted. SS N indicates depending on the statements she follows up and that she doesn't necessarily conduct the assessment but tries to ask them what's going on and try to assist with stressors. Surveyor asked SS N when R11 makes suicidal ideation statements, should a PHQ-9 be conducted. SS N indicates she does not know and is unsure if it would beneficial since he doesn't trigger. Surveyor asked SS N if she conducts the PHQ-9 or the PHQ- 2. SS N indicates she is unsure but will ask all the questions on the PHQ-9 since R11 has a significant difference between his PHQ-9 results and his mood and behavior. Surveyor asked SS N if R11 received a trauma assessment upon admission. SS N indicates, no. Surveyor asked SS N if R11 should have received a trauma assessment. SS N indicates, he probably should have. Surveyor asked SS N if she is aware R11 has a significant history of childhood abuse. SS N indicates, no. Surveyor asked SS N since it is noted that R11 told a staff member about his history of abuse, would she have expect to have been notified. SS N indicates, yes. Surveyor asked if SS N has access to residents' psychiatric notes. SS N indicates she probably has access. Surveyor asked SS N who is responsible for reviewing the psychiatric notes. SS N indicates DON B and ADON K are usually the ones who check in with residents after appointments. Surveyor asked SS N why it would be important for her to be aware of a resident's history of trauma. SS N indicates because she would be able to have a trauma care plan, assist the resident with things they need, and provide trauma-informed care. Surveyor asked SS N if she thinks R11's history of trauma could be playing a part into R11's mood and behavior. SS N indicates, yes. On 4/10/25 at 8:53 AM, Surveyor interviewed DON B and NHA A. Surveyor asked DON B if all residents should have a trauma assessment completed. DON B indicates she does not know. NHA indicates all residents should have a trauma assessment completed on admission. Surveyor asked if DON B was aware R11 had a significant history of childhood abuse. DON B indicates she was not until he went to his psychiatrist appointment. Surveyor asked DON B if SS N should be aware of R11's significant history of childhood abuse. DON B indicates, yes. Surveyor asked DON B if a resident makes suicidal ideation statements, should a progress note be written. DON B indicates, yes, based on orders. Surveyor asked DON B and NHA A if a resident makes a suicidal ideation statement, should a PHQ-9 be reassessed. NHA indicates, yes. Facility failed to provide sufficient and appropriate medically related social services that met R11's needs. Example 2: R55 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that include, in part: centrilobular emphysema (chronic lung disease that causes damage to the upper lobes of the lungs), chronic respiratory failure with hypercapnia (high levels of carbon dioxide in blood due to respiratory failure), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, dysphagia (difficulty swallowing), heart failure, unspecified intellectual disabilities, Barrett's esophagus without dysplasia (tissue lining of esophagus changes due to long-term irritation causing symptoms of difficulty swallowing, heartburn, and chest pain), and anxiety disorder. R55s most recent Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS), with Assessment Reference Date of 2/12/25, states that R55 has a BIMS (Brief Interview for Mental Status) of 13 out of 15, indicating that R55 is cognitively intact. Section D indicates the R55 never has self-isolating behaviors. R55's Level 2 Preadmission Screening and Resident Review (PASRR) evaluation summary indicates that a nursing facility may choose to admit or retain R55 because it was decided that R55 is appropriate for nursing facility placement. R55's Comprehensive Care Plan indicates, in part: Problem: Impaired psychosocial well-being: resident has expressed/displayed that doing favorite activity is not important to them. Start date: 8/16/24. (Of note: Interventions for this problem are not individualized to the resident's favorite activity, which is watching his favorite TV shows as indicated by the care plan.) Problem: Resident has expressed suicidal comments and thoughts. Start date: 9/30/24. .Approach: Social worker contacted Hospice in regard to resident's request for additional social interaction. Start date: 11/25/24 . R55's Hospital Document entitled, Discharge Summary, dated 8/5/24, states, in part: . Primary Discharge Diagnosis . Hemoptysis (coughing up blood) . Pneumonia (infection of the air sacs in the lungs) . R55's Hospital Document entitled, History and Physical - UW Hospital Medicine Survey, dated 7/14/14, states, in part: . Update: Per nursing, patient had informed them of thoughts of self harm several weeks ago but no active thoughts of SI (suicidal ideation). Will continue to monitor and readdress with patient and family while inpatient . On 8/12/24, R55's PHQ-9 (Depression Scale) score was 0 indicating minimal depression. (Of note: This PHQ-9 was completed as part of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) process and was not conducted as a result of any of R55's behaviors.). On 9/29/24 at 2:05 PM, a Progress Note is written by LPN AAA (Licensed Practical Nurse), that states: [Resident Name] stated this shift he wished he would die. He stated he is tired, in pain, has difficulty breathing and eating and is ready to be done. He asked the GPT nurse if there is anything she could give him for this. She did assess him for pain and administered Morphine per PRN orders. This nurse approached [Resident Name] and offered some follow up conversation. [Resident Name] does not have a plan, he stated he would not do anything at this time. He reiterated that he is tired and it's hard for him to do anything. He said he was feeling sorry for himself. It's noted that [Resident Name] is on hospice, he is end of life and comfort is his goal at this time. He was tearful and appreciative of the talk. He agreed to rest and let the morphine kick in. This nurse updated the ADON and the on-call MD. Intervention at this time is to initiate 15-minute checks for his safety, continue to offer PRN's for his comfort and re-evaluate with clinical team in the morning 9/30/2024. On call MD [Doctor's Name] in agreement with this plan. TP charting initiated. [Hospice Name] on call Nurse also updated. (Of note: Surveyor conducted record review and was unable to find a PHQ-9 that was conducted as a result of the R11 making this statement). On 9/30/24, R55's Comprehensive Care Plan was updated to include the problem and interventions for R55 expressing suicidal comments and thoughts. (Of note: R55's initial care plan had the same interventions as R11's (above).) On 11/25/24 at 12:48 PM, a Progress Note is written by SS N, that states: The writer contacted Hospice to have additional social interaction. Writer also encouraged resident to join activities of interest in common area with others. Writer spoke with activities director to have him added to 1:1 activity for more social interaction. Care plan updated. On 12/9/24 at 1:51 PM, a Progress Note is written that states: Removed knife that was bungee corded to walker during am (day) shift due to safety concerns and prior suicidal comments. Placed in top right drawer of med (medication) cart. (Of note: Surveyor conducted record review and was unable to find a PHQ-9 that was conducted as a result of the R11 possessing a knife). On 12/15/24 at 2:16 PM, a Progress Note is written by LPN O that states, in part: Staff reported observing bright red blood coming from resident's urethra during toileting. Staff reported she noted a bloody wooden part of a Q-tip on resident's bedside table. While resident still sitting on toilet, this writer inspected resident's penis, noted scant amount of pink drainage coming from urethra. see, it's bleeding, I don't know what happened, but it's bleeding. Denied pain/tenderness. Denied knowledge of cause. Denied inserting any kind of object into urethra. During conversation with resident, resident insisted the bloody wooden stick was from after he touched his penis, got blood on in his hand then touched the wooden stick. Denied inserting the wooden stick into his pennis/urethra. Discarded the bloody wooden Q-tip piece. Found other sharp objects on top of resident's bedside table and in top drawer. All visible sharp objects in resident's room were removed and placed inside a ziplock bag with resident's name, the bag is locked in unit 100 medcart . When asked if resident had any thoughts of hurting himself, resident responded, I can't do what I want to do. When asked what it was that he wanted to do, resident responded like, I want to go outside but I can't. 15 minute checks implemented. Nu further unsafe actions noted this afternoon . (Of note: Surveyor conducted record review and was unable to find a PHQ-9 that was conducted as a result of R11 conducting self-harm behaviors and statements). On 1/19/25 at 11:11 PM, a Progress Note is written that states, in part: resident was seen wrapping silverware in a napkin. He was unaware I was in room. he then placed in top drawer. He took all meds (medications) very pleasant. I did remove silverware. He then started [sic] to swear and throw other items . (Of note: Surveyor conducted record review and was unable to find a PHQ-9 that was conducted as a result of R11 intentionally hiding sharp objects). On 4/10/25 at 9:59 AM, a Progress Note is written by RN M that was edited at 2:09 PM, that states, in part: Room check complete. Staff found a pair of safety scissors and these were removed. This afternoon, around 1330 (1:30 PM), resident became upset that his scissors were taken and stated that if he had them [sic], he would use them like this and proceeded to hold his hand up to his throat. Nursing assistant that was with resident stayed with him and made sure he was safe . This writer asked what resident would use scissors for, resident replied that he just wanted to cut out my papers coloring books [sic] because sometimes they don't fit in my binder. I would never cut myself or hurt myself like they do on TV. Resident denied having thoughts/ideation of self harm or having a plan . (Of note: Surveyor conducted record review and was unable to find a PHQ-9 that was conducted as a result of R11 making these statements or related behaviors). On 4/14/25 at 11:18 AM, Surveyor interviewed SS N. Surveyor asked SS N if a trauma assessment was completed for R55. SS N indicates, no. Surveyor asked SS N if a trauma assessment should have been completed. SS N indicates she probably should have done one but moving forward they will be doing one for every resident upon admission. Surveyor asked SS N why she wrote the note on 11/25/24 regarding R55 needing additional social interaction. SS N indicates she doesn't know why she wrote the note, but maybe it was related to the family reporting R55 was bored and that he was spending a lot of time in his room. Surveyor asked SS N if this information should be contained in the note. SS N indicates, probably for this reason. Surveyor asked if a PHQ-9 was conducted after this note was written. SS N indicates it was not, but that he scored a zero on 11/12/24. Surveyor asked SS N if a PHQ-9 was conducted after R55 was found with a knife bungee-corded to his walker. SS N indicates, no. Surveyor asked SS N if a PHQ-9 should have been conducted at that time. SS N indicates, probably. Surveyor asked SS N if she recalls any of the details surrounding R55 being found with a knife bungee corded to his walker. R55 indicates it was a pocketknife and she believed it belonged to a relative who had passed away. On 4/14/25 at 11:59 AM, Surveyor interviewed DON B. Surveyor asked DON B if the incident of finding R55 with a knife bungee corded to his walker was discussed at his care conference. DON B indicates, no. Surveyor asked DON B if a resident who has made suicidal statements and found with a knife, should that be included in a care conference. DON B indicates, yes. Surveyor asked DON B if she would expect that care conference conversation to be included in the care conference note. DON B indicates, yes. Surveyor asked DON B if she would expect the social worker to work with activities if there is a concern for additional social interaction. DON B indicates, yes, but that her guess is that it was a request for possible volunteers to assist with social interaction. Surveyor asked DON B if those volunteers are not available, would it be the facility's responsibility to provide additional social interaction. DON B indicates, yes. Surveyor asked DON B if she would expect the social worker to write a note about what prompted her request for additional social interaction. DON B indicates, yes. Surveyor asked if this could be a sign of worsening depression. DON B indicates, yes. Surveyor asked DON B what nursing staff could have done had they been aware of R55's increased need for social interaction. DON B indicates, staff could offer more 1:1 in house interactions, encouraged activities, and provide additional activities of choice. Facility failed to provide sufficient and appropriate medically related social services that met R55's needs.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0805 (Tag F0805)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review the facility did not provide food prepared in a form designed to meet individual needs for ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review the facility did not provide food prepared in a form designed to meet individual needs for 1 of 1 sampled resident (R48). The facility has not reassessed R48's swallowing ability after she was unable to wear her lower denture due to an abscess to ensure she receives food prepared in a form that meets her needs. As evidenced by The facility's policy, Diet Order, revised 1/2025, documents, in part, as follows: During the course of the resident's stay, any diet change as recommended by the Dietician, Diet Technician, Speech Language Pathologist, or Nurse should be communicated to the attending M.D. (Medical Doctor). for consideration. Nursing may downgrade a diet texture temporarily for example: oral problems, difficulty swallowing/chewing, mouth sores, etc. R48 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including, but not limited to, as follows: diabetes mellitus type 2 (a long-term condition in which the body has trouble controlling blood sugar which also impedes wound healing), anxiety (feelings of worry or nervousness), and bipolar disorder (a disorder associated with mood swings ranging from depressive lows to manic highs). R48's admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] indicates R48 has a Brief interview of Mental Status (BIMS) of 15 out of 15 indicating she is cognitively intact. R48 is her own decision maker. On 3/10/25, R48's physician examined R48 noting, in part, as follows: .res c/o (complained of) of cold sore in mouth. She has Oragel next to her which she has been applying. She is not sure this is helping much. As I examine her mouth takes out her lower denture and has multiple food products that have gotten stuck underneath between her gum and her denture. On 3/24/25 R48 was seen by Dentist. The Dentist documented the following: Type of Exam: limited Rason for visit: mass on lower lip Diagnosis: pt (patient) would need a biopsy for proper diagnosis Recommended treatment: referral to oral surgeon Reason for visit: patient has traumatized soft tissue by the implant on #27-inner soft tissue of lower right lip indentation by the implant - implants on #22, 27 were placed by OS (Oral Surgeon) at (facility name). Diagnosis: patient's implants on bottom were displacing her tissue causing a hole and irritation on the lip and tissue. Recommended treatment: referred to OS (Oral Surgeon) for evaluation, patient was prescribed pain medication and antibiotic. On 3/6/25 RD G (Registered Dietician) documented the following: R48's Nutritional Status includes the following: Diet per doctor's orders. CHO (consistent carbohydrate diet used to manage blood sugar levels) with whole/thin textures. Provide adaptive equipment in line with therapy recommendations. On 3/25/25, the Nurse Practitioner assessed R48, documenting, in part, as follows: .Area of concerns on the inner lower lip. She has no upper or lower teeth. She does have 2 metal spikes noted in the lower gumline. Abscessed area is right next to 1 of the spikes. Patient unable to wear dentures. Abscess has ruptured. On 4/7/25 at 10:00 AM, Surveyor spoke to R48. R48 stated she has an abscess from her lower denture. R48 stated she has not been wearing her dentures for approximately 5-6 weeks. R48 stated the abscess is painful. R48 added, she knows what she can and cannot eat. On 4/8/25 at 4:57 PM, Surveyor spoke with DON B (Director of Nursing). Surveyor asked DON B, is R48 having any issues in her mouth. DON B stated, she was and she will need to look for a diagnosis from the physician. DON B stated, R48 declines to wear her dentures as the metal part was rubbing on her lip, that's how R48 explained it to DON B. DON B stated, R48 followed up with the dentist and she is not sure what came of that. DON B stated, she will obtain the documentation that is not scanned into R48's medical record. On 4/9/25 at 8:35 AM, Surveyor spoke with RN M (Registered Nurse). Surveyor asked RN M, does R48 have any areas of concern in her mouth. RN M stated, R48 has pain to the right lower gum, R48's dentures are not fitting right or rubbing. RN M stated, she is receiving an antibiotic, and went out to a couple appointments. RN M added, R48 is using Magic Mouthwash, salt water rinse, and a lidocaine viscous she is almost constantly c/o pain to that area. On 4/9/25 at 10:35 AM, Surveyor spoke with RD G (Registered Dietician). Surveyor asked RD G, does R48 have areas of concern in her mouth. RD G stated, I'll have to look at her more closely. Surveyor asked RD G, if a resident is unable to wear dentures what do you expect staff to do. RD G stated, staff should let culinary staff know along with RM GGG (Rehab Manager). RD G stated, RM GGG will delegate to the appropriate staff. Surveyor asked RD G, has anybody notified you that R48 is unable to wear her lower dentures. RD G stated, no, that I will need to look into [sic]. Surveyor asked RD G, if a resident is unable to wear dentures what are the concerns you would have. RD G stated, she wants to make sure the resident can chew their foods appropriately to make sure we're meeting them where they're at. Surveyor asked RD G, is this a choking risk. RD G stated, That is a potential. On 4/9/25 10:57 AM and 11:45 AM, Surveyor spoke with RD G (Registered Dietician) and RM GGG (Rehab Manager). RM GGG stated she spoke with R48 two times this week regarding her chewing ability specifically with her pain. RM GGG stated, she asked R48 if pain has impacted her chewing. Surveyor asked RD G, what dates did you speak with R48. RM GGG stated, she spoke with R48 on 4/7/25 and 4/8/25. RM GGG stated, because R48 stated she was not having any issues she did not document this. RM GGG, stated, she should have documented the conversations. RM GGG stated, R48 told her she was not having any issues and did not want to eat baby food (pureed). RM GGG did not document any conversations with R48. On 4/10/25 at 8:30 AM, Surveyor spoke with R48. R48 stated, she is currently taking an antibiotic and will be seeing the Oral Surgeon on 4/14/25. R48 stated she would liked her food minced or cut in small pieces so it is easier for her to eat. Surveyor asked R48, is she is getting enough to eat. R48 stated, yes. R48 stated, on 4/9/25 at approximately 4:30 PM, RM GGG (Rehab Manager) discussed the form of food she would like to eat. Surveyor asked R48, have any staff member talked to you before yesterday about the form of food you would like to eat since having this issue with your dentures/abscess. R48 stated, No, I'm glad something is finally going to be done. R48 stated, the facility is going to have to do something because she's sick of it (abscess and difficulty eating). R48 added, I'm finally getting some help, thank you so much. On 4/10/25 at 1:30 PM, Surveyor spoke with DON B (Director of Nursing). Surveyor asked DON B, given that R48 has an abscess in her mouth and is unable to wear her lower dentures, would you expect staff to reassess R48's ability to chew and swallow her food safely. DON B stated, yes. Surveyor asked DON B, would you expect RM GGG (Rehab Manager) to document conversations with R48. DON B stated, yes. Surveyor stated, R48 requested that her food be cut up in small pieces to make it easier for her to eat. DON B stated, as soon as we are done talking she will pass this information along. Staff were aware that R48 had an abscess and was not able to wear her dentures, staff did not re-assess R48 to ensure R48 was provided food prepared in a form designed to meet her needs.
CONCERN (E)

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

Accident Prevention (Tag F0689)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on observation, interview and record review the facility did not ensure the environment remained free of hazards for 4 of 4 supplemental residents (R12, R66, R68 and R70) who smoke. R12 was obse...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview and record review the facility did not ensure the environment remained free of hazards for 4 of 4 supplemental residents (R12, R66, R68 and R70) who smoke. R12 was observed outside smoking, on the sidewalk in the front of the facility, with no receptacle to dispose of her cigarette butts in the area. R66 was observed outside smoking, on the patio in the smoking area, with a small receptacle to dispose his cigarette butts. In the same area was a plastic garbage can with a large amount of cigarette butts in it. R68 and R70 are indicated as being smokers and the facility does not have an appropriate receptacle for smoking material to be disposed into. Evidenced by: The facility Smoking Policy, reviewed 01/2024, includes, in part, the following: Purpose: To offer a safe environment to all residents in the facility. 15.2 Procedure. 8. All smoking materials will be disposed of in the proper designated containers that meet NFPA (National Fire Protection Association) standards. On 4/9/25 at 7:00 AM Surveyor observed R12 sitting in her wheelchair, on the sidewalk in the front of the facility smoking a cigarette. There was no receptacle to dispose of her cigarette butts safely in the area. In addition, the ground was covered with used cigarette butts on both sides of the sidewalk. On 4/9/25 at 11:18 am Surveyor interviewed R12. Surveyor asked R12 where she disposes of her cigarette butts when she smokes on the sidewalk in the front of the facility. R12 stated since there is no receptacle by the sidewalk or in the front of the facility she throws them on the ground by the sidewalk. On 4/9/25 at 3:09 PM Surveyor observed R66 outside the facility, on the patio, under the gazebo, in the smoking area, smoking a cigarette. Surveyor asked R66 where he disposed of his cigarette butts. R66 stated he disposed of his cigarette butts in the ash receptacle on the table. R66 stated when the ash receptacle was full it was emptied into the garbage can by the gazebo. Surveyor observed a large plastic garbage can with garbage and a large amount of cigarette butts in it. Surveyor asked R66 if he could smoke any other place. R66 stated he went out front of the facility on the sidewalk to smoke. On 4/9/25 at 11:01 AM Surveyor interviewed MR FF (Medical Records). Surveyor asked MR FF who were on the smoking list. MR FF showed Surveyor a smoking list, that was hanging at the nurse's station. R12's, R66's, R68's and R70's names were on the list. MR FF stated these were the 4 residents who went out to smoke on the patio area during smoking times and in addition R12, R66 and R68 also were allowed to smoke out front of the facility on the sidewalk since they were independent smokers and were able to sign themselves out of the facility. On 4/9/25 at 4:55 PM Surveyor interviewed NHA A (Nursing Home Administrator). Surveyor asked NHA A if there was a proper designated receptacle that met NFPA standards for residents to dispose their smoking materials in on the patio? NHA A stated he believed there was a small receptacle. Surveyor asked NHA A if he was aware that the small receptacle was disposed of in the plastic garbage. NHA A stated he was not aware. Surveyor asked NHA A if a plastic garbage can was a safe receptacle. NHA A stated no it was not a safe smoking material receptacle. Surveyor asked NHA A where residents were to dispose of their smoking materials when they smoked in front of the facility on the sidewalk. NHA A stated there was no place for residents to dispose of smoking materials when smoking in front of the facility on the sidewalk. NHA A stated there should be a receptacle for residents to dispose of smoking materials when smoking in the front of the facility on the sidewalk. R12, R66, R68 and R70 do not have a proper receptacle to dispose of smoking materials while smoking outside at the facility.
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0700 (Tag F0700)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Example 3 R46 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. R46 was placed on an air mattress for risk of skin breakdown. On 4/7/25 at...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Example 3 R46 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. R46 was placed on an air mattress for risk of skin breakdown. On 4/7/25 at 2:40 PM Surveyor observed R46's bed with an air mattress and enabler bars on both sides of R46's bed. Example 4 R25 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. R25 was placed on an air mattress for complaints of pain related to osteoarthritis. On 4/7/25 at 1:45 PM Surveyor observed R25's bed with an air mattress and enabler bars on both sides of R25's bed. On 4/10/25 at 1:21 PM Surveyor interviewed RNC C (Regional Nurse Consultant). Surveyor asked RNC C for evidence that R46's and R25's enabler bars and air mattresses were monitored to ensure there was no gap between the mattress and enabler bars. RNC C stated she did not have evidence the enabler bars and air mattresses were monitored for a gap. RNC C stated the facility should monitor the enabler bars and air mattresses to ensure there is no gap. Example 5 R54 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Upon admission, R54 was placed on am air mattress for pressure injury reduction. On 4/9/25 at 8:35 AM, Surveyor observed R54 to have an air mattress with an enabler bar to the right side of the air mattress. R54 stated the enabler bar helps her to get out of bed. Surveyor observed a gap of approximately 1 1/2 inches between the air mattress and enabler bar. Example 6 R49 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Upon admission R49 was placed on an air mattress for pressure injury reduction. On 4/9/25 at 8:38 AM, Surveyor observed R49 to have an air mattress with bilateral enabler bars. Surveyor observed a gap of approximately 1 inch between the air mattress and enabler bar. On 4/09/25 at 2:48 PM, Surveyor interviewed MA F (Maintenance Assistant) who stated that maintenance was not measuring the gap between the enabler bars and the mattresses as far as I'm aware. It should be noted the facility's maintenance supervisor no longer works at the facility. MA F was not able to find any documentation on the monitoring of this gap between the enabler bars and the mattress. The facility was unable to provide any manufacturer documentation regarding the installation of the enabler bars or any manufacturer recommendations on how to monitor, measure and adjust the enabler bars for appropriate fit with air mattresses. On 4/10/25 and again on 4/14/25, Surveyors requested any information or documentation as to if and how the enabler bars were being monitored for safety and/or measuring the gap between the air mattress and enabler bars for proper fit. No documentation was provided. R73, R46, R54, R25 and R49 all have an air mattress with enabler bars/bedrails. The facility did not complete all requirements as listed in F700 of the State Operations Manual prior to installing bed rails/enabler bars. Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to have a system in place to assess for risk of entrapment between the mattress and side rail and failed to identify and recognize that the use of side rails with an air mattress increases the risk for entrapment for 3 of 3 sampled residents (R73, R46 and R25) and 2 of 2 supplemental Residents (R49 and R54) reviewed for bed rails. R73, R46, R54, R25 and R49 all have an air mattress with enabler bars/bedrails. The facility did not complete all requirements as listed in F700 of the State Operations Manual prior to installing bed rails/enabler bars. The facility failed to complete a safety/gap test with the air mattress and provide written documentation of ongoing monitoring of bed rails. Findings include According to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), The FDA recommends the following actions to prevent deaths and injuries from entrapment and falls from adult portable bed rails: . When installing and using bed rails: *Confirm that the age, size, and weight of the person using the bed rails are appropriate for the bed rails used. *Install bed rails using the manufacturer's instructions to ensure a proper fit. *Ensure that the safety strap or bed rail retention system is permanently attached to the rail and secured to the bed frame according to the manufacturer's instructions. *Regularly inspect the mattress and bed rails for gaps and areas of possible entrapment. *Regardless of mattress width, length, and depth, the bed frame, bed rail and mattress should leave no gap wide enough to entrap a patient's head or body. *Use caution when using bed rails with a soft mattress as this may increase risk of entrapment between the mattress and bed rail. *Be aware that gaps can be created by movement or compression of the mattress which may be caused by patient weight, patient movement or bed position, or by using a specialty mattress, such as an air mattress, mattress pad or waterbed. *Check bed rails regularly to make sure they are still installed correctly as rails may shift or loosen over time. *When in doubt, call the manufacturer of the bed rails for assistance. https://www.fda.gov/medical-devices/adult-portable-bed-rail-safety/recommendations-consumers-and-caregivers-about-adult-portable-bed-rails Example 1 R73 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Upon admission, R73 was placed on am air mattress for pressure injury reduction. On 4/7/25 at 10:21 AM, Surveyor observed R73 in his bed. Surveyor confirmed the air mattress was in use and observed enabler bars on either side of R73's bed.
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0804 (Tag F0804)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility did not ensure that each resident receives food and drink that i...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility did not ensure that each resident receives food and drink that is palatable and at a safe and appetizing temperature. This has the potential to affect more than a minimal number of residents residing at the facility. Residents voiced concerns with hot foods being served cold. (R45, R25, R14, and R11) 3 of 3 test trays were observed to not be served at desirable temperatures. Evidenced by: The facility Resident Council Minutes included, in part, the following: 3/3/25: Dietary: resident specific requests. Note there was no further explanation what the requests were. 12/2/24: Cold food, has improved. 11/4/24: Food coming cold. Example 1 R45 was admitted to the facility 11/8/24. R45's most recent MDS (Minimum Data Set) with an ARD (Assessment Reference Date) of 2/14/25 indicates R45 is cognitively intact. On 4/7/25 at 2:10 PM Surveyor interviewed R45 about his meals. R45 stated the food was often served cold and tasted awful. R45 stated he has told multiple staff on numerous occasions with no changes. Example 2 R25 was admitted on [DATE]. R25's most recent MDS (Minimum Data Set) with an ARD (Assessment Reference Date) of 3/7/25 indicates R25 is cognitively intact. On 4/10/25 at 12:15 PM Surveyor interviewed R25 about her meals. R25 stated the food and coffee were served cold. R25 also stated she would like to have meat with her breakfast meals, has asked for meat for breakfast but not received any. Example 3 On 4/8/25 at 8:15 AM Surveyor received the last tray served on the 400 unit hall cart. The following foods and drinks were served as part of the meal. Scrambled eggs temped at 96.1, toast cool and soggy. The scrambled eggs and toast were cold and not palatable. On 4/8/25 at 12:32 PM Surveyor received the last tray served on the 200 unit hall cart. The following foods and drinks were served as part of the meal. Carrots temped at 108 degrees and coffee temped at 103.6. The carrots and coffee were cold and not palatable. On 4/9/25 at 8:34 AM Surveyor received the last tray served on the 200 unit hall cart. The following foods and drinks were served as part of the meal. Scrambled eggs temped at 116, Biscuits and gravy temped at 121, and coffee temped at 102.6. The scrambled eggs, biscuits and gravy and coffee were cold and not palatable. On 4/9/25 at 10:12 AM Surveyor interviewed DM FFF (Dietary Manager). Surveyor explained the findings from the test trays to DM FFF. DM FFF stated foods and drinks served should be at the appropriate temperatures and palatable. Example 4 R14 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. On 4/7/25 at 10:41 AM, R14 stated to Surveyor that the scrambled eggs at the facility were terrible and that they were often cold. Example 5 R11 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. R11's most recent Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS), with Assessment Reference Date of 1/9/25, states that R11 has a BIMS (Brief Interview for Mental Status) of 15 out of 15, indicating that R11 is cognitively intact. On 4/7/25 at 10:10 AM, Surveyor interviewed R11. Surveyor asked R11 about the food served by the facility. R11 states the food is cold when he receives it. Residents voiced concerns regarding palatability of the food, 3 or 3 rest trays were not palatable as food was cold.
CONCERN (F)

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

Deficiency F0838 (Tag F0838)

Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents

Based on interview and record review, the facility did not ensure the facility wide assessment developed by the facility included all relevant details to ensure the facility provided care and services...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview and record review, the facility did not ensure the facility wide assessment developed by the facility included all relevant details to ensure the facility provided care and services to residents to meet their individual needs within the facility's identified resources. This has the potential to affect all 76 residents residing in the facility. The facility assessment does not indicate: - How many residents the facility can safely care for with suicidal ideation - How many residents the facility can safely care for with PTSD or a history of trauma - How many staff members are required to safely care for residents with suicidal ideation - How many staff members are required to safely care for residents with PTSD or a history of trauma - Staff training required to care for residents with suicidal ideation and/or PTSD or a history of trauma This is evidenced by: The facility's policy titled Facility Assessment, dated 1/2025 states in part: Policy: This facility conducts and documents a facility-wide assessment to determine what resources are necessary to care for our residents competently . Policy Explanation and Compliance Guidelines: 1. The facility assessment will, at a minimum, address or include: a. The facility's resident population, including but not limited to: i. Number of residents and the facility's capacity; ii. The care required by the resident population, using evidence-based, data-driven methods that consider the types of diseases, conditions, physical and behavioral health needs, cognitive disabilities, overall acuity and other pertinent facts that are present within that population, consistent with and informed by individual resident assessments; iii. The staff competencies and skillsets that are necessary to provide the level and types of care needed for the resident population; . b. The facility's resources, including but not limited to; . iii. Services provided, such as physical therapy, pharmacy, behavioral health and specific rehabilitation therapies; iv. All personnel, including managers, nursing and other direct care staff (both employees and those who provide services under contract), and volunteers, as well as their education and/or training and any competencies related to resident care . 3. The facility will use the facility assessment to: a. Inform staffing decisions to ensure that there are a sufficient number of staff with the appropriate competencies and skill sets necessary to care for its residents' needs as identified through resident assessments and plans of care. b. Consider staffing needs for the facility and adjust as necessary based on changes to its resident population and needs . 8. Based on the assessment of resident characteristics, the facility will determine what care/services, staff competencies, and staffing needs are required to meet the needs of our residents. This will be compared to the specific care/services, including by contract, and training we provide. Action plans will be implemented as necessary . 10. The facility assessment will be reviewed and updated as necessary and at least annually . Surveyor reviewed the facility assessment, dated 8/2/24, to determine the need for staff with skills and competencies in order to provide nursing and related behavioral health services to maintain resident safety and psychosocial well-being. .Purpose The purpose of the assessment is to determine what resources are necessary to care for residents competently during both day-to-day operations and emergencies. The use this assessment to make decisions about your direct care staff needs, as well as your capabilities to provide services to the residents at our facility. Using a competency-based approach focuses on ensuring that each resident is provided care that allows the resident to maintain or attain their highest practicable physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being. The intent of the facility is for the facility to evaluate its resident population and identify the resources needed to provide the necessary person-centered care and services the residents require. The assessment is organized in three parts: 1. Resident profile including numbers, diseases/conditions, physical and cognitive disabilities, acuity, and ethnic/cultural/religious factors that impact care 2. Services and care offered based on Resident needs (includes types of care your Resident population requires) 3. Facility resources needed to provide competent care for Residents, including staff, staffing plan, staff training/education and competencies, education and training, physical environment and building needs, and other resources, including agreements with third parties, health information technology resources and systems, a facility-based and community-based risk assessment, and other information that you may choose Part 1 of the facility assessment, titled, Our Resident Profile with sub-heading, Diseases/Conditions, physical and cognitive disabilities indicates that the facility accepts residents with Psychiatric/Mood Disorders such as: Depression, Impaired Cognition, Mental Disorder, Bipolar Disorder (Mania/Depression), Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), Anxiety Disorder, Schizophrenia, Insomnia, Mood Adjustment Disorder, and Behavior that needs interventions. The facility is also able to accept residents with neurological disorders such as Alzheimer's Disease, Non-Alzheimer's Dementia, Down Syndrome, Traumatic Brain Injuries, Autism, Huntington's Disease, Tourette's Syndrome, and Cerebral Palsy. Part 2 of the facility assessment, titled, Services and Care We Offer Based on our Residents' Needs, indicates that the facility can provide care for residents with mental health and behavior needs, to include: managing the medical conditions and medication-related issues causing psychiatric symptoms and behavior, identify and implement interventions to help support individuals with issues such as dealing with anxiety, care of someone with cognitive impairment, care of individuals with depression, trauma/PTSD, other psychiatric diagnoses, and intellectual or developmental disabilities. This section also indicates that the facility can provide care for residents with a need for psycho/social/spiritual support, to include: finding out what resident's preferences and routines are, what makes a good day for the resident, what upsets him or her and incorporate this information into the care planning process, making sure staff care for the resident have this information, recording and discussing treatment and care preferences, supporting resident's emotional and mental well-being, supporting helpful coping mechanisms, providing opportunities for social activities and life enrichment, and identifying hazards and risks for residents. In the section titled, Contingency Planning for Staff, the facility assessment indicates in case of an emergency event requiring additional staffing: the administrator will direct available department heads to contact available staff to elicit ability to work, non-nursing staff will complete tasks to alleviate burden from nursing staff as allowed without certification or license, contact company affiliated facilities to determine availability to assist, contact the Regional Director of Operations to approve use of current company agency staffing contracts and offer additional incentives for staff to pick up open shifts such as bonuses. In the section titled, Staff training/education and competencies the facility assessment indicates various education, training, and competencies that are necessary for staff to provide the level and types of support and care needed for the facility's resident population. Trauma informed care is listed under the training section. Under annual competencies, the facility assessment indicates person-centered care, including care planning, resident and family education about treatments and medications, along with caring for residents with mental and psychosocial disorders, as well as residents with a history of trauma and/or post-traumatic stress disorder, and implementing non-pharmacological interventions. On 4/10/24 at 4:34 PM, Surveyor interviewed DON B (Director of Nursing). Surveyor asked DON B what behavioral health training has been provided to staff. DON B indicated she is unsure, but that she knows it is done at least annually. Surveyor asked DON B if she has enough staff with the appropriate competencies to care for residents with mental health concerns. DON B indicated for 15-minute checks yes, but for 1:1s we find the staff. On 4/14/25 at 11:59 AM, Surveyor interviewed DON B. Surveyor asked DON B how many residents the facility can safely care for with suicidal ideation. DON B indicated she does not know. Surveyor asked DON B how many residents the facility can safely care for with PTSD or a history of trauma. DON B indicated she does not know. Surveyor asked DON B if this information should be a part of the facility assessment. DON B indicated yes. Surveyor asked DON B, what skills and competencies are needed to effectively care for residents with suicidal ideation and/or PTSD or a history of trauma. DON B indicated, the training the facility held over the weekend along with effective communication. Surveyor asked DON B how staff are trained to provide non-pharmacological interventions to residents with suicidal ideation and/or PTSD or a history of trauma. DON B indicated, the training the facility held over the weekend and the interventions are listed on care plans. Surveyor asked DON B if prior to this survey, there was a process in place to train staff on these topics. DON B indicated no, but care plans were updated with suicidal ideation and intentions. Surveyor asked DON B where can staff find appropriate interventions for each resident who has experienced or is experiencing suicidal ideation and/or PTSD or a history of trauma. DON B indicated the resident care plans. Surveyor asked DON B if this information should be included in the facility assessment. DON B indicated yes. Surveyor asked DON B, what process do you have in place to ensure staff competency in the care of residents with suicidal ideation, PTSD, or a history of trauma. DON B indicated the facility did not have one but moving forward the facility will have a process to ensure everyone, including new hires, are trained and follow-up with continuing education. Surveyor asked DON B if she made observations of staff providing 15-minute checks, 1:1 observation, person-centered interventions such as assessing the room for sharp objects. DON B indicated she was for 15-minute checks. Surveyor asked DON B if she makes observations of the staff ability to communicate and interact with residents. DON B indicated yes. Surveyor asked DON B if any of those observations are documented. DON B indicated no. On 4/14/25 at 1:54 PM, Surveyor interviewed RNC C (Registered Nurse Consultant). Surveyor asked RNC C how many residents the facility can safely care for with suicidal ideation. RNC C indicated the facility staff has not had a chance to meet regarding residents with these needs, but that she will be reviewing all future referrals to the facility. Surveyor asked RNC C if this information be a part of the facility assessment. RNC C indicated that giving a specific number is not always accurate for who you actually have in house, and that the facility does not have an actual number. The facility assessment did not determine what resources were necessary to care for residents with suicidal ideations and behavioral health needs. The facility assessment did not address the number of residents and the facility's resident capacity. The care required by the resident population, using evidence-based, data-driven methods for residents behavioral health needs, and other pertinent facts that are present within that population, consistent with and informed by individual resident assessments.
CONCERN (F)

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

QAPI Program (Tag F0867)

Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents

Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility did not identify issues to which quality assessment and assurance activities are necessary or develop and implement appropriate plans o...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility did not identify issues to which quality assessment and assurance activities are necessary or develop and implement appropriate plans of action to correct identified quality deficiencies. This is evidenced by the number and seriousness of citations during this recertification survey, which has the potential to affect all 76 residents who reside in the facility. During this recertification survey from 4/7/25 through 4/14/25, the facility had multiple citations including F880 L, F741 J with 2 examples, F692 G, and F838 F. The facility Quality Assurance Committee has failed to identify key areas of deficient practice and implement action plans to correct these deficient practices. 1. Sufficient/competent Staff-Behavioral Health Needs 2. Infection Control 3. Nutrition/hydration Status Maintenance 4. Facility Assessment This is evidenced by: The facility policy titled, Quality Assurance and Performance Improvements (QAPI), last reviewed 1/2025, states in part . Policy: It is the policy of facility to develop, implement, and maintain an effective, comprehensive, data-driven QAPI program that focuses on indicators of the outcomes of care and quality of life and addresses all the care and unique services the facility provides. Policy Explanation and Compliance Guidelines: 2. The QAA (Quality Assessment and Assurance) Committee and a written QAPI (Quality Assessment and Assurance) Plan: c. Develop and implement appropriate plans of action to correct identified quality deficiencies. d. Regularly review and analyze data, including data collected under the QAPI program and data resulting from drug regimen reviews, and act on available data to make improvements. 3. The QAPI plan will address the following elements: a. Design and scope of the facility's QAPI program and QAA Committee responsibilities and actions. c. Process addressing how the committee will conduct activities necessary to identify and current quality deficiencies. Key components of this process include, but are not limited to, the following: i. Track and measuring performance. ii. Establishing goals and thresholds for performance improvements. iii. Identifying and prioritizing quality deficiencies. iv. Systemically analyzing underlying causes of systemic quality deficiencies. v. Developing and implementing corrective action or performance improvements activities. vi. Monitoring and evaluating the effectiveness of corrective action/performance improvement activities and revising as needed. d. A prioritization of program activities that focus on resident safety, health outcomes, autonomy, choice of quality of care, as well as, high-risk, high-volume, or problem-prone areas as identified in the facility assessment that reflects the specific units, programs, departments and unique population the facility serves. The facility must also consider the incidence, prevalence, and severity of problems or potential problems identified. f. Process to ensure care and services delivered meet accepted standards of quality. Program Development Guidelines: 1. Program Design and Scope - a. The QAPI program will be ongoing, comprehensive, and will address the full range of care and services provided by the facility. b. At a minimum, the QAPI program will: i. Address all systems of care and management practices. iii. Utilize the best available evidence to define and measure indicators of quality and facility goals that reflect processes of care and facility operations that have been shown to be predictive of desired outcomes for residents of a Skilled Nursing Facility (SNF) or Nursing Facility (NF). iv. Reflect the complexities, unique cares, and services the facility provides. 3. Program Feedback, Data System, and Monitoring - a. The facility maintains procedures for feedback, data collections systems, and monitoring, including adverse event monitoring. Example 1 Infection Control The facility has been cited at F880 at the immediate jeopardy level during recertification survey on 4/14/25. The QAPI Team did not have a plan in place for increased audits or monitoring that interventions were in place and functioning appropriately to prevent the spread of infection during their GI (Gastrointestinal) outbreak in January 2025. The facility had a GI outbreak in January that involved 49 residents and 37 staff. Upon interviewing the IP (infection preventionist), Surveyor learned that the facility did not identify the outbreak timely, did not complete a contemporaneous line listing of those residents and staff experiencing GI related s/sx (signs and symptoms), did not complete hand hygiene and PPE (personal protective equipment) audits, did not provide education to staff, or recognize and put an action plan in place when the outbreak spread to involve three quarters of their residents and staff. (Cross Reference F880) The facility did not utilize the QAPI process during or after the outbreak to gain feedback, collect data, and monitor the infection prevention and control process. There was no evidence the facility identified deficient practices during or after the GI outbreak or analyzed the data to implement a process improvement for infection control/GI outbreaks. Example 2 Sufficient/competent Staff-Behavioral Health Needs The facility has been cited at F741 at the immediate jeopardy level during recertification survey on 4/14/25. The QAPI team did not have a plan in place for increased audits, education, or monitoring that interventions were in place and functioning appropriately in order to prevent residents from acting on suicidal ideations. The facility had residents with suicidal ideation and the facility did not ensure that these residents did not have access to items that they could use to injure themselves, did not complete education with staff on suicidal ideations, did not update the residents' care plans, and did include in their facility assessment the ability to care for these residents. (Cross Reference F741) The facility did not utilize the QAPI process to identify this high-risk resident population, identify risk factors related to the care for residents with suicidal ideations, monitor the care provided for these residents, ensure staff had the needed competencies and skillsets to care for these residents. Example 3 Nutrition/hydration Status Maintenance The facility has been cited at F671 at the harm level during recertification survey on 4/14/25. The QAPI team did not have a plan in place for increased audits, education, or monitoring that interventions were in place and functioning appropriately in order to maintain nutritional/hydration status. The facility had a resident who required monitoring of their fluid and hydration status and the facility did not have a plan in place to ensure residents maintained their fluid and hydration intake. The facility did not complete education with staff, did not update the residents plan of care, and did not track the residents hydration status to prevent decline and hospitalization. The facility did not utilize the QAPI process to identify this high-risk resident, identify risk factors related to the care for residents who require hydration monitoring, ensure staff had the needed competencies and skillsets to care for residents who are at risk for dehydration. The facility did not identify an at-risk resident despite multiple hospitalizations for dehydration. Example 4 Facility Assessment The facility has been cited at F838 at the no actual harm/widespread level during recertification survey on 4/14/25. The facility has not used the QAPI process to review their facility assessment and ensure all components of the facility assessment are included in their facility wide assessment including the diagnosis, type, resident number, and staff needed to care for certain populations within the facility. The facility assessment did not identify the competencies and number of staff needed to care for resident populations. If the facility assessment were reviewed in QAPI and the facility identified at risk areas within the facility the facility should have identified these areas as not being included in their facility assessment. Despite the large GI outbreak in January the facility did not review and identify deficiencies needing improvement or take the outbreak to the QAPI team for review to help identify system failures needing improvement. The facility did not identify or take to the QAPI team concerns related to suicidal ideation even after one resident was able to harm himself with an item that was left in his room. The facility did not identify or take concerns of nutrition and hydration to the QAPI team when a resident was noted to have been hospitalized on more than one occasion for nutrition and hydration status. On 4/14/25 at 4:11 PM, Surveyor interviewed NHA A (Nursing Home Administrator). Surveyor asked NHA A how the facility identifies areas of concern to be reviewed by the QAPI committee. NHA A stated, they are identified by chart review, trends in grievances, and staff. Surveyor asked NHA A how the facility decides what areas of concern they are going to work on in QAPI. NHA A stated, we decide to work on area that is trending on time. Last couple have been antipsychotics, before that, it was falls, and GI outbreak before that. Surveyor asked NHA A how the facility determines it is effective in making changes in QAPI. NHA A stated, continue to tract the trend. An example is in January we had 21 falls, we then looked at falls in February to see if the plan is working or if we need to adjust if not showing much improvement. Surveyor asked NHA A if the facility reviewed in QAPI the GI outbreak in January. NHA A indicated the facility did look at the outbreak. Surveyor asked NHA A if the QAPI team ever looked at residents for suicidal ideation following one resident injuring himself with a pair of scissors left in his room by staff. NHA A stated, they had a QAPI meeting before I started and can't say what was done before me but know we have not discussed them specifically. The facility did not identify issues to which quality assessment and assurance activities are necessary or develop and implement appropriate plans of action to correct identified quality deficiencies or remain in compliance.
Dec 2024 1 deficiency
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Notification of Changes (Tag F0580)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on record review and interview, the facility did not immediately consult with the resident's physician when 1 of 3 sampled residents (R1) experienced a significant change or required a change in...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review and interview, the facility did not immediately consult with the resident's physician when 1 of 3 sampled residents (R1) experienced a significant change or required a change in treatment. R1's physician was not consulted when R1's oxygen saturation and pulse fell below the desired range. This is evidenced by the following: The facility policy and procedure Notification of Change, last reviewed 1/24, states, in part: Introduction: The Residents physician and responsible party must be notified when an event involving the resident occurs or when the resident experiences a change of condition, potential discharge, room transfer for death. Notification Parameters: [Facility] has adopted the current INTERACT Tools Change of Condition: When to report to the MD (Medical Doctor)/NP (Nurse Practitioner)/PA (Physician Assistant). ** The INTERACT program is an evidence-based program that may be utilized by the nurse when needed and does not supersede the clinical judgement of the licensed nurse. A Physicians personal request for notification of a condition may supersede the INTERACT Recommendations. Some Physicians may require different notification parameters for conditions such as blood glucose or other conditions. Please follow the Physicians order in these cases. NOTIFY THE PHYSICIAN IMMEDIATELY IF THE RESIDENT REQUIRES IMMEDIATE ACTION Notification: 1. Call the physician and document using the SBAR Communication Form and/or Progress Note. 2. In the nurses judgement if the situation requires immediate notification but is not an immediate emergency and the physician has not responded the will [sic] continue to assess the residents condition and document. If a return call is not received a second call may be placed. If there is no response to a second call the Medical Director may be notified for guidance. 4. Document each attempt in the residents medical record. 6. The Licensed nurse is to provide frequent checks on the residents condition while waiting for a call back from the Physician and or NP. Alert the direct care givers of resident condition change and signs and symptoms to be watching for. Outcome Evaluation: Monitor and reassess the resident status and response to interventions. The physician should develop a working diagnosis and guide nursing staff in what to look for, what to monitor, and when to re-contact the physician if the residents progress deviates from the anticipated or expected course. The facility document titled, Change in Condition: When to report to the MD/NP/PA. INTERACT, version 4.5 Tool. Vital Signs (report why vital signs were taken): Vital Sign: Pulse: Resting pulse <50 (less than 50) Oxygen saturation: <90% (less than 90 percent) R1 was admitted to the facility, on 11/22/24, after hospitalization related to acute hyperkalemia. R1's diagnoses include, in part: coronary artery disease, diabetes mellitus type 2, chronic heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, paroxysmal atrial fibrillation, thrombocytopenia, and bipolar II disorder. R1's 5-day MDS (Minimum Data Set), completed on 11/23/19, shows R1's short term and long-term memory is okay, indicating that R1 is cognitively intact. On 11/22/24 at 6:00 PM, (Recorded as Late Entry on 11/22/24 at 7:33 PM), Nurses Progress Note, states, Writer was alerted by LPN (Licensed Practical Nurse) working floor that she was informed that resident was having a difficult time breathing. Floor nurse and writer arrived in room. Resident's oxygen saturations were 71% and respirations rate was 26. Oxygen was obtained and administered to resident. Oxygen saturations immediately responded to oxygen therapy. (94%, RR 18 (respiratory rate)). Residents' lung sounds are clear with diminished bases bilateral. Resident is positive for COVID. COVID monitoring in place. Resident sitting at edge of bed eating dinner at this time. No increased work of breathing noted. No s/sx (signs or symptoms) of shortness of breath/difficulty breathing voiced/noted. Residents indicates that she is feeling better. Of note: There is no documentation in R1's chart indicating the Physician/NP/PA was notified of R1's change of condition. On 11/23/24 at 6:38 AM, Nurses Progress Note, states, Resident appeared unresponsive at 620 (6:20 AM) in the morning hours. At 0610 (6:10 AM), on a room check, resident appeared to not be breathing. After checking her radial pulse and using stethoscope, she was negative and not responding to voice or stimulus. Resident is currently listed as DNR. Writer reached out to 2nd nurse to do a follow up. DON (Director of Nursing) and 2nd responded. DON assessed and was unsuccessful on resident to respond. On 11/23/24 at 9:36 AM, Nurses Progress Note, states, Writer arrived at 620 (6:20 AM) and was immediately informed by LPN D (Licensed Practical Nurse) that resident was unresponsive and without a pulse. Writer immediately responded to resident room and assessed resident. Resident was lying in bed peacefully. No respirations were noted. Her skin was warm, and she did not appear to be in distress. Heart sounds auscultated and no sounds were observed for 2 minutes. LPN D auscultated and was unable to hear heart sounds. POST (Provider Order for Scope of Treatment) was at bedside and confirmed that resident desired DNR (Do Not Resuscitate) per form. She had been O [sic]-DNR/DNI (Do Not Resuscitate/Do Not Intubate) as designated by POST and discharge orders. LPN D began end of life notifications/process. R1's vitals from 11/22/24 and 11/23/24 are documented in part as . 11/22/24 at 4:50 PM: O2 Saturation 70%, Pulse 46/per minute 11/22/24 at 9:33 PM: O2 Saturation 99% on 2 L/min (liters per minute), Pulse, no pulse obtained 11/22/24 at 10:32 PM: Pulse 56/per minute 11/22/24 at 10:34 PM: Pulse, 46/per minute 11/22/24 at 10:43 PM: O2 Saturation 96% on 2L/min, Pulse 56/per minute 11/23/24 at 1:16 AM: O2 Saturation 98% on 2L/min, Pulse, no pulse obtained 11/23/24 at 5:01 AM: O2 Saturation 95% on 2L/min, Pulse, no pulse obtained R1's MAR (medication administration record) states in part . Order: Covid Monitoring: Monitor resident for shortness of breath, lung sounds, respirations, O2 saturations and temperature every 4 hours x (times) 72 hours. 11/22/24 at 8:00 PM: Temperature: 98.7, Respirations 16, O2 Saturation 99%, Lung sounds clear, SOB (shortness of breath) present (yes/no): Y (Yes). 11/23/24 at 12:00 AM: Temperature: 97.7, Respirations 15, O2 Saturation 98%, Lung sounds clear, SOB (shortness of breath) present (yes/no): Y (Yes). 11/23/24 at 4:00 AM: Temperature: 97.7, Respirations 16, O2 Saturation 95%, Lung sounds clear, SOB (shortness of breath) present (yes/no): Y (Yes). On 12/16/24 at 12:03 PM, Surveyor interviewed MDS J (Minimum Data Set Nurse). MDS J is a Registered Nurse. Surveyor asked MDS J about her interaction with R1. MDS J stated she went to R1's room to complete the malnutrition screening. MDS J stated she knocked on R1's room door and stated she had some questions for R1. MDS J stated she was standing in R1's doorway. R1 was sitting on the side of the bed with the tray table in front of R1. MDS J asked R1 how are you today, I am here to do a malnutrition screen if R1 has time. R1 stated to MDS J I think I am having a hard time breathing. MDS J stated R1 did not look like she was in distress. MDS J stated she asked R1 if she was ok, R1 stated yes, I am ok. MDS J stated that she would go get R1's nurse. MDS J stated all she had with her was a piece of paper and a pen. MDS J stated if R1 was having distress she would have gone into R1's room. MDS J stated to R1 I will be right back; I will go get your nurse. MDS J stated she was not sure if she left R1's room door open or closed. MDS J stated she knew R1's nurse was at the nurse's station. MDS J walked down the hallway and reported to LPN E R1's complaint of difficulty breathing. MDS J stated LPN E stated she was going to get DON B and walked away. On 12/16/24 at 12:19 PM, Surveyor interviewed LPN E (Licensed Practical Nurse). Surveyor asked LPN E about R1's admission. LPN E stated R1 was admitted between 3:00 PM - 4:00 PM. LPN E stated DON B (Director of Nursing) also assisted with the admission assessment. LPN E stated it was difficult to get R1's oxygen saturation level. R1's oxygen saturation was found to be 93%. LPN E stated R1 was not using any supplemental oxygen at the time of admission. LPN E stated she was sitting at the desk charting when MDS J (Minimum Data Set Nurse) came up to her and stated that R1 was complaining of shortness of breath and complained of having a hard time breathing. LPN E stated she went to DON B and informed DON B that R1 was complaining of shortness of breath and having a hard time breathing. LPN E and DON B went to R1's room. LPN E went into R1's room while DON B and MDS J were outside R1's room. LPN E attempted to get R1's oxygen saturation. LPN E stated she had a difficult time getting R1's oxygen saturation, LPN E asked R1 to sit up straight, R1's oxygen saturation was 71% and continued to be between 71% - 76% at 4:50 PM. LPN E stated she asked staff to bring R1 some oxygen. R1's oxygen saturation went up to 90% after receiving oxygen. LPN stated at that time R1 stated she felt more comfortable. LPN E stated R1's lung sounds were checked, and the only thing noticed was R1's oxygen saturation was positional. When R1 sat up straight, her oxygen saturation would go up. Surveyor asked LPN E if she had contacted R1's physician when R1's oxygen went down to 71%. LPN E stated she was told that DON B updated R1's physician. On 12/16/24 at 12:44 PM, Surveyor interviewed RCD C (Regional Clinical Director). Surveyor asked RCD C if anyone had called R1's physician when she complained of difficulty breathing and had an oxygen saturation of 71%. RCD C stated it did not appear so. Surveyor asked RCD C if a physician should be notified when a resident's oxygen saturation is 71%. RCD C stated yes. Surveyor asked RCD C if a physician should be notified when a resident has difficulty breathing. RCD C stated yes, a physician should be notified. RCD C stated there was no documentation in R1's medical record that a physician was contacted. On 12/16/24 at 1:30 PM, Surveyor interviewed RCD (Regional Clinical Director). Surveyor asked RCD C where Surveyor should find documentation of R1's physician being notified of her change of condition. RCD C stated, I will see if DON B sent an email to the provider about the change of condition. Surveyor asked RCD C if that information should be found in R1's medical record. RCD C stated, yes, if it is not documented it is not done. On 12/16/24 at 1:40 PM, Surveyor interviewed NHA A (Nursing Home Administrator). Surveyor asked NHA A where Surveyor would be able to find information showing a physician was notified of a change of condition. NHA A stated, that should be done and charted in the medical record. If it was not charted then it is considered not done. DON B states that she did notify the provider via email on R1's change of condition. DON B should have documented this in R1's chart. Surveyor asked NHA A if a phone was needed or if an email regarding R1's change of condition was sufficient. NHA A stated, this change of condition needed to be done by a phone call not an email. On 12/16/24 at 2:11 PM, Surveyor interviewed LPN D. Surveyor asked LPN D to talk about R1's stay at the facility. LPN D stated, I knew that R1 was a new admission, but she had been her on a prior stay. I completed tasks on R1 at midnight and 4:00 AM. I knew she was not in great shape. I found her unresponsive after 6:00 AM and I had last seen her at 4:00 AM when I completed the tasks. When I found R1 unresponsive I went and got the Supervisor, LPN K. As I was talking with LPN K, DON B came in and that was about 6:20 AM - 6:30 AM. Tasks that I completed at midnight and 4:00 AM were O2 and communication. Surveyor asked LPN D if he completed lung assessments/listened to lung sounds during the midnight and 4:00 AM tasks. LPN D stated, I didn't do any lung sounds until I found her unresponsive. Surveyor then asked LPN D about charting that indicates that R1's lungs were clean at midnight and 4:00 AM. LPN D stated, if I charted lungs were clear then I must have listened but can't be sure. At the end of the shift when R1 was found unresponsive I did a more extensive assessment. On 12/16/24 at 3:00 PM, Surveyor interviewed NP F (Nurse Practitioner). Surveyor asked NP F if she was notified of R1's change of condition. NP F stated, I was notified via email on the evening of 11/22/24 but I didn't respond to that email until 11/24/24. Surveyor asked NP F if a call should have been made to update her or the physician of R1's change of condition. NP F stated, the on-call physician should have been notified but I am not aware they were contacted either. On 12/16/24 at 3:15 PM, Surveyor interviewed RN G. Surveyor asked RN G process for finding a resident with low O2 saturation. RN G stated, probably start oxygen, completed a respiratory assessment, and notify the physician. We use INTERACT tool for our SOP (standard of practice) for notification of change of condition. On 12/16/24 at 3:25 PM, Surveyor interviewed LPN H. Surveyor asked LPN H what facility process is for change of condition. LPN H stated, notify the physician, document findings and physician orders, and notify the supervisor. On 12/16/24 at 3:30 PM, Surveyor interviewed LPN I. Surveyor asked LPN I what facility process is for change of condition. LPN I stated, take a full set of vital signs, call physician and notified of change of condition. Document the findings and any new orders and notify the supervisor or on-call nurse. The facility failed to update the physician with R1's change of condition. R1's pulse had dropped below 50 and R1's O2 saturation was below 90%. According to INTERACT change of condition reporting tool both findings required an immediate notification to the MD/NP/PA.
Nov 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

Accident Prevention (Tag F0689)

Someone could have died · This affected 1 resident

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

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility did not ensure that each resident received adequate supervision to prevent accidents for 1 of 3 residents reviewed for needing assistance or supervision with meals. On 10/13/24, R1 was in the dining room for her supper meal. R1 was attempting to eat soup and spilled the soup onto herself causing 2nd degree burns to her right arm and abdomen. R1 required supervision during meals; supervision and assistance were not provided. Soup temperature following R1 suffering burns and after meal service was 177 degrees. The facility's failure to provide adequate supervision and assistance during meals and the failure to ensure foods and fluids were served at a temperature that would not cause burns created a finding of immediate jeopardy which began on 10/13/24. Nursing Home Administrator (NHA) A was notified of the immediate jeopardy on 10/30/24 at 9:30 AM. The immediate jeopardy was removed on 10/30/24; however, the deficient practice continues at a scope/severity of E (Pattern/Potential for Harm) as the deficient practice has the potential to affect 20 residents that need assistance with meals while the facility implements its removal plan. Evidenced by: The facility policy titled Hot/Liquid Food Management dated 1/2024, states, in part: Policy: It is the policy of this facility to manage resident consumption of hot liquids in order to prevent burns or serious injury. Procedure: 1. A Hot Food / Liquid Assessment will be performed upon admission, quarterly and with a resident significant change in condition by a facility clinical leader, and if needed in collaboration with Occupational Therapy. 4. Residents identified through the assessment process as at risk for injury related to exposure to hot liquids shall not be left unsupervised during meal service while pending completion of evaluation. 5. Intervention selections will be communicated with nursing, dietary staff, activity staff and updated on resident plan of care. 6. Residents identified as at risk will have selections listed on diet card in addition to an indicator Hot Spill Risk to alert staff during delivery of meal is at high risk for burn injury. 7. The individual resident care plan will reflect resident specific risk factors and appropriate interventions to assist in preventing burn injuries. 8. The dietary department will monitor hot food/beverage temperatures on the tray line on a daily basis to ensure appropriate temperatures are maintained. Subject: Identify Resident at risk for burns caused by hot liquids. Purpose: To reduce the risk of Residents burns related to hot beverages, liquids and foods, and to provide guidance on re-heating resident foods and/or liquids as well as provide guidance on steps to take if a burn occurs. Standard of Practice: - Hot liquids are not to be served at a temperature greater than 135 degrees F (Fahrenheit), unless care plan has specific identified alternatives. - Clothing protectors or cloth napkins will be available and offered to all residents during mealtime or when Hot Liquids or foods are served. - Dining room service will be supervised. - Resident at high risk will require 1 to 1 supervision. Procedure: 3. Maximum temperature at point of service should not exceed 135 degrees. 5. Residents who have liquid spills will receive lids with sippy openings and a clothing protector or cloth napkin as a temporary intervention until evaluated by Occupational Therapy. All hot liquids will be placed in insulated mugs with lids including soups. Care plan and diet cards will be updated as needed. The table below, from the State Operations Manual, shows the estimated time for a person to receive third degree burns at various temperatures. 155°F/68°C - 1 second 148°F/64°C - 2 seconds 140°F/60°C - 5 seconds 133°F/56°C - 15 seconds 127°F/52°C - 1 minute 124°F/51°C - 3 minutes 120°F/48°C - 5 minutes R1 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and has diagnoses that include in part: cerebral infarction, aphasia, weakness, dysphagia, diabetes mellitus type 2, traumatic hemorrhage of left cerebrum, and hemiplegia and hemiparesis affecting right dominant side. R1's Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) Assessment, dated 8/10/24, staff assessment of R1's cognitive status indicates R1 is moderately impaired with short- and long-term memory. Section GG shows that R1 has impairment to one side of upper and lower extremity. R1 has a mechanically altered diet needing supervision/touch assistance. R1's care plan states, in part: Problem: Problem Start Date: 11/27/22. Category: Nutritional Status Hot food/liquid assessment. Approach Start Date: 11/27/22. At risk-Encourage clothing protector or cloth napkin over the lap and chest when consuming hot food/liquids, cup with lid, inner lip plate, consume all hot liquids/food at table. Problem: Problem Start Date: 8/30/22. Category: ADLs (activities of daily living) Functional Status/Rehabilitation Potential Alteration in ADLs-self care deficit r/t (related to) Resident's participation and functioning level does vary/fluctuate. Approach Start Date: 10/25/24. Place all soups in coffee mugs. Approach Start Date: 11/17/22. Status of eating ability: Assist of 1 when she allows, refuses assistance often. Eats with her hands/fingers, refuses silverware often. Problem: Problem Start Date: 2/9/22. Category: Nutritional Status R1 is at Nutritional / Hydration risk d/t PMH (past medical history) of cerebral infarct w/ (with) l (left) side hemiplegia, dysphagia, aphasia, malnutrition, DM (diabetes mellitus), hyperkalemia, AKF (acute kidney failure). Approach Start Date: 2/9/22. Assist with meals as needed. Refuses assistance often, eats with her fingers and hands. Refuses silverware often. Approach Start Date: 2/9/22. Diet: Regular with chopped textures and thin liquids. Plate guard for all meals. Cut solid foods into bite sized pieces to discourage impulsively large bites. Receives lidded cups with all meals to prevent spilling. Staff provide PRN (as needed) assistance with meals. The facility document titled, Hot Food/Liquid Assessment, dated 8/18/24, states in part: Type of Assessment: Quarterly. Clinical Risk Review: Yes is answered for the following questions . does the resident have poor hand control; does resident have dementia, impaired cognition, or confusion; does resident have dx (diagnosis) of Parkinson's, CVA (cerebral vascular accident), multiple sclerosis, seizure disorder, left sided or right sided weakness; does resident have frequent impulsive acts/short tempered or behavior concerns; does resident have contractures to hands/fingers/elbows present; does the resident have any history of accident/injury with the use of hot liquids or foods. If any of the questions are answered with a Yes, STOP! The resident is considered to be high risk for possible management of hot foods or fluids that could place them at risk for injury. Select all appropriate intervention(s) that will reduce the resident risk. Resident's preferences are to be taken into consideration with selections. Those marked as interventions include . cup with lid, cup ½ (half) full, consume hot liquids/food while sitting at table only, clothing protector or cloth napkin over lap & (and) chest, scoop plate, staff to provide assistance with meal with hot foods or liquids. On 10/29/24, at approximately 8:45 a.m., Surveyor reviewed R1's meal ticket that is placed on the resident's tray when meal is sent out to be served. Meal ticket indicates R1 needs PRN assist with meals. Lids with beverages. Regular, Chop. Preferences: Cut up food into bite-sized pieces; Coffee, Juice; Cup with lid (1 each); Inner lip plate (1 each). Of note: Surveyor observed R1 during breakfast and lunch on 10/29/24. R1 was noted to not have cups with a lid or an inner lip plate during either meal service. Nurses Note from 10/13/24 at 6:08 PM, states, Resident was eating in the dining room and this writer heard uncomfortable screaming. Immediately went to dining room where resident was screaming. Observed soup all over resident's lap on right side, observed inflammation and redness to right arm. Asked resident if she spilt her soup and she said yes. Took resident to her room for further skin assessment and removal of clothing. Observable blisters and fluid form. Resident screaming in pain, grabbing at right arm. Cold compress immediately applied to areas. On call MD (medical doctor), and POA (power of attorney) was called and wanted her to go to the ER (emergency room). DON (director of nursing) notified of event. Hospital ER note from 10/13/24, states in part, Significant 2nd degree burns, recommended consult with burn center. ER was unable to clear answer if the facility could manage the wounds so the burn center accepted her for transfer. Wounds covered with saran wrap, oxy (pain medication) given, IV (intravenous) bolus of 500 mL (milliliters), tetanus update, and basic blood work. Transferred to [hospital name] burn unit. IDT note from 10/14/24 at 12:06 PM, states, Resident obtained burns to right hand/forearm and abdomen on 10/13/24 at approximately 1705 (5:05 PM). Resident was sitting in the dining room for dinner, and spilled soup onto self. Redness and fluid filled blisters noted to area immediately following. Wound edges irregular. No bleeding or drainage noted. Cool compress immediately applied to area. Resident sent to ER for evaluation. New orders received from OT to assess self-feeding upon return to facility. R1 returned to the facility on [DATE] with wound orders for . Bacitracin, cuticerin, and gauze, change daily, apply derma fit to right arm and hand. Hospital Discharge Summary from 10/15/24 at 0651 (6:51 AM), states in part, Primary Discharge Diagnosis: Burn to abdomen and arms. Presenting Problem/History of Present Illness: Per admission H&P (history and physical), she was eating hot soup and spilled it on herself at dinner today, which was reported per staff. Patient was crying due to pain and developed some blisters on her right abdomen and right forearm. Per the facility she spilled 170 degree soup on herself and sustained 2nd degree burns to the right hand and righ [sic] side of abdomen with blistering. On exam patient is non-verbal and can acknowledge simple questions but not oriented to place or time. She appears non toxic and comfortable. [NAME]-[NAME] Burn Calculation: Total 2nd degree burns 3. TBSA (total body surface area) % burned (2nd) 3. The patient was admitted to the burn unit on 10/13/24 following her burn. She was started on multimodal pain control, a high protein, high calorie diet, bowel regimen, and DVT (deep vein thrombosis) prophylaxis. Initial wound cares and cleansing were completed which the patient tolerated well with appropriate IV (intravenous) and oral analgesia. Wound cares at her facility were arranged and she was discharged on 10/15 with scheduled follow up in Burn Clinic. Nurse's note from 10/15/24 at 5:35 PM, states in part, Returned to facility via ambulance at 1540 (3:40 PM). BP (blood pressure) 122/79, P (pulse) 82, R (respirations) 18, O2 sat (saturation) 97% (percent) on room air. Dressing and abdominal binder to right arm/hand and abdomen remain in place per orders. No drainage noted. Resident displayed no signs/symptoms of pain/discomfort. Resident currently resting in bed, no behaviors noted. Nurse's note from 10/15/24 at 6:54 PM, (recorded as a late entry on 10/16/24 at 7:00 PM), states in part, Resident re-admits [Hospital Name] with primary diagnoses of scald burn to right arm and right abdomen. She has comorbidities which include the following: stage 3 CKD (chronic kidney disease), atrial fibrillation with RVR (rapid ventricular rate), anxiety with agitation, type 2 diabetes mellitus, cerebrovascular accident, hypothyroidism, and hypertension. She is alert and oriented x (times) 1. Dressing put in place by wound care and are to remain in place until follow up appointment on 10/21/24. Current dressing is Mepilex AG (antimicrobial foam dressing that absorbs exudate and maintains a moist wound) - wound care instructions listed if dressing becomes soiled. She was given a prescription for oxycodone for pain if needed. She continues to be assist of 2 with hoyer lift for all transfers. She continues with a regular diet, chopped up foods. Wound Physician Notes from 10/23/24 state in part, Chief Complaint: Patient present with wound on her right arm; right lower abdomen, left lower abdomen. Additional System: Spilled soup on abdomen and R (right) arm 10/13/24 resulting in burn wounds 10/23/24 cellulitis to Rt (right) arm. Rec (recommend) Keflex 500 mg BID x1 week. Focused Wound Exam (Site1). Burn Wound of the Right Arm Full Thickness. Wound Size: 10 x 5.5 x 0.1 cm (centimeters). Exudate: Moderate serous (clear, thin, watery fluid). Slough: 70%. Slough (a yellow, white, or tan, stringy, or thick material) 10%. Dressing Treatment plan: Primary Dressing(s): Santyl apply once daily for 30 days; Xeroform gauze apply once daily for 30 days. Secondary Dressing(s): ABD (abdominal) pad apply once daily for 30 days; Gauze roll (stretch) 4 (inch) apply once daily for 30 days; Tape (retention) apply once daily for 30 days. Recommendations: Cleanse with saline at time of dressing change; Off-Load Wound; Antibiotic Choice: Keflex 500 mg bid x 1 week for cellulitis. Focused Wound Exam (Site 3). Burn Wound of the Right, Lower Abdomen Partial Thickness. Wound Size: 8 x 6.1 x Not Measurable cm. Exudate: None. Other viable tissue: 70% (Dermis). Primary Dressing: [NAME] sulfadiazine apply once daily for 30 days: Okay not to cover with secondary dressing. Patient allergic to adhesive tape. Nurse's note from 10/23/24 states, Cephalexin 500 mg (milligrams) BID (twice a day) for 1 week for cellulitis to the right arm. Wound orders from 10/24/24, state in part, Treatment to right arm burn. Area measures: 18 cm (centimeters) x 5.5 cm x 0.1 cm. Dressing: Santyl to wound bed. Cover with Xeroform (non-adherent primary dressing) and ABD (abdominal gauze pad). Secure with Kerlix (sterile gauze) and change daily. On 10/29/24 at 12:30 PM, Surveyor observed Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON) G complete wound care of R1's right arm as the abdomen is healed at this time. Wound care was completed, glove changes, and hand washing and sanitizing were appropriate. Surveyor then observed ADON G put on ordered Santyl directly into her gloved hand and applied it directly from her gloved hand to R1's wound bed. On 10/29/24 at 9:30 AM, Surveyor interviewed Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) D. Surveyor asked LPN D to describe the details of the incident with R1 on 10/13/24. LPN D stated the incident happened on Sunday during the supper meal. I was at the nurses' station charting when I heard R1 yelling. When I went to the dining room R1 was holding her arm and I noted that her arm was wet. I scanned the table area and only saw an empty cup of grape juice so initially thought that is what R1 had spilled. I took R1 to her room to assess her and found remnants of soup. R1's arm was red, and blisters formed shortly after. Another LPN came into to assist me, and I sent her down to take the temp of the soup R1 was served. LPN D then went down and observed kitchen staff take the temperature of soup which was noted to be 177 degrees Fahrenheit at that time. I updated the MD. The Certified Nursing Assistants (CNAs) assisted with getting R1's clothes off and into bed. We immediately placed cold washcloths to areas on the arm and abdomen. R1's POA was updated and was ok with sending her in. Surveyor asked LPN D if LPN D remembers seeing anyone in the dining room. LPN D stated, I did not see anyone in the dining room. R1 did need feeding assistance. The process changed following incident to have someone with her during meals. R1 also developed cellulitis after returning to the facility and currently is on an antibiotic. Hospital called after R1 was sent out to ask if we could complete the dressing changes. LPN D indicated she called the DON and she said we could do the dressing changes, so I called the hospital back and let them know. R1 did not come back though and ended up in the burn unit in [city name]. R1 is currently receiving daily dressing changes. Surveyor asked LPN D if she remembers seeing R1 wearing any clothing protector or napkins when she entered the dining room. LPN D stated, R1 did not have clothing protector on when I went into the dining room and R1 is not able to remove them on her own. On 10/29/24 at 11:35 AM, Surveyor interviewed LPN E. Surveyor asked LPN E what she remembers from the incident that happened with R1 on 10/13/24. LPN E stated, LPN D asked if I could come help. R1's arm was quite burned, and cold compresses were applied. The burn was around her thumb and wrist then up the arm/mid arm, a couple of inches above the wrist and a couple of inches below the elbow, as well as the right groin. The areas blistered quickly. I walked away to get washcloths and when I came back the blisters had already formed. Surveyor asked LPN E if she was asked by LPN D to go to the kitchen. LPN E stated, LPN D had asked me to go to the kitchen and have the kitchen staff temp the soup while I watched, which I did, and the soup temperature was 177 degrees. I reported the temperature of the soup to LPN D and she documented it. Surveyor asked LPN E who serves the meals in the dining room. LPN E stated, the kitchen staff gets the trays ready and whoever is assigned to the dining room takes the trays to the residents. Kitchen staff do not serve meals that I am aware of. On 10/29/24 at 1:05 PM, Surveyor interviewed CNA F. Surveyor asked CNA F what type of assistance R1 required in the dining room. CNA F stated, R1 needs help with setup and clothing protector because she spills a lot. Surveyor asked CNA F if she was in the dining room when incident occurred. CNA F stated, I may have been in the dining room, but I think we were done passing trays. I was on the 100 wing that day and we didn't have any residents that were dependent for meal assistance. On 10/29/24 at 1:15 PM, Surveyor interviewed CNA J. Surveyor asked CNA J what the fork and knife the fork and knife next to a person's name on the staff schedules indicate. CNA J stated, means you are to go the dining room and pass trays but can switch with person you are working with. Those that need supervision or assist are fed last or someone will stop passing trays and sit and assist. R1 can feed herself but needs supervision after setup. As far as I know R1 was able to use left hand for anything she needed. On 10/29/24 at 11:45 AM, Surveyor interviewed CNA H. Surveyor asked CNA H if she was in the dining room at the time of R1's incident on 10/13/24. CNA H stated, I was not in the dining room when R1 got burned. I was helping another resident, and I went down the hall to ask where R1 was. When I got down the hall EMS (emergency medical services) were already here and I helped get R1 on the cot, but that was all. Surveyor asked CNA H if she saw R1's burns. CNA H stated, I saw the burn on the lower part of her arm by the wrist. The skin was peeling and blistered. Surveyor asked CNA H what type of assistance R1 required during meals. CNA H stated, R1 was encouragement assistance at the time from what I was aware. The CNA care plan in Matrix and in the binder is where that information is located. Since this incident though the binder has gone away and we are to only use the care plan in Matrix. Surveyor asked CNA H what the fork and knife next to your name on the schedule means. CNA H stated the fork and knife on the schedule means you are responsible for the dining room and to be serving trays. I was not in the dining room though; I had asked CNA I and LPN D to assist in the dining room while I assisted another resident. On 10/29/24 at 12:00 PM, Surveyor interviewed CNA I. Surveyor asked CNA I what she remembers from the incident on 10/13/24. CNA I stated, I was passing trays in the dining room. I can't remember who gave R1 her tray. Usually, R1 required supervision. R1 would eat on her own once given a tray. Surveyor asked CNA I if she knew what supervision R1 required. CNA I stated, I am unsure what supervision is required. R1 sits at an assist table for that and her ailments I would assume. Surveyor asked CNA I if she knows how or who serves the trays to residents that require assistance or supervision. CNA I stated, I am not sure how trays are served to the residents at the assist table. Surveyor asked CNA I if she assisted LPN D. CNA I stated, LPN D told me she heard R1 scream which I don't recall hearing. LPN D came into the dining room asking for my help. Surveyor asked CNA I if she saw LPN D come into the dining room to get R1. CNA I stated, I did not see LPN D come get R1 from dining room. When I went to assist LPN D, R1 was covered in soup. We transferred R1 to the bed to get her clothes off so that LPN D could assess her skin. R1's skin was peeling, red, and you could see the burn. The areas did not blister right away but within 10-15 minutes noted blistering. Cold washcloths were applied to the burned areas. Surveyor asked CNA I if she remembered seeing any other staff in the dining room. CNA I stated, I don't remember any other staff in the dining room. Of note: Nursing and CNA staff schedules have knife/fork next to names. Surveyor asked what that meant and was told by staff that those people are responsible for the dining room (serving, assist and supervision). During interviews staff indicate they are not always the ones that go to the dining room if they are busy. On 10/29/24 at 3:35 PM, Surveyor interviewed Director of Nursing (DON) B, Regional Nurse Consultant (RNC) C and Nursing Home Administrator (NHA) A. Surveyor asked what supervision means in relation to residents needing supervision during meals. DON B stated, in the dining room where staff can see her, but they do not have to be sitting with her. Surveyor asked how you ensure residents are safe with their hot liquids and foods, when they have been identified at risk. DON B stated clothing protector on times two and cups with lids. Surveyor asked what happens if a resident will not keep lid on cups. DON B stated, we would encourage them to keep the lid on and ask if we could cool the liquid down. If still refusing to keep lid on would expect staff still sit with them. Surveyor asked what the fork and knife meant on the staffing schedule. DON B stated the staff are to be in the dining room. Surveyor asked DON B if schedule is accurate for this. DON B stated, it is not changed on the schedule if someone else goes in the dining room for someone else that is busy, so the schedule is not accurate, and this happens frequently. On 10/29/24 at 8:50 AM, Surveyor observed R1 being served her meal. Staff set up R1's meal and sat with R1. R1 was served French toast sticks, sausage, and juice in a disposable small cup. R1 was eating her food using her left hand to pick up food. Of note: R1 was not served coffee even though it was a preference on her meal ticket. No cups with lids were observed during breakfast and lunch meal observation. On 10/29/24 at 11:45 AM, Surveyor observed [NAME] K taking food temperatures after the foods were put into the steamtable. The temperatures were as follows: Roast beef - 181 degrees Mixed vegetables - 207 degrees Pureed meat - 204 degrees Gravy - 202 degrees Ground meat - 180 degrees Mashed potatoes with gravy - 186 degrees On 10/29/24 at 11:58 AM, Surveyor interviewed [NAME] L. Surveyor asked [NAME] L what a safe serving temperature was. [NAME] L stated food was to be served at 180 degrees or below; that is a safe serving temperature. Surveyor asked [NAME] L if he was aware of R1's incident of being burned after spilling soup on herself. [NAME] L stated he was the [NAME] for that evening meal. [NAME] L stated he plated the meal service and nursing staff served the residents. Surveyor asked [NAME] L if any changes were made after the incident or if [NAME] L was educated after the incident. [NAME] L stated he was not educated to make any changes; he talked through the incident with the manager and was told everything was fine. On 10/29/24 at 12:50 PM, Surveyor observed R1 being served her meal. Staff set up R1's meal and left R1 to eat independently with a staff member sitting across the table from R1 assisting R3. R1 was served roast beef, mashed potatoes, mixed vegetables, cream pie, and juice in a disposable small cup. R1 was eating her food using her left hand to scoop the food up and into her mouth. Of note: R1 was not served coffee even though it was a preference on her meal ticket. No cups with lids were observed during meal service. On 10/29/24 at 1:00 PM, Surveyor received a test tray. Test tray temperatures were as follows: Roast beef - 140 degrees, palatable Mashed potatoes with gravy - 160 degrees, very hot to taste, burning Surveyor's tongue Mixed vegetables - 133 degrees, palatable Milk - 55 degrees, palatable On 10/29/24 at 1:10 PM, Surveyor interviewed Dietary Manager (DM) M. Surveyor asked DM M what his credentials were to be a Dietary Manager. DM M stated he was going through the CDM (Certified Dietary Manager) course. DM M stated he has a Corporate Dietician who he can consult with. Surveyor asked DM M when he would expect food temperatures to be taken. DM M stated the cook staff are to take temperatures at the steam table just before meal service begins. DM M stated this is a new policy since R1's incident of spilling soup. Surveyor asked for proof of education for other staff and was not provided the education. On 10/29/24 at 1:20 PM, Surveyor asked [NAME] K when she is to take hot food temperatures. [NAME] K stated she takes hot food temperatures when she removes the food items from the oven. Surveyor asked [NAME] K if she was ever educated to take hot food temperatures from the steam table just prior to meal service. [NAME] K stated no. DM M stated [NAME] K had been on vacation and had not yet been educated. Surveyor asked DM M to review the Daily Food Temperature Log for tray line. The log showed the following, in part: 10/13/24 - Dinner: Soup - 178 (degrees) Starch/gravy - 186 (degrees) Vegetable - 189 (degrees) Ground Meat - 182 (degrees) Puree Meat - 177 (degrees) Puree Vegetable - 181 (degrees) Coffee/Tea - 182 (degrees) 10/19/24 -Breakfast: Hot Cereal - 203 (degrees) Entrée - 153 (degrees) Sausage/Puree - 203 (degrees) Puree Entrée - 173 (degrees) Coffee - 171 (degrees) Surveyor asked DM M if these hot food item temperatures were taken when the foods were removed from the oven or at the steam table prior to service. DM M stated he was not sure. Surveyor asked DM M what safe serving temperatures of food was. DM M stated safe serving temperatures were 180 degrees and below for hot foods. Surveyor asked DM M what, if any, changes were made for residents who receive hot food and liquids and were at risk for spilling. DM M stated residents who are at risk are provided lids on cups and bowls. Surveyor asked DM M if R1 was provided lids on her cups and bowls. DM M stated yes, R1 is provided lids on her cups and bowls. DM M stated he does beverage pass before breakfast on days he is working. DM M stated he provides R1 with hot coffee in a covered cup. DM M stated R1 will remove the lid and drink the coffee. DM M stated he tells R1 she should leave the lid on the cup, but R1 still removes the lid. DM M stated he does not stay with R1 when she is drinking her coffee; there are staff in the dining room, and they keep an eye on her. The facility's failure to provide adequate supervision and assistance during meals and the failure to ensure foods and fluids were served at a temperature that would not cause burns created a reasonable liklelihood fore serious injury thus leading to a finding of immediate jeopardy. The facility removed the immediacy on 10/30/24 when they implemented the following: - All residents have been assessed and care plans have been updated to the level of supervision during meals (1:1, direct, or indirect). - Temperatures have been taken in the kitchen every 15 minutes on the serving steam table tray line due to a need for a part replacement. Part replacement occurred 11/1/24 prior to service. - Test trays are done at the point of service for all residents in the dining room and one on each hall tray carts to be checked prior to beginning of service to verify food temp is 135-150 degrees. - Residents that have a risk of hot liquid injury have cups with lids that snap on and are more difficult to remove and also have staff supervision per their care plan approach as agreed upon by IDT and therapy. - Starting 10/30/24, dietary staff have had direct supervision at meals and assist taking temperatures of foods prior to service. - Dietary staff is being educated on the correct temperatures of service of food to be between 135-150 degrees at the point of service to the residents. - Policies have been changed to reflect this change. - Nursing staff is being educated on the definition of supervision that is expected in the dining room with the residents that require supervision. This is being audited at every meal to monitor compliance with every meal that residents at risk are having the correct level of supervision that is required to maintain safety with hot liquids/foods. - Maintenance checked the steam table and parts were ordered and expedited. Replaced on 11/1/24 prior to the start of service. - Facility will continue with weekly checks of the steam table for proper function. Due to faulty parts the temps on the food in the steam table were checked every 15 minutes to maintain safe temps. - QAPI meeting held related to PIP started in relation to the changes that need to be completed. This was held on 10/30/24 at 1700. - Staff education started with temperature changes in the dietary dept started at 1700 on 10/30/24. - Education to nursing staff related to the definition of supervision: 1:1, direct, and direct, started on 10/30/24 at 1700. - Care plans related to the level of supervision that is required for residents at risk with hot liquids updated and educated to nursing staff starting at 1700 on 10/30/24. - All education is ongoing with this being completed prior to the start of the next working shift. - Both tray audits and the supervision audits are being completed at all 3 meals 7 days per week to maintain the safe environment for the residents at meal time. - 10/31/24, resident council meeting held for the update of the residents to the recent changes and the updates to dining service. - At this time all staff that have worked in the facility have been educated to the changes in policy and the level of supervision that is to be provided in the dining room at all meals.
Jul 2024 1 deficiency
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Investigate Abuse (Tag F0610)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

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

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 all incidents involving potential abuse were thoroughly investigated for 1 of 4 residents (R) 6. R6 swung arm out and hit R5 in the chest as R5 came by in R5's wheelchair. Facility did not interview other residents in the facility for potential abuse. Findings include: The facility's Abuse Prevention Program Policy and Procedure, revised 06/2023, states: Intent: Each resident has the right to be free from abuse, neglect, and corporal punishment of any type by staff or anyone. The facility will provide a safe resident environment and protect residents from abuse. Resident-to-Resident Abuse A resident-to-resident altercation should be reviewed as a potential situation of abuse. The facility Administrator and/or Director of Nursing will initiate an investigation of a potential allegation of abuse between residents. V. Investigation: 1. The Administer and/or Director of Nursing are to initiate and coordinate completion of a thorough investigation. The investigation must include but not limited to: Identify and interview (witness statements) all involved persons, including the alleged victim, alleged perpetrator, witnesses, and others who might have knowledge of the allegation(s) such as roommate. Findings include: On 07/24/24 at 10:10 a.m., Surveyor reviewed R6's record. Documentation on 07/05/24 at 2:54 p.m., R6 was propelling self in the wheelchair, yelling out Where is my mother, and Find me my mother. R6 was redirected by staff and given a scheduled medication. R6 continued to propel self in wheelchair. R5 wheeled by R6 in R5's wheelchair. R6 became upset and slapped R5 on the left side of R5's chest with an open hand. Incident was witnessed by staff and R5 and R6 were immediately separated. R6 was offered alternative activities, which R6 declined. Staff attempted 1:1 with R6, which increased agitation. R6 was sitting in facility entrance out of reach of other residents. R6 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including unspecified dementia-moderate mood disturbances, visual hallucinations, and wandering in -diseases classified elsewhere-nighttime. R6's Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] documents R6's Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score is 2 out of 15, which indicates severe cognitive impairment. R6 is independent after set-up with eating, requires partial/moderate assistance with toilet hygiene, shower/bathe, dressing, is independent with rolling left to right in bed, supervision or touch assist with sit to lying, sit to stand, chair-bed-chair, toilet transfer, tub/shower transfer, walking 10 feet, and uses manual wheelchair. Facility documentation states investigation immediately started after incident. The residents were separated. R6 was placed on 1:1 supervision until 07/06/24, then facility had R6 within eyesight of staff when R6 was out of R6's room. Facility notified the police. Facility notified R6's representative and physician, and R6's care plan was updated. Behavioral health saw R6 and ordered changes in medications. Facility interviewed staff present during the altercation between R5 and R6. Facility interviewed R5 and R6, but neither resident remembered the incident. On 07/24/24 at 1:24 p.m., Surveyor interviewed Nursing Home Administrator (NHA) A about the incident of R6 hitting R5 and asked how all the staff were informed of the supervision requirement for R6. NHA A stated staff was informed through shift reports, and abuse in-service was conducted for all staff. Surveyor asked NHA A why the facility did not conduct other resident interviews to determine if abuse had occurred to others. NHA A stated the incident was discussed with the facility regional director and because it was an isolated incident and only involved R5 and R6, it was deemed not necessary to conduct further interviews. On 07/24/24 at 1:45 p.m., Surveyor interviewed Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON) G and asked why the facility did not conduct any other resident interviews. ADON G stated it was felt they were not necessary because it only involved R5 and R6.
Feb 2024 9 deficiencies
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0645 (Tag F0645)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility did not complete the required Preadmission Screen and Resident Review (PASRR)...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility did not complete the required Preadmission Screen and Resident Review (PASRR) screens for 1 of 2 residents reviewed, (R18). This is evidenced by: The facility policy, entitled Resident Assessment PASRR Requirements, dated 11/28/17, states: .To ensure each resident in a nursing facility is screened for a mental disorder (MD) or intellectual disability (ID) prior to admission and that individuals identified with MD or ID are evaluated and receive care and services in the most integrated setting appropriate to their needs .If the resident meets criteria for a level II review (mental illness, developmental disability, antipsychotic medication use, or any state requirements), the Level II request must be submitted to the State assigned entity for decision of placement prior to admission .Significant change in condition Level I requests must be completed and submitted to the State entity when a resident has a change in their mental health status, antipsychotic medications and possibly their behaviors . R18 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and had diagnoses that included in part major depressive disorder and unspecified dementia, mild with agitation. R18's PASRR Level I Screen, dated 08/13/19: .Section A: Questions regarding mental illness: the box for current diagnosis was checked Yes. If you have answered Yes to any of the questions in section A, proceed to section B. Section B: Short term exemptions did not have any boxes checked. Section C: Questions pertinent for an abbreviated Level II screen did not have any boxes checked. Section D: Referring a person for a level II screen. If you answered Yes to any question in section A and No to all the exemptions listed in sections B, follow these instructions: Contact the PASRR Contractor to notify them that the person is being considered for admission .The PASRR Contractor will perform a Level II Screen . The front page of the PASRR Level I Screen for R18 stated, .Check one of the boxes below based on the responses to the questions in Section A of this form: The box checked stated, The resident is not suspected of having a serious mental illness or a developmental disability . Based on R18's diagnosis upon admission, a Level II screen should have been completed. R18's Care Plan, dated 04/14/21, states: .Resident receives antipsychotic medication related to major depressive disorder. Dated 03/22/21, states: Resident displays physical/verbal behavioral symptoms that impact resident by putting them at risk of physical illness or injury / interferes with resident's care / interferes with participation in activities or social interaction and impact other by placing them at risk . R18's Provider Orders: Depakote ER (divalproex) twice a day for physical aggression due to dementia, started 01/05/2023. Mirtazapine once a day for anxiety with depression, started 01/05/2023. Quetiapine once a day for delusions and aggression in dementia, started 10/11/2023. Seroquel (quetiapine) daily at bedtime for delusions and aggression in dementia, started 01/05/2023. Increased supervision provided for resident safety; every 4 Hours, started 05/12/2023. May be treated by house Psychiatrist as needed, started 01/05/2023. Monitor resident for behaviors: yelling, hitting, and throwing things. Chart in progress note every shift, started 05/08/2023. On 02/21/24 at 4:28 PM, Surveyor had asked Nursing Home Administrator (NHA) A for R18's PASRR level II. NHA A provided information that the level II should have been completed when R18 was admitted . NHA A said because it was not completed, they sent the information in today to update and complete the PASRR level II for R18. On 02/22/24 at 7:42 AM, Surveyor interviewed Regional Clinical Director (RCD) C about R18's PASRR. RCD C said in early February this year, they did a performance improvement plan (PIP) on PASRRs as PASRR IIs were not completed throughout the facility. Surveyor asked why R18 did not have a PASRR level II completed upon admit or recently when found during the PIP. RCD C said she does not know why R18 did not have the PASRR II completed. Surveyor asked RCD C if R18 should have had a PASRR II completed due to R18's history. RCD C said yes, R18 should have had a PASRR II completed.
CONCERN (D)

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

Comprehensive Care Plan (Tag F0656)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Example 3 R7 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and had diagnoses that included in part acute on chronic respiratory failure...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Example 3 R7 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and had diagnoses that included in part acute on chronic respiratory failure with hypoxia with oxygen use, COVID, sepsis due to Hemophilus influenza, pulmonary hypertension, sleep apnea, CHF, atrial fibrillation, diabetes, urinary retention, general anxiety disorder, and depression. R7's provider orders current as of 02/22/24 included: ipratropium-albuterol solution for nebulization twice a day started 01/26/24 and as needed (PRN) started 12/20/23, clean Aerobika once per week started 12/20/23, continuous oxygen use 2 liters per minute (LPM) at rest with nasal cannula and 3 LPM with activity started 12/20/23, BIPAP while resting in bed as needed started 12/20/23, Bumetanide twice a day started 12/20/23, furosemide twice a day started 02/16/24, resident is on a 2 liter fluid restriction started 12/20/23, Eliquis twice a day started 12/20/23, blood sugar checks four times a day started 12/20/23, insulin lispro three times a day started 12/20/23, Lantus insulin at bedtime started 12/20/23, venlafaxine once a day started 12/21/23. R7 did not have an order for a urinary catheter. R7's care plan did not include information for respiratory, cardiovascular, anticoagulant use, diabetes, urinary catheter, nor depression. On 02/19/24 at 11:38 AM, Surveyor observed R7 to have a urinary catheter and current use of oxygen via nasal cannula. On R7's side tables a BIPAP machine, nebulizer and Aerobika were present. Surveyor asked R7 if she used the BIPAP machine, nebulizer and Aerobika. R7 said yes. On 02/22/24 at 1:07 PM, Surveyor interviewed Director of Nursing (DON) B and Regional Clinical Director (RCD) C and asked who can update the care plans. DON B said any nurse can update the care plans. RCD C said we look at the care plans during the morning meetings and update if needed. Surveyor explained to both DON B and RCD C that R7 had diagnoses of respiratory, cardiovascular, anticoagulant use, diabetes with insulin, urinary catheter, and depression with antidepressant use with none of this listed in R7's care plan. Surveyor asked DON B and RCD C if this information should be included in R7's care plan. DON B and RCD C said R7 should have these areas listed in their care plan. Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility did not develop comprehensive person centered care plans for 3 of 21 sampled residents. (R1, R30, and R7) This is evidenced by: The facility policy, entitled Resident Assessment Care Plan Development, dated updated on 05/24/2022, states in part: Reflect changes in the residents' preferences and goals as they change throughout their stay .The comprehensive care plan will be developed and maintained .Updates will be made to the comprehensive care plan as needed. Example 1 R1 was admitted to the facility in October 2023 and has diagnoses that include chronic respiratory failure, obstructive sleep apnea, type 2 diabetes mellitus, obesity, and schizophrenia. R1's care plan dated 10/26/23 document, goal resident will be clean/well-groomed daily approaches include. POSSIBLE .EXAMPLES .LIKES TO WEAR JEWELRY, LIKES TO WEAR A HAT, LIKES TO WEAR MAKEUP, LIKES TO WEAR SUSPENDERS LIKES TO HAVE A LAP BLANKET ON WHEN UP. DELETE IF NOT APPLICABLE. Observations of R1 on 02/19/24-02/22/24 revealed that R1 did not wear any of the above listed items. R1's care plan also states Resident prefers to be called .(blank) Resident's bathing choice is .(blank) in the .(blank)Residents sleeping preference is .(blank) Resident does/does not wish to chose their own clothing. Information obtained from ? (blank) Resident's responses will often vary/fluctuate. DELETE IF VARIATION IS NOT APPLICABLE Within R1's plan of care the resident preference items were not developed with R1's individualized preferences. R1's care plan document Status of personal items: Dentures; partials; Hearing aid, AFO, brace, splint. NEED TO BE SPECIFIC ., upper/lower, right/left, arm/leg, etc. On 02/21/24 at 10:00 AM, Surveyor interviewed Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) W. CNA W confirmed R1 does not have hearing aids, dentures, an AFO, brace or splint. R1's care plan is not developed for diabetes mellitus, the care plan does not include resident goals for diabetes management, diabetes foot checks, and signs of hyper/hypoglycemia. R1's care plan mentions schizophrenia. A care plan for schizophrenia is not developed to include what symptoms R1 has and how it is manifested within R1, including any delusions, hallucinations, or disorganized thinking that often accompany this diagnosis. The care plan does not mention any supports or techniques that are needed to improve or decrease symptoms. Example 2 R30 was admitted to the facility in May of 2021 and has diagnoses that include anxiety disorder, unspecified mood [affective] disorder, delusional disorders, agoraphobia. R30's care plan was not developed for resident diagnosis of agoraphobia, anxiety disorder, mood disorder, and delusional disorder. R30's care plan states problem resident refuses to exit of her room under approaches it states to encourage resident to come out of room. The care plan is not developed to list any interventions to help R30 feel safe or specific interventions that can reduce R30's anxiety. The care plan does not describe any delusions, or interventions to help prevent behaviors. On 02/21/24 at 10:00 AM, Surveyor interviewed CNA W. CNA W confirmed R30 does certain things only when certain staff are working, and that R30 is very particular about R30's wants and needs. CNA W stated that R30 always needs to have the curtain shut and things placed just so in R30's room. CNA W stated if you don't know what R30 wants or how R30 wants things, R30 will refuse most cares. These resident specific wants and needs have not been included in R30's plan of care. On 02/22/24 at 11:52 AM, Surveyor interviewed Minimum Data Set coordinator (MDS) X who works on care plans. Surveyor asked MDS X about the development of care plans. MDS X stated that MDS X noticed the Care plans need a lot of work. They are not individualized, not updated, and not organized the way MDS X would like to see them.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0657 (Tag F0657)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interview, the facility did not revise or update resident (R) care plans for 1 of 21 sampled resident...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interview, the facility did not revise or update resident (R) care plans for 1 of 21 sampled residents (R35). This is evidenced by: The facility policy, entitled Resident Assessment Care Plan Development, updated on 05/24/2022, states in part: Reflect changes in the residents' preferences and goals as they change throughout their stay .Updates will be made to the comprehensive care plan as needed. R35 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses including Parkinsonism, adult failure to thrive, and R35 is currently on hospice. R35's care plan lists approaches under activities; including: Visitors: Family window visits. R35's care plan lists goals; including: Will not deteriorate in ability to ambulate AEB: ability to ambulate 50 feet independently with walker. The Short Term Goal Target Date: 05/07/2024 On 02/21/24 at 10:00 AM, Surveyor interviewed Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) W and asked if R35 could walk independently. CNA W confirmed R35 does not have the ability to walk and is transferred with a full body lift. CNA W stated R35 has not been able to ambulate independently for a long time. Surveyor asked about window visits. CNA W stated that must have been from a long time ago too and is no longer in effect. On 02/22/24 at 11:52 AM, Surveyor interviewed Minimum Data Set coordinator (MDS) X who works on care plans. Surveyor asked MDS X about updating care plans. MDS X stated that MDS X noticed the care plans need a lot of work. They are not individualized, not updated, and not organized the way she would like to see them.
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, interview and record review, the facility did not ensure that residents with a pressure injury (PI) or at ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility did not ensure that residents with a pressure injury (PI) or at risk for PIs received necessary treatment and services, frequent repositioning, pressure relieving interventions that are consistent with professional standards of practice, to prevent the development of PIs and to promote healing for 3 of 6 residents (R) reviewed for PIs. (R74, R23, and R25) Findings include: According to the National Pressure Injury Advisory Panel (NPIAP) Prevention and Treatment of Pressure Ulcers/Injuries: Clinical Practice Guideline, 2019, .Reposition all individuals with or at risk of pressure injuries on an individualized schedule, unless contraindicated. Determine repositioning frequency with consideration to the individual's level of activity and ability to independently reposition. Reposition the individual in such a way that optimal offloading of all bony prominences and maximum redistribution of pressure is achieved .Reposition the individual to relieve or redistribute pressure using manual handling techniques and equipment that reduce friction and shear .Stage 2 Pressure Injury: Partial-thickness loss of skin with exposed dermis. The wound bed is viable, pink or red, moist, and may also present as an intact or ruptured serum-filled blister. Adipose (fat) is not visible and deeper tissues are not visible. Granulation tissue, slough and eschar are not present. These injuries commonly result from adverse microclimate and shear in the skin over the pelvis and shear in the heel . Facility policy entitled, Pressure Injury Prevention and Care, last revised 3/2021, stated in part, .Interventions will be implemented, and care planned to prevent pressure injury development or to promote pressure injury resolution .Avoid friction or shearing when assisting resident with transfers .Repositioning of residents; provision of required assistance as allowed and tolerated .Pressure injuries will be assessed and documented upon admission, readmission, upon discovery, and weekly thereafter. Assessment may include the size, location, category/stage, odor (if any), drainage (if any), peri-wound condition, wound edges, undermining, tunneling, exudate, pain, and current treatment order . Example 1 R74 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with the following diagnoses, in part: acute diastolic (congestive) heart failure; acute respiratory failure with hypoxia; weakness; chronic kidney disease, stage 4 (severe); and type 2 diabetes mellitus with hyperglycemia. R74's admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 11/06/23, identified R74 was dependent on staff for toileting, bathing, dressing, personal hygiene, and all transfers. The MDS assessment identified R74 required substantial assistance from staff for rolling from left to right. The MDS assessment also identified R74 was at risk for developing PIs, but R74 had no unhealed PIs at the time of admission to the facility. R74's Braden Scale for prediction of pressure sore risk, dated 10/30/23, identified R74 was high risk for developing a pressure injury. Surveyor noted the following orders on R74's medical record: Order dated 11/08/23, Heel lift boots at all times and offload while in bed. Order dated 12/30/23, Ensure gel foam cushion is in broda chair at all times. Surveyor identified the following care plan on R74's medical record: Problem Start Date: 11/08/2023 Category: Pressure Ulcer/Injury Resident is at risk for skin breakdown. Resident has area of fragile skin noted to L heel. 02/15/24 Hx of open area to right hip. 02/15/24 HX of open area to right hip. Goal: Long Term Goal Target Date: 05/24/2024 Resident's skin will remain intact. Approaches: Approach Start Date: 02/08/2024 Bariatric AP Mattress provided by Hospice Care Team. Approach Start Date: 02/08/2024 Gel foam cushion in broda chair at all times. Approach Start Date: 12/06/2023 Keep clean and dry as possible. Minimize skin exposure to moisture. Approach Start Date: 12/06/2023 Provide incontinence care after each incontinent episode. Approach Start Date: 12/06/2023 Turn and reposition on a regular schedule. Approach Start Date: 12/01/2023 Resident has OA to coccyx & R hip. Treatment in place. Approach Start Date: 11/09/2023 Heel lift boots to bilateral lower extremities while in bed. Approach Start Date: 11/08/2023 Assess resident for presence of risk factors. Treat, reduce, eliminate risk factors to extent possible. Approach Start Date: 11/08/2023 Avoid shearing resident's skin during positioning, transferring, and turning. Approach Start Date: 11/08/2023 Report any signs of skin breakdown (sore, tender, red, or broken areas). Surveyor reviewed R74's medical record and identified the following documentation on Skin Body Assessments: Skin body assessment 12/03/23 Known PI to sacrum and right hip. No new issues seen. Skin body assessment 12/15/23 Known OA [open area] to R [right] hip and fragile areas on bilateral heels. Tx [treatment] in place. Skin body assessment 02/04/24 Wound to buttocks, has treatment/border foam orders in place. Wound to L heel healed, border foam orders in place for protection. On 02/19/24 at 10:37 AM, Surveyor observed R74 had a foam boot on the left heel. Surveyor interviewed R74 and asked if R74 had a wound or sore on the heel. R74 stated they had a sore on the left heel and on their bottom that the nurses were putting bandages on. On 02/20/24 at 7:32 AM, Surveyor interviewed Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) E and asked if R74 had any wounds to the left heel. LPN E stated R74 had a boot for pressure-relief of the left heel when in bed and that will continue. On 02/20/24 from 7:42 AM to 1:31 PM, Surveyor had a continuous observation of R74 sitting up in a Broda chair with no staff offering or encouraging R74 to reposition. There was no cushion noted in the seat of the chair. On 02/20/24 at 12:42 PM, Surveyor interviewed Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON) D and asked about R74's heel and bottom wounds. ADON D stated R74 did not have a pressure-based injury on the bottom. ADON D stated the wound on R74's bottom was more friction-based. ADON D stated they did not usually document assessment and measurements of non-pressure wounds. ADON D also stated R74 was on hospice care and they had their own wound physician who documented assessments of the wounds. ADON D stated the wound on R74's bottom was first identified on 12/21/23. ADON D stated they would provide hospice wound documentation. Surveyor also noted the Skin Body assessment dated [DATE] identified a known PI to sacrum and right hip. On 02/21/24 at 6:29 AM, Surveyor interviewed ADON D and asked if they had a pressure-relieving cushion in R74's chair. ADON D checked the Broda chair and stated it did not appear there was a cushion in the chair. ADON D stated the chair was from hospice and ADON D would check with them to see if it was a pressure-reducing chair. On 02/22/24 at 7:18 AM, Surveyor observed R74 lying on right side in bed. Surveyor observed a purple foam heel boot on the bed side table. Surveyor asked if R74 wore any heel boots when in bed. R74 stated, just the purple boot on the left heel when up in the chair. Surveyor asked if staff put any pillows or devices in the bed to float R74's heels when lying down. R74 stated not usually. Surveyor asked if R74 had a cushion they sat on when in the Broda chair. R74 stated no, just the pillow behind my back when in the chair, no cushion under bottom. On 02/22/24 at 7:39 AM, ADON D provided R74's care plan that had an intervention stating, Gel foam cushion in broda chair at all times, with an approach start date of 02/08/24. Surveyor asked ADON D where that cushion was because Surveyor had not seen that cushion in the chair when R74 was in the chair. ADON D stated hospice nurse informed the fixed cushion in the Broda chair was a gel foam cushion. Surveyor asked for manufacturer's information on that chair/cushion. No additional information was provided. On 02/22/24 at 9:04 AM, Surveyor interviewed Director of Nursing (DON) B and Regional Clinical Director (RCD) C about the observation of resident sitting in broda chair without repositioning for almost 6 hours. Surveyor asked if this was appropriate care for a resident who had a known PI to the bottom. DON B stated they should be repositioned probably every hour. On 02/22/24 at 10:22 AM, Surveyor observed ADON D and LPN E provide wound care to R74's bottom. After ADON D removed the old border foam dressing and cleaned the wound on the right buttocks, Surveyor noted 4 circular reddened areas. ADON D measured the largest circular area. The outer red area measured 3.4 cm x 3.6 cm with bright red tissue. There was an inner circular area on that wound covered with yellow material which measured 1.1 cm x 1.2 cm. Surveyor asked if the three other red circular areas were healing pressure injuries. ADON D was not certain if the other areas had previously been opened, but stated they were not currently open, just red areas. ADON D did not measure those areas. ADON D completed the wound care using proper hand hygiene and infection control practices. Example 2: R23 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] after surgical amputation of the right great toe. R23 had additional diagnoses including, in part: acute osteomyelitis, right ankle and foot; disorder of arteries and arterioles, unspecified; Type 2 diabetes mellitus without complications; chronic diastolic (congestive) heart failure; chronic venous hypertension (idiopathic) without complications of bilateral lower extremity; atherosclerosis of native arteries of other extremities with ulceration; and venous insufficiency. R23's admission MDS assessment, dated 01/30/24, R23 was at risk to develop PIs, but had no unhealed PIs at time of admission. The MDS assessment also identified R23 required partial/moderate assistance to roll left and right, and for transfers from sitting to lying and lying to sitting. R23 had the following Braden Scale for prediction of pressure sore risk assessments: 01/23/24 score 20 low risk 01/29/24 score 17 at risk 02/12/24 score 18 at risk 02/19/24 score 18 at risk Surveyor identified the following physician orders, dated 02/16/24, Apply a foam boarded dressing to left heel- change daily. Rooke boots to BLEs [bilateral lower extremities] if resident allows-no ace wraps around left heel. Three times a Day. Surveyor identified the following care plan on R23's medical record with a start date of 02/02/24: Category: Pressure Ulcer/Injury [R23] is at risk for and has actual Skin Impairments: Skin Tears and excoriation to bilateral groins, left heel, and left area on back (skin shearing). Goal: Long Term Goal Target Date: 05/05/2024 Heal skin and prevent infection Approaches: Approach Start Date: 02/20/2024 Xeroform and viva to bilateral groins BID for excoriation and to place an island dressing to left area on back- change every other day and prn for skin shear. Approach Start Date: 02/19/2024 [R23] to wear Ace Wraps to BLE', from toes to approximately 1-2 inches below knee. On in AM, off in PM. Approach Start Date: 02/02/2024 Assess the wound for signs of infection and notify the Physician for treatment. Approach Start Date: 02/02/2024 Continue to turn and reposition resident on a regular schedule as needed. Approach Start Date: 02/02/2024 Dietary to assess the residents nutritional needs and implement supplements per order. Approach Start Date: 02/02/2024 Keep heels elevated with pillows Approach Start Date: 02/02/2024 Measure and assess weekly for progression of healing Approach Start Date: 02/02/2024 Pad wheelchair arms Approach Start Date: 02/02/2024 Provide weekly skin checks per licensed nurse for other weakened skin areas and notify the Physician for treatment. Approach Start Date: 02/02/2024 Use preventive devises as ordered Surveyor noted the care plan was not updated with the intervention for the Rooke boots and no ace wraps to left heel. On 02/19/24 at 10:21 AM, Surveyor observed R23 in wheelchair with both feet elevated on a foot stool. R23 had green puffy boots on both feet with the heels resting on the foot stool. R23 stated they had a lot of sores and thought there was a sore on the left heel. On 02/19/24 at 11:40 AM, Surveyor interviewed Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) F who reported R23 has a pressure sore on the left heel and received daily wound care. CNA F was not sure if the PI was facility acquired. Skin Body Assessment, dated 02/11/24, Known open areas to bilateral upper extremities and RLE [right lower extremity]. No new OA's, redness, PI noted. Skin Integrity Events--New or worsened pressure injury document, dated 02/16/24, stated in part: pressure wound to left heel. In house acquired. There was no staging of the wound noted on the document. Wound measured 3 cm long by 3 cm wide. Wound description: moderate tenderness, no drainage, reddish/pink open area to outer rim and gets dark purple in middle. Did the resident have pressure relieving devices in place? NO. New interventions implemented: Pillows to position resident. Skin Body Assessment, dated 02/18/24, .Moderate redness to groin area and 2 small slits in butt crack area .Pressure wound to left heel. On 02/20/24 at 12:42 PM, Surveyor interviewed ADON D who stated R23 developed a new PI on the left heel after admission. ADON D stated R23 did not have any sores or PI to the left heel on admission. ADON D stated they did not think they had any pressure relieving interventions in place for the heels prior to the development of the PI on the left heel. ADON D stated they implemented the green boots for pressure relief on 02/16/24. ADON D stated the green boots were lift boots to relieve pressure from heels and R23 was to wear them at all times. On 02/20/24 at 2:04 PM, Surveyor observed R23 seated in a wheelchair with both feet were on the floor. The green boots were lying on the bed and there was no pillow under R23's feet/heels. On 02/21/24 at 5:50 AM, Surveyor observed R23 sitting in a wheelchair with feet down on two pillows on the floor. The green boots were on the bed. Surveyor observed ADON D and LPN E provide wound care to R23's left heel. ADON D removed the old dressing from the left heel. Surveyor observed scant serosanguinous drainage on the dressing. ADON D measured the wound at 1.8 cm diameter. Surveyor noted the wound to be full thickness loss of skin in a circle with large amount of yellow material in the wound bed. Surveyor asked what stage the PI was. ADON D stated they did not have a stage yet for this as it was just identified last week. ADON D stated they provide their assessment and measurements of the wound to their wound physician stages the wound. ADON D and LPN E completed the wound care per orders. On 02/22/24 at 9:04 AM, Surveyor interviewed DON B and RCD C about R23's PI on the left heel. Surveyor informed them that ADON D stated R23 did not have a PI to the left heel at the time of admission. Surveyor asked DON B what interventions they had in place to prevent the development of this PI. DON B stated they had documentation from the hospital that R23 had a scab on the left heel that was being treated by wound care while in the hospital. Surveyor informed there was no documentation of a scab or any skin impairment on the left heel on the facility admission assessment. Surveyor asked DON B if this was possibly a PI or Deep Tissue Injury to the left heel that was missed on admission and should have had interventions in place at the time of admission to prevent this area from opening up. DON B stated facility nursing staff should have identified this area on admission and put pressure relieving interventions in place to prevent the wound from opening up. DON B provided documentation from the hospital, dated 01/15/24, which stated wound care orders, in part: .2. cleanse left heel with mild soap and water. Pat dry. Apply Vaseline to wound edges. Lightly coat with medihoney and apply to wound bed. Cover with gauze . Additional hospital documentation provided, dated 01/18/24, stated in part: RN Transfer .Skin .left heel scab . Example 3 R25 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with the following diagnoses, in part, muscle weakness (generalized); type 2 diabetes mellitus without complications; obesity; mild cognitive impairment of uncertain or unknown etiology; personal history of diabetic foot ulcer; chronic venous hypertension (idiopathic) with ulcer of bilateral lower extremity; peripheral vascular disease, unspecified; chronic kidney disease, stage 3 unspecified; Alzheimer's disease; vascular dementia; and abnormal weight loss. R25's annual MDS assessment, dated 10/25/23, identified R25 was at risk for PIs, but had no unhealed PIs at the time of assessment. The MDS assessment also identified R25 required substantial/maximal assistance to roll left and right, and for personal cares and transfers. R25's quarterly MDS assessment, dated 01/25/24, identified R25 continued to be at risk for PIs, but had no unhealed PIs. R25 had the following Braden Scale for prediction of pressure sore risk assessments: 10/05/24 score 15.0 at risk. 01/01/24 score 15.0 at risk. Record review identified the following care plan, in part: CARE PLAN: Problem Start Date: 04/15/2022 Category: Pressure Ulcer/Injury Resident has arterial ulcers to multiple toes bilaterally. History of Stasis Ulcers to bilateral lower extremities. Goal: Short Term Goal Target Date: 05/08/2024 Resident's ulcer will heal without complications. Approaches, in part: Approach Start Date: 04/15/2022 Assess pressure ulcer for location, stage, size (length, width, and depth), presence/absence of granulation tissue and epithelization, and condition of surrounding skin and tissue. Approach Start Date: 04/15/2022 Assess resident for pain related to pressure ulcer or its treatment. Approach Start Date: 04/15/2022 Conduct a skin inspection every week. Report signs of any further skin breakdown (sore, tender, red, or broken areas) . Approach Start Date: 04/15/2022 Provide incontinence care after each incontinent episode PRN. The record identified the following order with a start date of 02/19/24, Apply a foam boarded dressing to left upper buttock cheek daily and prn. Surveyor reviewed R25's medical record and did not find any documentation of a recently opened PI on R25's bottom. On 02/19/24 at 11:04 AM, Surveyor observed R25 sleeping in bed, lying flat on back. The mattress appeared to be an alternating pressure air mattress. There was a foot cradle on foot of bed and heel boots were observed on R25's feet sticking out under the covers on the end of the bed. R25's heels appeared to be resting directly on the mattress. On 02/20/24 at 7:14 AM, Surveyor interviewed LPN E, who reported R25 had chronic sores on the toes and feet due to poor circulation and received wound care to those on the evening shift. Surveyor asked LPN E if R25 had any sores or PIs on the bottom. LPN E stated R25 recently had an area re-open on the bottom that had previously been open. LPN E stated the provider would be seeing R25 on rounds today to assess that area and implement a treatment plan. On 02/20/24, Surveyor conducted a continuous observation of R25's room from 7:15 AM through 10:34 AM. Each time a staff member went into R25's room, Surveyor observed R25 lying in the same position, flat on back with head of bed slightly elevated, no pillow under back or hips and feet resting flat on bed with gray boots on after the staff member left the room. On 02/20/24 at 8:10 AM, Surveyor observed a Nurse Practitioner (NP) and ADON D enter R25's room and close the door. At 8:15 AM, Surveyor observed NP and ADON D exit R25's room. Surveyor knocked and entered R25's room and observed R25 lying in the same position as previous observation, flat on back with head of bed slightly elevated. At 10:00 AM, Surveyor observed no staff had entered R25's room to offer or assist R25 with repositioning. R25 was still lying in the same position with eyes closed. At 10:34 AM, CNA G informed Surveyor they were going to provide morning cares for R25. Surveyor observed CNA G and CNA H assist R25 with washing up in bed. Both performed appropriate hand hygiene and followed proper infection control practices during cares. When CNA H uncovered R25, Surveyor noted R25's incontinent brief was bulging and saturated with urine. After washing R25's upper body, CNA G and CNA H assisted R25 to roll to right side in bed. CNA H assisted R25 to stay on side, while CNA G washed R25's back. CNA G removed R25's incontinent brief and Surveyor noted R25 had a large red open area with loss of skin on the left buttocks. The area did not have a dressing on it. Both CNAs stated the area was supposed to be covered with a bandage and they would let the nurse know after cares. After completing cares, the CNAs put a clean brief and gown on resident. The CNAs each stood at opposite corners at the head of the bed and took the corner of the draw sheet in both hands and dragged R25 up the mattress to boost R25 up in bed. When the CNAs left R25 after cares, R25 was still lying flat on back with no pillow behind back or hips, and heels were resting directly on the mattress with the gray boots on. At 10:52 AM, Surveyor interviewed CNA G and H immediately after cares and asked how often R25 was assisted with repositioning. CNA G stated they were supposed to reposition R25 every 2 hours. Surveyor asked the CNAs when R25 was last turned, and incontinent brief changed prior to this time. CNA G stated they checked R25 right at the start of their shift at 6:30 AM and R25's incontinent brief was dry, so they did not bother R25 because R25 was sleeping. Surveyor asked how they reposition or boost R25 in bed. CNA G stated they were supposed to lift R25 up with the draw sheet to reposition. Surveyor asked about observation when they each stood at the head of the bed on each side and slid R25 up the bed by pulling on the draw sheet. CNA G stated the reason they did that was because of the type of mattress had. CNA G stated if they didn't pull R25 up in bed that way the whole mattress slides up. Surveyor asked the CNAs why they did not remove R25's boots and provide care to R25's feet. CNA H stated the nurses provide foot care because R25 has wounds on feet and legs. On 02/20/24 at 11:00 AM, Surveyor interviewed CNA F and asked how often R25 should be repositioned and why there was no dressing on R25's open wound on the bottom. CNA F replied R25 should be turned every 2 hours. CNA F stated R25 was supposed to have a dressing on the open wound on the bottom. CNA F stated the NP assessed the wound this morning and they were processing new orders for wound care, so that was probably why there was no dressing on the wound. CNA F stated as medication technician, CNA F was to provide foot and leg care to apply a prescription cream. CNA F would get LPN E and they would provide leg/foot care and wound care for R25's wound on the bottom. On 02/20/24, at 11:12 AM, Surveyor observed LPN E and CNA F provide wound care to R25's open wound on the left buttocks, and washed and applied medicated cream to both legs and feet. Both LPN E and CNA F performed appropriate hand hygiene and infection control practices during the procedure. Immediately following the procedure, Surveyor interviewed LPN E about the wound on R25's bottom and how often R25 should be repositioned. LPN E stated this wound just opened up yesterday. LPN E stated it was a previous open area that healed and re-opened. LPN E stated R25 should be repositioned every 2 hours, but he often refused. On 02/20/24 at 12:42 PM, Surveyor interviewed ADON D about R25's wound on the left buttocks. ADON D stated R25's wound on the left buttocks was not a pressure injury, it was caused from shearing. ADON D state they did not assess and measure this type of wound because it was not a PI. Surveyor described the observation of CNA G and CNA H dragging R25 up the mattress to boost R25 up in bed, and asked if this type of repositioning could cause a shearing injury to R25's skin. ADON D stated yes that could cause a shearing injury and they should have used the draw sheet to lift R25. Surveyor asked if R25 had previous PIs on the bottom. ADON D stated R25 had a previous PI on the bottom starting on 04/09/23, and it healed on 05/03/23. Surveyor asked how often R25 should be turned and provided with incontinent cares. ADON D stated R25 should be turned every 2 to 3 hours. Surveyor reported the observation of no repositioning of R25 from 7:15 AM to 11:15 AM. ADON D stated that was longer than it should have been. On 02/22/24 at 9:04 AM, Surveyor interviewed DON B and RCD C about observations for R25's wound care and repositioning. Surveyor reported a continuous observation of R25 from 7:15 AM until 10:30 AM on 02/20/24 when R25 was not repositioned or provided incontinent cares. Surveyor also explained the observation of no dressing on an open wound and the procedure the CNAs used to boost R25 up in bed. DON B and RCD C stated that was not their policy. DON B stated R25 should have been repositioned more frequently due to a known wound on the bottom, and CNAs should have used the draw sheet to lift the resident to boost up to prevent shearing of skin. Surveyor reported there was no documentation of assessment or measurement of the open wound on R25's bottom, because ADON D reported the wound was from shearing and not a PI. Surveyor asked what guidelines the facility used to identify wounds. RCD C stated they used NPIAP guidelines. Surveyor stated NPIAP definition of stage 2 PI states in part, These injuries commonly result from adverse microclimate and shear in the skin over the pelvis and shear in the heel. DON B and RCD C agreed R25's wound would be considered a stage 2 PI based on shearing as the cause and should be assessed and measured weekly.
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 to obtain rationale for catheter use and physician's order for...

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 to obtain rationale for catheter use and physician's order for a catheter for 1 of 4 sampled residents (R)7. Finding include: R7 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and has diagnoses that include acute and chronic respiratory failure with hypoxia, dysphasia, type 2 diabetes mellitus with diabetic neuropathy, and hypertension. The diagnosis list did not have a diagnosis related for the use of a catheter. Surveyor reviewed R7's physician orders. The physician orders did not have an order for the size of the catheter and balloon, when the catheter could be changed, and diagnosis. On 12/12/23, R7 was discharged from the hospital back to the facility with a catheter for urinary retention and orders to follow up with urology. Surveyor was unable to locate documentation in the medical record that a follow up appointment was done. On 02/22/24 at 12:39 PM, Surveyor interviewed Director of Nursing (DON) B and Regional Clinical Director (RCD) C and asked if there was an order for the catheter. RCD C indicated they did not see any orders. Surveyor asked if there was a follow up with urology. DON B looked on their computer and indicated R7 did have a follow up appointment with urology on 02/02/24. Surveyor asked if this was part of R7's medical record. DON B indicated it was in the clinic's notes and never got entered into R7's record at the facility.
CONCERN (E)

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

Resident Rights (Tag F0550)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Example: 3 On 02/21/24 at 1:46 PM, Surveyor was walking from the conference room towards the nurse's station on the 200 hallway and observed CNA N walk past R14's room who had their call light on. CNA...

Read full inspector narrative →
Example: 3 On 02/21/24 at 1:46 PM, Surveyor was walking from the conference room towards the nurse's station on the 200 hallway and observed CNA N walk past R14's room who had their call light on. CNA N was about 1 room past and hollered to R14, I'm coming, in a stern voice that sounded like they were scolding someone. On 02/21/24 at 1:52 PM, Surveyor talked to Nursing Home Administrator (NHA) A and told NHA A of the observation with CNA N and what was heard. On 02/21/23 at 2:17 PM, NHA A told this Surveyor that NHA A had talked to CNA N and CNA N indicated that they were further down the hall and maybe raised their voice too loud. Surveyor informed NHA A that it was not only the volume of CNA N's voice but also the tone that was used. Based on observation and interviews, the facility did not ensure residents (R) were treated with respect and dignity and cared for in a manner to enhance their quality of life. Facility staff used a clothing protector to wipe R37 and R35's face during dining. Facility staff were heard sharing R30, R54, R1, and R24's personal information in public areas of the facility. Facility staff did not respond in a respectful manner to R14. This occurred for 7 of 76 residents. This is evidenced by: The facility policy, entitled Dignity, dated reviewed on 01/24, states in part: Dignity means that in their interactions with residents . Demonstrating courtesy, patience, and friendliness in all interactions . Provision of care instruction in privacy . Promoting residents' independence and dignity in dining. The facility policy, entitled Privacy, Dignity, and Confidentiality dated reviewed 01/2024, states in part: Reporting of care and services of any resident between staff should be done in a private manner that cannot be overheard by others. Example 1 On 02/19/24 at 11:51 AM, Surveyor observed the noon meal in the main dining room. Surveyor observed Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) S assisting R37 with the noon meal. R37 was fed her meal, and occasionally food would remain on R37's face. When this occurred, Surveyor observed CNA S use R37's clothing protector to wipe R37's face, instead of using a napkin. Surveyor observed CNA T assisting R35 with the noon meal. R35 was fed by staff, and occasionally food would remain on R35's face or liquid would run from R35's mouth. When this occurred, Surveyor observed CNA T use R35's clothing protector to repeatedly wipe R35's face, instead of using a napkin. Example 2 On 02/20/24 at 9:05 AM, Surveyor observed Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) U talking with CNA V on the 200 hall. LPN U stated: [R30's first name], is a shower today. [R54's first name], is on fluid restriction, so let me know if you give him anything. Then LPN U stated, Do you know who is going out today? CNA V responded [R1's first name], is at 1:30. [R24's first name], has dialysis. Surveyor was approximately 25 feet away and could clearly hear the conversation in the hallway. Resident room doors including rooms 216, 215, 214, 213, were open in the area and the 8 residents that reside in the rooms were there and could have easily overheard the conversation. On 02/20/24 at 11:46 AM, Surveyor observed the noon meal in the main dining room. At 11:50 AM, during observations, an unidentified staff member asked another staff member if R24 was going to be there for lunch. Another unidentified staff from across the room stated R24's first name is at dialysis. One staff member was by the kitchen window and the other was by the opposite side of the room at least 20 feet apart from one another. 22 residents were in the area at the time and could have overheard this.
CONCERN (E)

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

Infection Control (Tag F0880)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

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

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility did not maintain an infection prevention and control program to provide a safe, sanitary, and comfortable environment and to help prevent the development and transmission of communicable diseases and infections for 5 of 76 residents (R). (R52, R28, R60, R233, and R70) Staff observed passing medication without proper hand hygiene. Staff observed rinsing a urine soiled commode bucket in the resident's bathroom sink. Findings: The facility policy entitled, HAND WASHING/HAND HYGIENE, last reviewed 01/2024, stated in part: .Wash hands and other skin surfaced when: .2. After removing gloves or other personal protective equipment; 3. After care of each resident; 4. Before and after nursing treatments or procedures (dressing changes, catheter insertion, eye drop instillation, etc.) . Example 1 On 02/20/24 at 7:06 AM, Surveyor observed medication pass with Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) I. LPN I performed no hand hygiene before entering room of R52 after touching the medication cart, computer mouse and computer keyboard. Surveyor interviewed LPN I and asked about hand hygiene and explained the observation of no hand hygiene while entering R52's room. LPN I replied, I should have used the hand sanitizer when I came in the room. On 02/20/24 at 7:23 AM, Surveyor observed medication pass with LPN J. LPN J performed no hand hygiene before entering the room of R28 after touching other potentially contaminated surfaces. Surveyor interviewed LPN J asking about hand hygiene and explained the observation made of LPN J touching potentially contaminated surfaces on the medication cart and then enter R28's room without the use of any hand hygiene. LPN J replied, I should have used the hand hygiene at the door when I entered the room. On 02/20/24 at 4:28 PM, Surveyor observed medication pass with Registered Nurse (RN) K. RN K performed no hand hygiene before entering the room of R60 after touching computer mouse, medication cart and drawers, computer keyboard, and back up stock medication bottles. RN K administered the medications and performed hand hygiene using alcohol-based hand rub when exiting the room. On 02/20/24 at 4:34 PM, Surveyor observed medication pass with RN K. RN K performed no hand hygiene before entering the room of R233 after touching other potentially contaminated surfaces on the medication cart. Surveyor interviewed RN K asking about hand hygiene, and Surveyor explained observations of no hand hygiene prior to entrance of R60 and R233's rooms. RN K replied, Oh yes, I am to wash my hands before and after. Example 2 On 02/20/24 at 2:05 PM, Surveyor observed Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) O put on gloves and remove the urine soiled bucket from R233's commode. CNA O emptied the bucket from R233's commode in the toilet. CNA O then placed the bucket in R233's bathroom sink under the faucet. CNA O, with the same gloved hands, turned on the bathroom faucet to rinse out the bucket. CNA O, with the same gloved hands, dumped the water in the toilet and put the bucket back under the commode. CNA O removed their gloves then went back into the bathroom and used the same bathroom sink to wash their hands. CNA O did not sanitize the bathroom sink or faucet. On 02/20/24 at 2:13 PM, Surveyor interviewed R233 and asked if they use the sink in the bathroom to brush their teeth and wash up. R233 indicated they do. On 02/20/24 at 2:17 PM, Surveyor interviewed R70, and asked if they use the bathroom that is shared with R233 to wash up and brush their teeth. R70 indicated yes, they do. On 02/22/24 at 9:44 AM, Surveyor interviewed Regional Clinical Director (RCD) C and asked where CNAs should be dumping the commode buckets. RCD C indicated they should be dumping in the toilet then using a graduate to rinse out the bucket. Surveyor asked if they should be placing the bucket into the bathroom sink to rinse. RCD C indicated no.
CONCERN (F)

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

Deficiency F0801 (Tag F0801)

Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents

Based on interview and record review, the facility did not designate a person to serve as the director of food and nutrition services who had completed the minimum qualification requirements for the p...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview and record review, the facility did not designate a person to serve as the director of food and nutrition services who had completed the minimum qualification requirements for the position. This practice could potentially affect 75 of 76 residents residing in the facility. Findings include: On 02/19/24 at 8:55 AM, Surveyor toured the kitchen with Dietary Supervisor (DS) M and asked their qualifications they held that allowed them to assume the role of Dietary Supervisor. DS M indicated DS M started in the position the end of December 2023 and was not enrolled in any classes and was unaware when DS M would be. DS M indicated DS M did not have a certification to be a dietary manager. On 02/20/24 at 2:33 PM, Surveyor interviewed Nursing Home Administrator (NHA) A and asked if the dietician was full time and provided oversight of the kitchen. NHA A indicated the dietician was there 2 days a week and they have a regional dietician that is available by phone. Surveyor asked when the dietician is at the facility if the dietician conducts kitchen supervision and completes kitchen audits. NHA A indicated the dietician is available to answer questions. The facility did not provide Surveyor with documentation of kitchen audits completed by the dietician. Surveyor asked NHA A how often the regional dietician is at the facility. NHA A indicated the regional dietician is at the facility quarterly. NHA A indicated if DS M had questions of the kitchen DS M will ask NHA A. Surveyor asked NHA A if NHA A had any food safety training or is a Certified Dietary Manager. NHA A indicated NHA A did not have food safety training or certification. Surveyor reviewed with NHA A the need of a Certified Dietary Manager.
CONCERN (F)

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

Food Safety (Tag F0812)

Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations and interview, the facility did not prepare and distribute food under sanitary conditions. Dishwasher temp...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations and interview, the facility did not prepare and distribute food under sanitary conditions. Dishwasher temperatures did not reach correct levels, staff did not perform hand hygiene with glove use, and staff with a beard did not wear a beard net. This has the potential to affect 75 of 76 residents. Findings include: The facility policy, entitled Glove Usage By Dietary Staff, revised 8/23, reads in part Never handle food with your bare hands or gloved hand while serving. The facility policy, entitled Dietary Dress Code, revised 8/23, reads in part [NAME] covers must be worn by staff presenting with facial hair. Example 1 On 02/20/24 at 11:05 AM, Surveyor observed dish machine wash and rinse temperature log. On the bottom of the log it says, High Temp Machine: wash/rinse 160, Sanitize 180. Surveyor asked Dietary Supervisor (DS) M about the dishwasher temperatures not always making it up to 180. DS M indicated they didn't know it needed to get to that. Surveyor pointed out to DS M that on the front of the [NAME] hot water dish machine it indicated that wash/rinse is 160, Sanitize 180. The temperature log for February 2024 documented that the sanitize cycle reached 180 or above 13 times from February 1st to February 19th with the temperatures logged 3 times a day for breakfast, lunch, and dinner. On 02/20/24 at about 1:00 PM, Surveyor was observing Dietary Assistant (DA) R doing dishes along with Maintenance Supervisor (MS) Q. The sanitizing cycle did not get up to 180. Surveyor asked DA R what they should do if the temperature did not get up to 180. DA R had no response. MS Q said they need to re-run the dishes. MS Q also indicated that no one had reported to MS Q that the machine was not getting up to the appropriate temperature. Example 2 On 02/20/24 at 11:40 AM, Surveyor was observing kitchen staff serve lunch. Surveyor observed Dietary [NAME] (DC) P dishing up plates for the tray line. DC P had gloves on and grabbed a tray, plate, meal ticket, used tongs to get the pot pies on the plate then used the same contaminated gloved hands to pick up bread, placed the bread on the plates and served to the residents. Example 3 On 02/19/24 at 9:00 AM, Surveyor observed while in the dish room, a box fan hanging in the corner that had black dust on it that was blowing on the clean dishes. The exhaust fan above the dish machine had black/gray fuzzy substance all around the filter. Surveyor interviewed DS M and asked what the fuzzy substance looked like to DS M. DS M indicated dust and a nasty fan. Example 4 On 02/19/24 at 8:55 AM, Surveyor took an initial tour of the kitchen and observed DS M in the dish room washing dishes. Surveyor observed DS M has a beard and mustache and was not wearing a beard net to contain the facial hair. Surveyor observed for the rest of the day DS M not wearing a beard net when in the kitchen. On 2/20/24 at 9:07 AM, Surveyor observed DS M in the dish room doing dishes with no beard net on.
Dec 2023 2 deficiencies
CONCERN (F) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Infection Control (Tag F0880)

Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, interviews, and record reviews, the facility did not maintain an infection prevention and control program...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, interviews, and record reviews, the facility did not maintain an infection prevention and control program according to professional standards of practice when COVID precautions of appropriate Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) were not followed and employee fit testing for N95 masks were outdated. This has the potential to affect all 76 residents residing in the facility at the time of survey. This is evidenced by: The facility policy entitled, Covid-19 Prevention, Response and Reporting, dated 05/2023, states: .HCP [Health Care Provider] who enter the room of a resident with suspected or confirmed SARS-CoV-2 [COVID] infection should adhere to standard precautions and use a NIOSH [National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health] approved particulate respirator with N95 filters or higher, gown, gloves, and eye protection (contact and droplet precautions) . Upon entrance of the complaint survey on 12/14/23, 42 of the 76 residents were positive for COVID. On 12/14/23 at 8:10 AM, Surveyor observed Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) D in Resident (R) R8's room. Outside of R8's door in the hall was a Transmission Based Precautions (TBP) sign indicating contact and droplet precautions, a PPE cart full of PPE, and a bin for doffing (removing) the old PPE. R8 was diagnosed with COVID on 12/12/23. CNA D was wearing a KN95 mask, gown, and gloves inside R8's room. CNA D then came out of R8's room, did not remove any PPE and walked down the hall to the dish room to drop off R8's water mug and then came back to outside R8's room in the hall and removed her gown and gloves into the bin for doffing. CNA D did not change her KN95 mask. CNA D then went into R9's room to do cares. R9 did not have COVID. CNA D did not have the proper mask and did not have goggles or a face shield on while caring for a COVID positive resident. Droplets can spread to the eyes, spreading COVID. CNA D walked down the 200 hall to the dish room wearing the PPE she wore while caring for a COVID positive resident. This had the potential to spread COVID to the residents in that hallway. Removing PPE in the hallway also had the potential to spread COVID. CNA D did not remove the KN95 mask she wore inside a COVID positive room and then went to care for a resident who did not have COVID, creating the opportunity to spread COVID to that resident. The 200 hall had 9 positive COVID residents and 9 residents who were negative for COVID. On 12/14/23 at 8:35 AM, Surveyor observed CNA E wearing a surgical mask and no other PPE, helping R10 inside her room. Outside of R10's door in the hall was a TBP sign indicating contact and droplet precautions, a PPE cart full of PPE, and a bin for doffing the old PPE. R10 was diagnosed with COVID on 12/04/23. Surveyor asked CNA E why she was not wearing the proper PPE for COVID while assisting R10. CNA E said R10 was one of the first cases for COVID and after 10 days she assumed that she doesn't have to gown up for COVID anymore. Surveyor asked CNA E why the TBP sign, PPE cart, and bin for doffing were still there for R10. CNA E said she did not know why. CNA E did not change her surgical mask. CNA E then went into R11's room to help her coworker take R11's wheelchair to the shower room. R11's wheelchair was inside R11's room. Outside of R11's door in the hall was a TBP sign indicating contact and droplet precautions, a PPE cart full of PPE, and a bin for doffing the old PPE. R11 was diagnosed with COVID on 12/04/23. CNA E was wearing the same surgical mask and no other PPE. CNA E did not use hand hygiene after she touched R11's wheelchair and then went to get the breakfast tray for R5 and brought it into R5's room. CNA E was wearing a surgical mask and no other PPE. Outside of R5's door in the hall was a TBP sign indicating contact and droplet precautions, a PPE cart full of PPE, and a bin for doffing the old PPE. R5 was diagnosed with COVID on 12/06/23. CNA E continued to wear the same surgical mask after exiting R5's room. CNA E did not use hand hygiene after she dropped off R5's breakfast tray and then went to get the breakfast tray for R12 and brought it into R12's room. R12 was not diagnosed with COVID. CNA E continued to wear the same surgical mask worn inside COVID positive resident rooms. CNA E did not use hand hygiene after she dropped off R12's breakfast tray and then went to get the breakfast tray for R13 and brought it into R13's room. R13 was diagnosed with COVID on 12/04/23. CNA E was wearing the same surgical mask and no other PPE. R13's room had the TBP sign up along with PPE cart and bin. Facility Administration provided a list of residents who were currently on COVID precautions dated 12/14/23. The residents CNA E took care of were still on the COVID positive list. CNA E should have worn PPE (gown, gloves, N95 mask, goggle/face shield) that was indicated based on the TBP sign. CNA E did not use hand hygiene between residents. This practice had the potential to spread COVID to other residents. The 100 hall had 11 positive COVID residents and 5 residents who were negative for COVID. On 12/14/23 at 9:04 AM, Surveyor observed CNA F getting ready to go into R14's room. Outside R14's door was a TBP sign for contact and droplet precautions and a PPE cart. R14 was diagnosed with COVID on 12/04/23. CNA F was wearing a KN95 mask, placed a surgical mask over the KN95 mask, gown, gloves, and face shield. CNA F went into R14's room and handed the breakfast tray, not covered in plastic bag, to CNA G who then walked the uncovered tray down to the beginning of the hall to the food cart. The KN95 masks staff are wearing are not approved N95 masks to protect against COVID. The dirty food tray should have been covered to prevent the spread of COVID. On 12/14/23 at 9:10 AM, Surveyor observed CNA H wearing a surgical mask and no other PPE, go inside R7's room. Outside of R7's door in the hall was a TBP sign indicating contact and droplet precautions and a PPE cart full of PPE. R7 was diagnosed with COVID on 12/12/23. CNA H came out of R7's room still wearing the surgical mask and no other PPE. CNA H was carrying two food trays that were both not covered in a plastic bag and walked down the hall to the food cart at the beginning of the hall. Corporate Registered Nurse (RN) C walked past when this happened and said she had educated on this issue concerning PPE use many times. Staff did not wear the proper PPE (gown, gloves, N95 mask, goggle/face shield) to protect against COVID. The dirty food tray was not covered to prevent the spread of COVID. On 12/14/23 at 9:15 AM, Surveyor interviewed CNA G about what the difference was between the KN95 and the N95 masks. CNA G said KN95 masks are not as strong compared to the N95. N95 masks are to be worn in the COVID positive rooms. The KN95 masks can be worn in the other locations. On 12/14/23 at 9:20 AM, Surveyor observed RN I wearing a KN95 mask; she then placed an N95 mask over the KN95 mask. RN I wore gown, gloves, and a face shield then entered R15's room. Outside of R15's door in the hall was a TBP sign indicating contact and droplet precautions and a PPE cart full of PPE. R15 was diagnosed with COVID on 12/10/23. On 12/14/23 at 9:22 AM, Surveyor observed CNA H went into R14's room wearing a KN95 mask with an N95 mask over it. R14 was COVID positive. N95 masks need to be worn with a proper seal to work properly. Placing the N95 mask over a KN95 mask does not create the proper seal, which can allow the COVID virus to be breathed in. On 12/14/23 at 9:25 AM, Surveyor observed RN I come out of R15's room still wearing the KN95 mask she went into the room with. RN I then went to the med cart and still did not change the KN95 mask after wearing it in a COVID positive room. On 12/14/23 at 9:30 AM, Surveyor observed CNA F and CNA H come out of R14's room wearing the KN95 masks they wore inside the room and did not change the KN95 masks after wearing them in a COVID positive room. Staff did not wear the proper N95 mask into the COVID positive room. The 400 hall had 10 positive COVID residents and 12 residents who were negative for COVID. The 300 hall had 12 positive COVID residents and 7 residents who were negative for COVID. On 12/14/23 at 9:40 AM, Surveyor spoke with RN C and the Director of Nursing (DON) B about the issues seen concerning PPE use with COVID positive residents. RN C said they will start education right away. RN C said she had educated staff about the proper PPE use and had also completed audits. On 12/14/23 at 9:50 AM, Surveyor interviewed CNA J and CNA D to ask if they were fit tested for the N95 masks. They both said no. CNA J was wearing an N95 mask that appeared to be too small for him along with him having facial hair. Surveyor asked CNA J if there are other mask sizes available. CNA J said there were no other N95 masks available. The proper size N95 mask needs to be determined by completing a fit testing at least annually. This test determines which type and size of N95 mask will protect the staff from breathing in the COVID virus when providing cares to a COVID positive resident. Facial hair will also affect the seal of the mask, causing it not to work properly. Wearing an improper N95 mask can place the staff member at risk for contracting COVID. On 12/14/23 at 10:10 AM, Surveyor interviewed RN C and DON B concerning the facility's N95 mask supply. RN C said they only have the N95 masks they were currently using; no other sizes or models were available. RN C said they were not in emergency supply mode. Surveyor asked for the fit testing results of staff. RN C was unsure when testing was last completed, will look for the information. Surveyor asked if any residents were hospitalized or died from COVID during this outbreak. RN C said R3 was currently in the hospital with COVID. Surveyor asked how this current COVID outbreak started. RN C said it started on 12/03/23 and tested all residents and staff on 12/04/23 with 8 residents testing positive and 4 staff testing positive for COVID. On 12/14/23 at 10:35 AM, Surveyor reviewed R3's medical record. R3 was diagnosed with COVID on 12/04/23. R3 was sent to the hospital on [DATE] and admitted with a diagnosis of COVID with associated pneumonia. On 12/14/23 at 2:20 PM, RN C provided a binder for the fit testing completed for staff. The most recent test was completed in March 2022. Some of the results did not indicate what type/size of mask was needed. Surveyor asked RN C if the only N95 available does not fit the staff, what should be done? RN C said we should provide the correct fit to the staff. CNA J, CNA D, and DON B did not have any fit test completed at all.
CONCERN (F) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Deficiency F0887 (Tag F0887)

Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility did not ensure 5 residents (R) of 5 sampled residents (R3, R4, R5, R6, R7) we...

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 5 residents (R) of 5 sampled residents (R3, R4, R5, R6, R7) were provided the most recent covid booster, the covid booster was not offered or provided to any residents in the facility having the potential to affect all 76 residents that reside in the facility. This is evidenced by: The facility policy entitled Covid-19 Vaccine Program, dated 09/2023, states: It is the policy of this facility to minimize the risk of acquiring, transmitting or experiencing complications from COVID-19 (SARS-CoV-2) by educating and offering our residents and staff the COVID-19 vaccine .Covid-19 vaccinations currently in use include the updated (2023-2024 Formula) mRNA COVID-19 vaccines .People ages 65 years and older are recommended to receive 1 dose of updated (2023-2024 formula) mRNA vaccine .COVID-19 vaccinations will be offered to residents when supplies are available, as per CDC and/or FDA guidelines .The facility will educate and offer the COVID-19 vaccine to residents, resident representatives and staff . In case of lack of availability of the COVID-19 vaccine or other issues with the availability leading to an inability to implement the COVID-19 vaccine program the facility will demonstrate: a) the vaccine has been ordered and the facility received either the vaccine or a confirmation of the order indicating that the vaccine has been shipped or that the product is not available but will be shipped when the supply is available b) plans are developed on how and when the vaccines are to be administered . On September 11, 2023, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) authorized the updated (2023-2024 Formula) COVID-19 mRNA vaccines and approved the updated Moderna and Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccines for persons aged >12 years. CDC respiratory illnesses documented: On September 12, 2023, CDC recommended a COVID-19 vaccine updated for 2023-2024 for everyone aged 6 months and older to protect against serious illness. The main reason to get vaccinated against COVID-19 is to protect yourself against severe illness, hospitalization, and even death. COVID-19 vaccines also reduce the chance of having Long COVID. This vaccine is expected to provide better protection against variants that are currently making people sick . R3 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and had a primary diagnosis of respiratory failure with hypoxia and congestive heart failure (CHF.) R3 tested positive for COVID on 12/04/23. R3 received the following vaccinations: COVID vaccine on 02/13/21 and 03/13/21. COVID boosters on 10/27/21, 5/27/22, and 10/27/22. R4 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and had a primary diagnosis of cerebral infarction. R4 tested positive for COVID on 12/04/23. R4 received the following vaccinations: COVID vaccine on 01/28/21 and 02/19/21. COVID boosters on 12/20/21, 4/27/22, and 11/29/22. R5 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and had a primary diagnosis of spondylolysis. R5 tested positive for COVID on 12/06/23. R5 did not receive any COVID vaccinations. R6 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and had a primary diagnosis of CHF. R6 tested positive for COVID on 12/10/23. R6 received the following vaccinations: COVID vaccine on 11/17/21 and 12/17/21. COVID boosters on 06/02/22 and 10/31/22. R7 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and had a primary diagnosis of pulmonary embolism. R7 tested positive for COVID on 12/12/23. R7 received the following vaccinations: COVID vaccine on 02/18/21 and 03/11/21. COVID boosters on 10/07/21, 7/20/22, and 11/23/22. On 12/14/23 at 10:10 AM, Surveyor interviewed Director of Nursing (DON) B and Corporate Registered Nurse (RN) C and asked if there were any residents who were hospitalized or died with COVID diagnosis. RN C said R3 was currently in the hospital due to COVID. On 12/14/23 at 10:35 AM, Surveyor reviewed R3's medical record that indicated R3 did not receive the most recent COVID booster. A COVID vaccine consent signed by R3 on 06/12/23 indicated R3 wanted to receive the COVID booster. No recent consent for COVID vaccine on file. R3 was diagnosed with COVID on 12/04/23 and sent out to the hospital on [DATE]. Surveyor reviewed R3's hospital records dated 12/09/23 indicating she was admitted to the hospital due to COVID-19 with associated pneumonia and acute on chronic respiratory failure with hypoxemia (low levels of oxygen in the blood.) On 12/15/23 at 12:30 PM, Surveyor interviewed R3 who returned from the hospital and asked R3 if she would have received the updated 2023/2024 COVID booster vaccine if offered to her by the facility. R3 said yes, I have asked staff here about getting the updated COVID booster and I've been waiting for it. Surveyor asked R3 when she asked the staff for the COVID vaccine. R3 said she was not sure exactly when, but she did ask a good bit before she was diagnosed with COVID this month. On 12/14/23 at 12:15 PM, Surveyor interviewed DON B and RN C asking if the 2023/2024 most updated COVID booster was offered to the residents at the facility. RN C said no updated COVID booster vaccine yet. We tried to set up the COVID booster clinic with our provider on 12/04/23 (start of the current COVID outbreak) but the provider could not do it until 12/19/23. Surveyor asked DON B and RN C if any 2023/2024 COVID boosters were offered this year to the residents. DON B and RN C said no, not that they were aware. RN C said they were currently in the process of obtaining consents from the residents for the current COVID booster vaccine. On 12/14/23 at 3:30 PM, Surveyor interviewed DON B and RN C asking why the 2023/2024 most updated COVID boosters were not offered to the residents. They said it was because of when the provider could do the booster clinic. RN C said they checked with public health for help with giving the boosters and was told it was due to lack of availability and that staff need to be trained on how to give these vaccines if it was to be given here by staff. Surveyor asked for information on to why the COVID vaccine was not provided to the residents. RN C provided an email dated 09/13/23 from RN C to public health with the subject: vaccine class registration, asking Is there still availability for this training? The facility did not get a response from public health and the facility did not follow-up. On 12/15/23 at 12:50 PM, Surveyor spoke with the Medical Director (MD) K about the updated 2023/2024 COVID booster vaccine if it was provided to the residents, would it have helped prevent the current COVID outbreak or decrease the severity of the symptoms associated with the current COVID outbreak. MD K said he did not think it would have changed the outcomes of the spread or severity of COVID. It depends on the strain of COVID, as COVID mutates quickly. Surveyor asked MD K if the current COVID booster was available for the residents. MD K said the current COVID booster was not available yet by the time this strain of COVID was out. Surveyor asked MD K why this current outbreak of COVID occurred. MD K said it spread because of confined space with people and quick exposure. On 10/26/23, the facility received an email from a pharmacy asking if would like to have the residents receive the COVID vaccine or the facility purchase the vaccine. On 11/15/23, the pharmacy emailed asking who to talk to about setting up a COVID vaccine clinic and the number of residents. The facility did not provide any further communication. The facility did not continue to follow-up to obtain the vaccine and develop a plan as the facility's policy outlined.
Oct 2023 2 deficiencies
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Free from Abuse/Neglect (Tag F0600)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on record review, interviews, review of Facility Reported Incident (FRI), and policy review, the facility failed to ensure that one resident (Resident (R) 3) of three residents reviewed for abus...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review, interviews, review of Facility Reported Incident (FRI), and policy review, the facility failed to ensure that one resident (Resident (R) 3) of three residents reviewed for abuse was free from physical abuse. Findings include: Review of the facility provided Alleged Nursing Home Resident Mistreatment, Neglect, and Abuse Report (initial report) dated 05/07/23 revealed R3 was hit on the arm by fellow resident [R2] with a roll of toilet paper. Residents were separated to ensure safety. Family and police notified. Investigation initiated. Review of the Misconduct Incident Report (5-day report) dated 5/12/2023 revealed R2 hit R3 in the head with a roll of toilet paper. R3 did not have any pain or injury. Residents were immediately separated by staff. R3 was assisted back to room for a skin and pain assessment. R3 zero pain, injury, and redness. No other residents were affected by this incident. Residents separated immediately. R2 put on checks while in the dining room. Doctor, family, Director of Nursing (DON), Administrator notified. Care plan reviewed and updated. Staff and residents interviewed. Police called. Review of facility provided undated document titled Resident to Resident Interactions revealed [name of R2] does have dementia with agitation, history of alcohol abuse, status post (s/p) right hip fracture, neoplasm of the colon, and major depression with agitation. She does ambulate in room at times with walker. She does have mobility in the facility with wheelchair (w/c). She does currently have Seroquel (anti-psychotic medication), Depakote (antiepileptic medication), and Remeron (anti-depressive medication) related to diagnosis. She does get very territorial over space and is very regimented in her personal routines. She does have a son that is very involved and is not aware of cause of her behaviors. [name of R3] does have dementia without behaviors, major depression, and diabetes mellitus (DM) type 2. He is pleasant with interactions. On 05/07/23 about 10:30 AM both residents were in the dining room. The two residents were passing by and R3 offered R2 a hello, she [R2] hit him [R3] on the head with a roll of toilet paper. 1. Residents were immediately separated by staff. 2. Staff immediately placed R2 on checks when in the dining room. 3. Staff assisted R3 back to his room, for assessment of upper body noted to be without redness, bruising, or injury. 4. Staff interviewed R3 with body assessment and he did state that he was not afraid, and he did not want the other person to get in trouble. 5. Staff did document no further behaviors noted from R2. 6. Interviewable residents were interviewed and no other concerns. 7. R3 did not offer further concerns on complaints of pain. 8. Continued 15-minute checks with R2 when in dining room to prevent further resident to resident interaction. 9. 05/07/23: R2's care plan updated with 15-minute checks. 10. Nurse Practitioner (NP) was updated and no change to medication made at that time. She will be seen on the rounds for follow up. 11. 05/11/23: DON met with R3 and no noted lasting negative effect on him. He did decline injury or pain. R2 did hit R3 with roll of toilet paper. R3 did not have injury at this time. He does decline pain and does state that he does not want the other person to get into trouble. No lasting negative effect has occurred at this time. R2 does remain on checks when she is in the dining room to prevent any further interactions. At this time, no further behaviors have been noted from R2. Review of facility provided Witness Statement dated 05/07/23 for Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) 1 revealed A resident [R3] was in the dining room and said Hi [name of R2] to her. R2 then smacked the resident in the head with a toilet paper roll. I immediately separated the residents and stated that we cannot hit other residents. I told my nurse. Attempted to contact CNA1 on 10/16/23 at 12:31 PM, no answer; however, left a message. No return call prior to the end of survey. Review of facility provided handwritten, untitled and undated document revealed Trying to finish my breakfast, R2 came up saying she does not like me and get away from me. Then she started punching on me. But it did not hurt or nothing. Then she said I cannot sit at her table no more. So, I will sit and eat my breakfast in the hallway. She hit me in the back of the arm. I just gotta watch myself. I do not want her coming up behind me and hitting me in the head or nothing. I do not think R2 knows what she is doing. No evidence of who wrote this and/or who was giving this statement. It was written on a blank white paper that was torn in half. Review of facility provided handwritten, untitled, and undated document revealed He [R3] is talking to me all the time, I do not like that. I do not like him. Do not keep talking about it. I am not going to answer you. He keeps talking to me, he is crazy. Do not keep talking about it. There was no evidence of who wrote this and/or who was giving this statement. It was written on a blank white paper that was torn in half. Review of facility provided document titled Staff Education-Resident to Resident dated 05/07/23 revealed 22 staff members attended this education; however, no agenda attached. Interview with the Regional Clinical Director on 10/16/23 at 1:15 PM, revealed that the two handwritten untitled, undated documents were interviews from R2 and R3. Continued interview, she confirmed that the incident did occur, so from review of the FRI documentation, the incident was substantiated. On 10/16/23 at 2:10 PM, R2 was sitting in the dining room at a table by herself, when approached and attempted to speak with her about the incident, R2 said that she did not need to talk with me [surveyor]. While attempting to speak with R2, she was using her right hand to motion in the air go away. Review of facility policy titled, Abuse Prevention Program Policy and Procedure, revised 09/22, revealed, Each resident has the right to be free from abuse, neglect and corporal punishment of any type by staff or anyone. The facility will provide a safe resident environment and protect residents from abuse .Resident-to-Resident abuse: A resident to resident altercations should be reviewed as a potential situation of abuse. The facility Administrator and/or DON will initiate an investigation of a potential allegation of abuse between residents. Investigations for potential abuse will not be dismissed in cases where either or both residents have a cognitive impairment or mental disorder. Having a mental disorder or cognitive impairment does not automatically preclude a resident from engaging in deliberate or non-accidental actions. During the investigation it will be identified that the actions were willful were deliberate (no inadvertent or accidental), regardless of whether the individual intended to inflict injury or harm .Types of Abuse and Indicators: Physical Abuse: Physical abuse includes, but is not limited to, hitting, slapping, punching, biting, and kicking.
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Report Alleged Abuse (Tag F0609)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to report timely, within two hours and not la...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to report timely, within two hours and not later than 24 hours, for initial notification to the state survey agency (SSA), for three of three sampled residents (R2, R3, and R5) which included an allegation of an injury of unknown origin for R5 and a resident-to-resident incident for R2 and R3 reviewed for facility reported incidents (FRIs). Failure to report allegations of injuries of unknown origins and/or resident-to-resident incidents could potentially lead to abuse and neglect. Findings include: 1. Review of a FRI for R5, dated 06/28/23 revealed .Nurse Practitioner ordered an x-ray due to a change in condition with increased confusion. Chest Xray results indicate right shoulder dislocation. The origin of this injury is unknown. Resident is being kept safe with increased monitoring. Resident has chronic Right shoulder pain admitted with. No increase in pain. No redness or swelling. No additional signs and symptoms . Continued review of the FRI revealed the facility completed a thorough investigation and R5 was sent to the emergency department (ED) for further evaluation. The initial 24-hour notification was not submitted to the SSA. Further review of the FRI revealed the five-day report was submitted to the SSA on 07/03/23 at 2:42 PM. Review of R5's electronic medical record (EMR) revealed R5 was admitted initially on 10/24/23 with diagnoses of hypertension, chronic kidney disease, and pulmonary hypertension. R5 was transferred to the emergency department (ED) on 06/28/23 for further evaluation. R5 was noted to have a change in condition on 06/28/23 and the Nurse Practitioner (NP) ordered a chest X-Ray. The X-Ray indicated a right shoulder dislocation. The facility investigation revealed that R5 had not had any falls or injuries that would explain the dislocated shoulder. R5 was not exhibiting any behaviors that indicated she was fearful of anyone. R5 still resided at the facility. Review of R5's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 08/03/23, located in the EMR under the MDS tab, indicated R5 had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 12 of 15, which indicated the resident was moderately cognitively intact. During an interview on 10/16/23 at 1:30 PM, the Regional Clinical Director (RCD) verified the 24-hour report to the SSA was not completed, only the five-day report was submitted. 2. Review of R2's Face Sheet in the Electronic Medical Record (EMR) revealed that R2 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses of major depressive disorder (MDD) and dementia. Review of R3's Face Sheet in the EMR revealed that R3 was re-admitted to the facility on [DATE] with a diagnosis of MDD and dementia. Review of the facility provided Alleged Nursing Home Resident Mistreatment, Neglect, and Abuse Report (initial report) dated 05/07/23 revealed R3 was hit on the arm by fellow resident [R2] with a roll of toilet paper. Residents were separated to ensure safety. Family and police notified. Investigation initiated. This document indicated that the event took place at 10:50 AM, and the facility did not report to the Survey State Agency (SSA) until 6:48 PM. Interview with the Regional Clinical Director on 10/16/23 at 1:15 PM indicated that the initial reporting to the SSA was late, and it should be reported no later than two hours. Review of facility policy titled, Abuse Prevention Program Seven Components, revised 09/22, revealed, The facility has developed and implement Policies and Procedures that include the following seven components: screening, training, prevention, identification, investigation, protection and reporting/response . 7. Reporting/Response- All alleged or suspected violations are to be reported immediately to the Administrator or Director of Nursing (DON) which are responsible to notify required officials, including to the SSA, Adult Protective Services (APS), Local Public Safety, Licensure Boards, Regional Director of Operations or Regional Clinical Directors (representative of governing board) and any other agencies in accordance with state law through established procedures. All alleged violations involving abuse, neglect, exploitations, or mistreatment, including injuries of unknown source and misappropriation of resident property, are reported immediately, but not later than two hours after the allegation is made if the events that cause the allegation involve abuse or result in serious bodily injury. Not later than 24 hours if the events that cause the allegation do not involve abuse and do not result in serious bodily injury. Reporting results of all investigations to required officials in accordance with State law, including to the State Agency, within five working days of the incident, and if the alleged violation is verified appropriate corrective action must be taken.
Apr 2023 3 deficiencies
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Grievances (Tag F0585)

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 follow their grievance process for 1 of 10 Residents (R3). R3's FR I ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility did not follow their grievance process for 1 of 10 Residents (R3). R3's FR I (Family Representative) wrote a letter of concerns to the facility and the facility did not get back to FR I with a resolution to the concerns reported. Evidenced by: Facility policy, entitled Grievances/Concerns, revised 1/2022, includes, in part: Purpose: To provide each resident's right to voice grievances and to ensure that a policy is in place to process grievance. Providing prompt actions to resolve grievances/concerns and to keep the resident apprised of progress towards resolution . Procedure: . Social Services or designee will inform residents and resident representative of their right to voice grievances with respect to treatment received as well as a lack of treatment received during their stay in the facility and how to file or submit a complaint/grievance . The Social Services Director will coordinate the facility system for collecting grievances and tracking those grievances for timely and appropriate response. Administrator and Social Service Director will lead investigation, maintaining confidentiality of all information associated with grievances . Upon receipt of grievances, an immediate action will be implemented to prevent further potential violation of any resident rights . Within 7 days following the receipt of a complaint, the facility will inform the complainant with the results of the investigation in writing . R3 admitted to the facility on [DATE] and discharged on 10/20/22. On 1/27/23 the facility received a typed letter from FR I (R3's Family Representative). This letter included, in part: Although R3 no longer lives in the facility, I feel it is important that I share some of my disappointment with the care he received or lack of care with the administration at the facility . the facility was not on top of R3's appointment schedule . He missed his appointment on 10/4/22 . .I arrived for a care conference . as we sat waiting for the conference to start nobody came to get him and take him/us to the conference . We also addressed the lack of cleanliness of his room and bathroom. The floor was always flaked with dead skin, the table he ate his food on was always dirty . they never wiped off the tabletop . .R3 told them he had to use the restroom . staff came in and said they would be back in 5 minutes . after 17 minutes a therapist came in and said she would let staff take R3 and left the room again. I could not believe this! . timed it to see how long it would take for someone to come . 37 minutes! . I addressed these concerns with the head nurse and informed her of fecal matter smeared on the floor and she said she would address it. She came in and looked at the fecal matter and said, Maintenance will be in tomorrow to clean that up. Come on really. That is unsanitary. . R3 would sit in soiled depends. I often wonder if that could have been the source of his two infections . Although R3 is no longer alive, I hope and pray that other residents of the facility will get expert care and not the care (or lack of care) that my dad received. R3's Grievance Form, dated 1/27/23, includes, in part: please see attached. (It is important to note the above letter is attached to grievance form.) Grievance Findings: All issues were addressed and resolved when resident resided in facility. Family wrote letter about same issues already fixed . Corrective Actions Taken: none noted . Copy of Grievance/Complaint Form: blank . A copy of this review was offered and provided to none selected . Signature of who copy of review was provided to blank . On 4/10/23 at 2:30 PM SW H (Social Worker) indicated she did not follow the facility grievance process when she received this grievance, stating, I have been here long enough. I know better. I should have reached out to the person who voiced the concerns. On 4/10/23 at 3:00 PM NHA A (Nursing Home Administrator) and DON B (Director of Nursing) indicated SW H should have followed the facility's Grievance policy.
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Investigate Abuse (Tag F0610)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility did not ensure that in response to allegations of abuse, neglect, exploitatio...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility did not ensure that in response to allegations of abuse, neglect, exploitation, or mistreatment all alleged violations were thoroughly investigated, and that steps were taken to prevent further potential abuse for 1 of 2 residents (R1 and R2) reviewed for abuse. DA C (Dietary Aide) observed R2 with his hand on R1's thigh. DA C did not immediately separate R2 from R1 when she observed sexual abuse. The facility did not educate all staff following this incident. Evidenced by: The facility's policy, Abuse Prevention Program, revised 9/2022, states, in part, as follows: Intent: Each resident has the right to be free from abuse, neglect and corporal punishment of any type by staff or anyone. The facility will provide a safe resident environment and protect residents from abuse. Response to Alleged Violations of Sexual Abuse - If an allegation of sexual abuse has been reported, the facility must immediately: Protect the alleged victim(s) involved R2, a [AGE] year old male, was admitted to the facility, on 8/27/21, with diagnoses including, but not limited to: dementia without behavioral disturbance, bipolar disorder and developmental disabilities. R2's Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS), completed on 3/4/23, indicates he is severely cognitively impaired. R2 requires extensive assist of 1 staff for transferring, dressing, toileting, and hygiene. R2 has a Guardian. R1 was admitted to the facility, on 11/19/21, with diagnoses including, but not limited to: dementia, Alzheimer's disease, multiple sclerosis, vitreous degeneration, abnormal posture and weakness. R1's Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS), completed on 12/28/22, indicates she is severely cognitively impaired. R1 is totally dependent on 2 staff for transferring, dressing, toileting, and hygiene. R1 requires extensive assistance of 1 staff for eating. R1 is non verbal and receives hospice services. R2 has an Activated Power of Attorney for Health Care (APOAHC). Surveyor attempted to speak with R1 and R2. Neither R1 nor R2 responded to Surveyor. The facility's self-report states as follows: On 3/26/23 at 11:00 AM: R2 was observed having his hand on the thigh of R1 in dining room. Residents separated. Safeguards put in place. Investigation initiate. Describe the Effect that the incident had on the affected person: R1 observed with zero effect from incident. No other resident reported like incidents. The facility did not educate all staff following this incident to prevent further occurrences. On 4/10/23 at 11:08 AM, Surveyor spoke with DA C (Dietary Aide), DON B (Director of Nursing), and NHA A (Nursing Home Administrator). Surveyor asked DA C to describe the incident she observed on 3/26/23 between R1 and R2. DA C stated, she came upstairs after her lunch break and observed R2 with his hand in between R1's legs on her thigh. DA C stated R2 made eye contact with her and immediately removed his hand from R1's thigh. DA C stated she went to the 300 hall to look for the nurse and could not find anybody. DA C stated she then went to the 200 hall and found LPN D (Licensed Practical Nurse). It is important to note, DA C did not immediately respond by separating R2 from R1 to ensure safety and prevent further touching. DON B stated, the police officer spoke with R2 and R2 was aware he touched somebody inappropriately. Surveyor asked NHA A (Nursing Home Administrator) who is the Grievance Officer. NHA A stated he is responsible for following up on all allegations of abuse. Surveyor asked DON B and NHA A, did you educate DA C following this occurrence. DON B stated, No. Surveyor asked DON B and NHA A, did you educate all staff following this occurrence. DON B stated, No. Surveyor asked DON B and NHA A, should you have educated DA C and all staff following this incident. DON B stated, Yes. DON B and NHA A stated they were unaware that DA C did not immediately separate R1 and R2 before looking for a staff member to report this to incident to. Surveyor asked DON B and NHA A, should DA C have immediately separated R2 from R1 prior to looking for a nurse to report to. DON B stated, yes.
CONCERN (E) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Safe Environment (Tag F0584)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation and interview, the facility did not ensure each resident had a safe, clean, comfortable, and homelike envir...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation and interview, the facility did not ensure each resident had a safe, clean, comfortable, and homelike environment or ensure housekeeping provided necessary services to maintain a sanitary, orderly, and comfortable area for 6 of 10 sampled residents (R) (R7, R4, R5, R6, R8, R9). R7, R5, R9, and Anonymous Complainant F voiced concerns related to facility cleanliness. Surveyor observed R4, R6, and R8's rooms to be unclean. Surveyor observed unclean areas in the facility dining room and hallways. Evidenced by: Facility admission Packet and Resident Handbook, includes, in part: Basic Services: The following services and supplies are included in the Basic Rate- . Housekeeping and linens, personal laundry . Facility policy, entitled Cleaning and Disinfecting Residents' Room, reviewed 12/22, includes, in part: . Housekeeping surfaces will be cleaned on a regular basis, when spills occur, and when surfaces are visibly soiled . Clean medical waste containers intended for reuse (e.g. bins, pails, cans, etc.) daily or when such receptacles become visibly contaminated with blood, body fluids, or potentially infectious materials .Resident room cleaning: wet-dust horizontal surfaces (e.g. bedside tables, over bed tables, and chairs) daily with a cloth moistened with disinfectant solution . Clean personal use items (e.g. lights, phones, call bells, bedrails, etc.) with disinfectant at least twice weekly . On 3/16/23 an Anonymous Complainant submitted a complaint including a concern regarding cleanliness of the facility. On 4/10/23 at 10:15 AM during initial tour of the facility, Surveyor observed a half inch strip of dust, dirt, and black debris to run along the base boards the full length of the hallway on both sides, hairlike dust coating the floor under the full length of the heat registers in the dining room, hairlike dust to be balled up in the corner next to the soda machine, in the corner next to DON B's (Director of Nursing) office, and behind the doors leading into the dining room. Example 1 On 4/10/23 at 10:17 AM Surveyor observed a reddish-brown liquid substance on R4's soaker pad, bottom sheets, and a trail on the floor to the bathroom. R4 was not in his room currently. Example 2 On 4/10/23 at 10:20 AM R5 indicated his floor has not been cleaned for several days. Surveyor observed a dried black (once liquid) substance on splashed throughout R5's floor. R5 was unsure what the substance was but voiced that it should have been cleaned up days ago. R5 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. R5's Minimum Data Set (MDS) with Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 3/27/23, indicates R5's speech is clear, he can verbally express his ideas and wants, and is understood by others. Example 3 On 4/10/23 at 10:30 AM Surveyor observed R6's room to have large areas of dried black liquid spills covering the floor. R6 was not present in his room currently. R6 admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Example 4 On 4/10/23 at 10:36 AM R7 voiced concerns of a pile of dirty clothing on her floor. Surveyor observed the dirty clothing and an undergarment on the floor of R7's room, along with black dried liquid splashes and paper debris. R7 admitted to the facility on [DATE]. R7's MDS, with ARD of 2/28/23, indicates R7's speech is clear, she can verbally express her ideas and wants, and is understood by others. Example 5 On 4/10/23 at 10:40 AM Surveyor observed dried black liquid spills and clear wet liquid spills in R8's room and bathroom. Surveyor attempted to interview R8 and was unsuccessful. R8 admitted to the facility on [DATE]. R7's MDS, with ARD of 1/11/23, indicates R8's cognition is severely impaired with a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 00 out of 15. Example 6 On 4/10/23 at 10:45 AM R9 stated he has not seen a housekeeper since he moved in 4 days ago. R9 pointed out black dried liquid splashes on his floor, a filled garbage can, and paper debris. Surveyor observed the black liquid splashes, filled garbage can, and paper debris. R9 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. On 4/10/23 at 10:50 AM during an interview Housekeeper E indicated the housekeeping staff also do laundry in the facility and they cannot get into every resident room daily to clean because there is just not enough of them. Housekeeper E indicated Certified Nursing Assistants could help by removing soiled undergarments and emptying the garbage cans in residents' rooms, but they don't. Housekeeper E indicated housekeeping staff try to clean rooms every other day during the week, but they do not do any rooms on the weekends. On 4/10/23 at 11:00 AM Surveyor asked to speak with QA RN G (Quality Assurance Registered Nurse) regarding environment observations. QA RN G stated, I know we are out of compliance, and we are not going to be in compliance until tomorrow. We hired 4 new staff. On 4/10/23 at 11:42 AM during an interview NHA A (Nursing Home Administrator) indicated he took over the housekeeping department and he spent some time cleaning the floors of the facility with the facility's floor cleaning machine. Surveyor asked NHA A to accompany her on a walk to observe the cleanliness of the facility. Surveyor slid her finger along the hallway's base board. When Surveyor stopped a small pile of hair and dust was piled in front of Surveyor's finger. Surveyor slid her foot under the register in the facility's dining room. When Surveyor stopped dust and debris were gathered in front of Surveyor's foot. During this observation walk through, Surveyor pointed out a baseball size ball of dust in the corner near DON B's (Director of Nursing) office and a similar size ball of dust near the soda machine. NHA A and Surveyor observed R4's room which still contained a soiled soaker pad and sheets on the bed and the reddish-brown substance was now smeared on the floor. Surveyor and NHA A observed the blackened dried liquid spills on the floors in R6's and R5's rooms. Surveyor reported to NHA A rooms that were observed to have dried black liquid splashes, had dirty clothes, urine, and soiled briefs on the floors, including R8, R9, R7, R6, and more. NHA A indicated the facility was still working on fixing this concern as it was cited at the last survey, about two weeks prior. NHA A indicated the floor along the base boards needs to be scrubbed by hand and he intends to correct this concern himself. NHA A indicated he is in the process of onboarding new staff to fill the open positions in housekeeping. NHA A indicated Certified Nursing Assistants can carry soiled undergarments out of residents' rooms and dispose of them and they should not be leaving soiled clothing or undergarments on residents' floors.
Mar 2023 4 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

Safe Environment (Tag F0584)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation and interview, the facility did not ensure each resident had a safe, clean, comfortable, and homelike environment or ensure housekeeping provided necessary services to maintain a ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation and interview, the facility did not ensure each resident had a safe, clean, comfortable, and homelike environment or ensure housekeeping provided necessary services to maintain a sanitary, orderly, and comfortable area for 3 sampled residents (R1, R3, and R11) out of 11 reviewed. Surveyor observed R3 and R1's room to have full garbage cans, food particles and wrappers on the floor, and dried liquids on the tray tables. Surveyor observed brown substances on the bathroom floor and on the toilet of R3 and R1's room. R11 voiced concerns of a broken pill, food, and wrappers on the floor for at least 2 days. Evidenced by: Facility policy, entitled Cleaning and Disinfecting Residents' Room, reviewed 12/22, includes, in part: . Housekeeping surfaces will be cleaned on a regular basis, when spills occur, and when surfaces are visibly soiled . Clean medical waste containers intended for reuse (e.g. bins, pails, cans, etc.) daily or when such receptacles become visibly contaminated with blood, body fluids, or potentially infectious materials .Resident room cleaning: wet-dust horizontal surfaces (e.g. bedside tables, over bed tables, and chairs) daily with a cloth moistened with disinfectant solution . Clean personal use items (e.g. lights, phones, call bells, bedrails, etc.) with disinfectant at least twice weekly . Example 1 R3's Quarterly MDS (Minimum Data Set), with ARD (Assessment Reference Date) of 1/31/23, indicates that R3 is cognitively intact with a BIMS (Brief interview of Mental Status) score of a 12 out of 15. On 3/14/23 at 11:36 AM R3 stated, The cleanliness of my room is not as good as it should be, they don't move the chairs and they clean about once per week. On 3/14/23 at 10:04 AM Surveyor asked Housekeeping Manager C to describe the room. Housekeeping Manager C stated, Oh my gosh, this is awful, it shouldn't be this way. I feel sorry for the resident to live this way. Housekeeping Manager C indicated she sees napkins, a banana (brown) peel, a sleeve covering of a chair, tissues, and then stated, pretty much garbage all over. Surveyor and Housekeeping Manager C then went into R3's bathroom. Housekeeping Manager C indicated there are crumbles of food and some poop, residue of poop in the bowl, water, and stains around the bottom of the toilet and no toilet paper. Surveyor asked Housekeeping Manager C if the toilet paper should be filled, she replied yes. Surveyor observed dried liquids on R3's tray table, a full trash can, and a gait belt under the bed. Housekeeper Manager C indicated this room was unclean. Example 2 R1's admission MDS (Minimum Data Set), with ARD of 3/1/23, indicates that R1's cognition is moderately impaired with a BIMS (Brief interview of Mental Status) score of 11 out of 15. On 3/14/23 at 11:24 AM, Surveyor interviewed R1. R1 indicated the wrappers on the floor have been there a little while, a couple of days. Surveyor asked R1 how often the room and bathroom are cleaned, R1 indicated, every couple of days. On 3/14/23 at 11:24 AM, Surveyor interviewed Housekeeping Manager C in R1's room. Housekeeping Manager indicated to the Surveyor the room appearance had garbage, napkins on the floor, a piece of ham, empty cup on the floor, socks on the floor, and wrappers. Surveyor asked Housekeeping Manager C to describe the appearance of the bathroom. Housekeeping Manager C indicated the toilet was dirty, poop and brown stains on the inside back of the toilet, tissue on the floor, stains between the grout and possibly a poop stain in the grout. Surveyor asked Housekeeping Manager C if the bathroom light should work, she replied yes and indicated that it doesn't work and does not have a light in it. Surveyor asked Housekeeping Manager C how often the bathroom should be cleaned, she indicated every day. Surveyor asked Housekeeping Manager C when the last time the bathroom was cleaned, she indicated she did not know. Surveyor asked Housekeeping Manager C if this is acceptable, she replied no. Example 3 R11's admission MDS (Minimum Data Set), with ARD of 3/1/23, indicates that R11's cognition is moderately impaired with a BIMS (Brief interview of Mental Status) score of an 11 out of 15. On 3/14/23 at 10:18 AM R11 indicated there is food, a pantoprazole (used to treat gastroesophageal reflux disease) pill was broken, and an apricot on the floor. R11 indicated the items on the floor have been there for about 2 days. Surveyor asked R11 how often her room was is cleaned, she replied, About once per week. Surveyor observed the items R11 pointed out and observed a gait belt under the bed, and clothing tags behind the chair. Documentation provided by the facility of the housekeeping schedule of resident room cleaning performed from 2/26/23-3/14/23 indicates: - The 400 wing had housekeeping services on 2/27/23, 3/3/23, 3/6/23, 3/12/23 - The 300 wing had housekeeping services on 2/26/23, 3/8/23 - The 200 wing had housekeeping services on 3/1/23, 3/9/23, 3/10/23, 3/11/23 - The 100 wing had housekeeping services on 3/3/23, 3/7/23, 3/13/23 (Note: R1, R3 and R11 reside in the 400 wing.) On 3/14/23 at 10:53 AM CNA D (Certified Nursing Assistant) indicated she picks up before and after the task they are doing, and they have housekeeping come in if additional cleanup is needed. CNA D further indicated to the Surveyor that she empties the trash in the rooms every day. On 3/14/23 at 11:50 AM Housekeeping Supervisor C indicated normally there is one housekeeper staffed and the facility could use four full time staff and one laundry staff. Housekeeping Supervisor C indicated the facility is short 3 housekeepers and one laundry staff. Housekeeping Supervisor C indicated she does laundry and housekeeping and there is one other full-time housekeeper. Housekeeping Supervisor C indicates staffing has been this way for a while and could not recall how long. Housekeeping Supervisor C provided to the Surveyor the daily cleaning housekeeping check list. Surveyor asked Housekeeping Supervisor C if daily check list is performed daily, she stated, a lot doesn't get done. On 3/14/23 at 12:32 PM, Surveyor interviewed DON B (Director of Nursing). Surveyor asked who is responsible to pick up items off the floor, DON B replied everybody is. Surveyor asked DON B if it is acceptable to have a banana peel, food, tissues, wrappers on the floor, and trash overflowing. DON B indicated no. Surveyor asked DON B the expectation for room cleaning, DON B indicated daily and should include toilet, sinks, nozzles, and daily mopping of the floors. Surveyor asked if the tasks indicated by DON B being completed daily, she replied yes, it is her expectation, and the administrator would be the one to oversee this. (Note: Administrator is not present during survey.) Surveyor asked DON B if the housekeeping department is staffed to perform the required duties every day, DON B replied no and indicated to compensate they do ambassador rounds every day in the rooms and assist housekeeping Monday through Friday.
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

Free from Abuse/Neglect (Tag F0600)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Example 2 R3 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and has the following diagnoses: History of falling, acute respiratory failu...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Example 2 R3 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and has the following diagnoses: History of falling, acute respiratory failure with hypoxia, and pulmonary hypertension due to left heart disease. R3's Quarterly MDS (Minimum Data Set), dated 1/31/23, indicates that R3 has a BIMS (Brief interview of Mental Status) of a 12 out of 15 indicating R3 is cognitively intact. When communicating R3 understands others and can be understood. R3's Functional Assessment: extensive assistance with support of one plus physical assist with bed mobility and limited assistance with two plus support persons for transfers. R3's moving from seated to standing position indicates substantial and maximal assistance is needed. R3's bladder assessment indicates occasionally incontinent, and bowel assessment indicates always continent. Fall assessment for R3 indicates no falls since admission. R3's Care Plan, created date 11/1/22, states, in part: .Problem: At risk for falls and subsequent injury R/T (related to) recent SNF (Skilled Nursing Facility) stay and decrease in independence. Goal: To prevent or reduce the occurrence of falls and subsequent injury related to falls. Approach . Inform and educate family on fall potential and instruct to call for staff assistance in transferring or positioning resident. R3's Emergency Department Note, dated 2/18/23 at 10:02 AM, documents in part: . They are comfortable discharging back to her care facility on increased dose of Lasix continuing comfort focused care and following up with the primary care provider. Reviewed with patient and her family . The nurse updated the care facility. Final Diagnosis . Shortness of Breath, Congestive Heart Failure. Medications administered furosemide injection 40mg (milligrams) (Lasix) (40mg intravenous Given 2/18/23 at 9:23 AM) . Care timeline 8:59 AM Arrived 9:23 AM furosemide 40mg . 10:50 AM discharged On 2/18/23 at 11:35 AM, R3's Nursing Note, documents in part: Resident returned from ER (emergency room) via private vehicle with family member at 11:20 AM. Transferred back into facility w/c (wheelchair) without difficulty. Denied pain/discomfort. Staff assisted resident into bathroom. Received new orders from ER: Increase Lasix to 40mg . (Note: FM F (Family Member) brought resident to the facility in a private vehicle. Son transferred resident into the wheelchair.) R3's Grievance, dated 2/20/23, includes in part: . FM E reported the concerns of . no transport back from the hospital Saturday. Family provided then staff said they could not help to get out of the vehicle until DON (Director of Nursing) approval d/t (due to) policy. Surveyor reviewed the grievance initiated by the facility. The facility resolution on 2/20/23, no time indicated, DON B explained transport policy, FM E ok and understand transport process. On 3/14/23 at 12:12 PM, Surveyor interviewed FM E. FM E indicated to Surveyor that she called the facility prior to leaving the hospital and asked for any transportation assistance. FM E indicated she informed the facility of FM F leaving the hospital and will need help with R3. FM E advised she received a call back from the facility and was informed that the facility could not help due to policy. FM E further explained that FM F just had knee surgery. On 3/14/23 at 2:41 PM, Surveyor interviewed MR J (Medical Records). Surveyor asked MR J to describe transportation options for residents. MR J indicated they have a contracted company since 2/13/23, with availability 24 hours per day including weekends, they do all the loading and unloading of residents for transportation assistance, they can go out of the area. Surveyor asked MR J if the transportation company would be available on a Saturday morning to assist with the transfer of R3 from the hospital, she replied yes, but she does not set up after hours transportation. On 3/14/23 at 3:43 PM, Surveyor interviewed LPN H (Licensed Practical Nurse). LPN H indicated to the Surveyor she would need to ask management to help someone out of a private vehicle. Surveyor asked LPN H to describe the situation when R3 returned from the hospital. LPN H indicated that family came in to ask for help, became frustrated and then FM F assisted R3 out of the car as the facility was waiting for management's approval. On 3/14/23 at 4:48 PM, Surveyor interviewed CNA K (Certified Nursing Assistant). CNA K indicated she has not assisted a resident out of a car, she has walked out to their vehicles with a wheelchair to help but does not transfer a resident as it is the facility policy. Surveyor asked CNA K what is done after hours when physical therapy is not able to help with transfers. CNA K replied to the Surveyor that the family is aware before leaving the facility, I tell the family they have to do it themselves. On 3/14/23 at 4:23 PM, Surveyor interviewed QA RN G (Quality Assurance Registered Nurse). Surveyor asked QA RN G if staff are competency trained to transfer a resident from a car, QA RN G replied, We don't have someone who is competency trained to get someone out of the car. On 3/14/23 at 4:34 PM, Surveyor interviewed CNA L (Certified Nursing Assistant). Surveyor asked CNA L if she assists with transferring residents in and out of personal vehicles, she replied No, I have walked out to their vehicles or get the wheelchair to and from the facility. Surveyor asked CNA L if she has been informed that she cannot assist with the transfer out of the car, CNA L replied, Yes, it's our policy for liability. Surveyor asked CNA L to describe the return of R3 to the facility. CNA L indicated FM F came into the building and was demanding to us because R3 had to use the bathroom. I told him this was our policy that you took R3 out. FM F said this is ridiculous. So, I then contacted my nurse . FM F was persistent and rude. (Note: CNA L was not aware at the time that R3 left by ambulance.) On 3/14/23 at 6:03 PM, Surveyor interviewed FM F (Family Member). FM F indicated FM E called the facility before leaving the hospital to inform them of their return. FM F stated that R3 indicated she needed to go to the bathroom. FM F went inside the facility to get help and was informed by staff that they could not help getting R3 out of the car and they could lose their license. FM F indicated he transferred R3 from the car to the wheelchair due to R3 needing to get to the bathroom. FM F further voiced frustration stating that they pay thousands per month and the facility cannot provide transfer assistance for R3. R3 was beside herself and was going to soil herself if I did not transfer her. FM F stated R3 would have been extremely humiliated if this would have occurred. On 3/14/23 at 4:23 PM and 6:12 PM, Surveyor interviewed DON B (Director of Nursing). Surveyor asked DON B the process of assisting a resident from the parking lot to the facility from a vehicle. DON B indicated typically therapy is involved and we don't do competency on the transfer from cars. Surveyor asked DON B the procedure if a resident returns after hours, DON B replied, It depends on the situation, it would be unsafe for a resident to be transferred out of a car for by staff. Surveyor asked DON B if she considers a resident on the facility property to be the facilities responsibility, she replied yes. Surveyor asked DON B if the physical therapy staff equipped to training nursing staff, she replied, yes. Surveyor asked DON B if a nurse is trained to transfer, she replied, yes. Surveyor asked DON B if she knew R3 was coming back from the hospital, DON B indicated yes and that she approved to have staff assist with the transfer. Facility staff refused to assist R3 out of the vehicle despite R3 being a current resident and R3's need to use the restroom. Based on interview, and record review, the facility did not provide an environment in which residents were free from neglect (failure to provide goods and services to a resident that are necessary to avoid physical harm, pain, mental anguish, or emotional distress) and/or verbal, mental and physical abuse. This prevented residents from reaching their highest practicable level of physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being for 2 of 11 sampled residents (R2 and R3). This resulted in psychosocial harm (embarrassment, humiliation, degradation). R2 reported to Surveyor he needed assistance to go to the bathroom and had to wait for staff to answer his call light resulting in him having fecal incontinence episodes. Facility staff told R3's Family Member F (FM) they were not allowed to transfer residents out of personal vehicles, and they would not assist R3 out of FM F's personal vehicle when she needed the restroom after receiving Lasix therapy (used to treat edema to reduce extra fluid in the body) in the Emergency Room. Evidenced by: The facility policy titled Abuse Prevention Program Policy and Procedure, revised 9/2022 states in part, Intent: Each resident has the right to be free from abuse, neglect, and corporal punishment of any type by staff or anyone. The facility will provide a safe resident environment and protect residents from abuse .Neglect is defined as the failure of the facility, its employees or service providers to provide goods and services to a resident that are necessary to avoid physical harm, pain, mental anguish or emotional distress. Example 1 R2 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that include hemiplegia and hemiparesis following a cerebral infarction (stroke) affecting left non-dominant side, COPD (Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease), Cerebral Infarction, history of falling, Generalized anxiety disorder, and Major Depressive Disorder. R2's most recent MDS (Minimum Data Set) dated 2/20/23 states that R2 has a BIMS (Brief Interview of Mental Status) of 15/15 indicating that R2 is cognitively intact. R2's MDS also indicates that he is totally dependent with 1 assist for bed mobility and transfers and requires extensive assist of 1 for toilet use. Section H indicates that R2 is always continent of bowel and bladder. On 3/14/23 Surveyor reviewed R2's toileting record. Facility staff had documented that R2 was incontinent of his bowels on 2/16/23, 2/17/23, and 2/25/23. The facility provided Surveyors with their Grievance Log and on 2/17/23, R2 and his family filed a grievance about being upset with call light response time and cleanliness of room. The facility's response is documented as Resident has call light on after breakfast to be laid back down in bed. CNA (Certified Nursing Assistant) assisted resident to bed. CNA left room to go assist another resident with a shower. Within minutes resident has light on to go to the bathroom. Nurse came in and informed resident that CNAs were assisting other residents and that he would need to wait. COTA (Certified Occupational Therapy Assistant) was working with another client and was able to go in and help resident to the bathroom. Client waited 20 minutes. SW (Social Worker) talked to resident and explained call light response procedure and explained that the CNAs were assisting another resident and sometimes he will have to wait and other times he will be receiving help and another resident will need to wait . R2's care plan dated 2/13/23 states in part: Problem start date: 2/13/23 Category: ADL (Activities of Daily Living) Functional/ Rehabilitation Potential Alteration in ADLs- self-care deficit r/t (related to) Resident's participation and functioning level does vary/ fluctuate. Goal: Resident will be clean/ well-groomed daily and will participate in cares to their fullest ability. Resident's preferences with be honored to the extent possible. Approach: .Approach start date: Status of transfers: A1 (Assist of 1). Bed to/ from w/c (wheelchair) to have gait belt on and 2ww (2 wheeled walker) in front. w/c to toilet A1 . On 3/14/23 at 11:40 AM, Surveyor interviewed R2. Surveyor asked R2 if facility staff answer his call light timely, R2 stated no. Surveyor asked R2 how long he typically has to wait for his call light to be answered, R2 stated that he has to wait up to a half an hour. Surveyor asked R2 if he has had any accidents because of having to wait for staff to answer his call light, R2 stated yeah, I crapped my pants a couple of times. Surveyor asked R2 how that made him feel, R2 stated helpless. On 3/14/23 at 5:04 PM, Surveyor interviewed CNA S (Certified Nursing Assistant). Surveyor asked CNA S if R2 is incontinent of his bowels, CNA S stated yes. Surveyor asked CNA S what led to R2 being incontinent, CNA S stated that she had transferred him from the wheelchair to the bed and then went to help another resident with a shower. R2 put on his call light again and wanted me to stop the shower to toilet him, I told him that I couldn't do that. Surveyor asked CNA S if R2 is frequently incontinent, CNA S stated only when he has a BM (Bowel Movement). On 3/14/23 at 5:58 PM, Surveyor interviewed DON B (Director of Nursing). Surveyor asked DON B what her expectation is for when a nurse answers a call light, DON B stated that she expects that the nurse sees what their needs are and if they are not able to meet their needs, they find someone who can. Surveyor asked DON B if the facility's nurses can take residents to the toilet, DON B stated yes. Surveyor reviewed the R2's grievance with DON B. Surveyor asked DON B if there was any reason why the nurse that answered his call light did not take him to the bathroom, DON B stated the only reason would be if she was dealing with an emergency. Surveyor asked DON B if the nurse was dealing with an emergency, would she leave to answer a call light, DON B stated no. Surveyor asked DON B if the nurse should have taken R2 to the bathroom, DON B stated yes. On 3/14/23 at 6:22 PM, Surveyor asked DON B if it would have been acceptable practice for the nurse to put R2 on the bed pan, DON B stated that the nurse should have offered it.
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 F0660 (Tag F0660)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility did not ensure that they involved the resident and/or resident representative...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility did not ensure that they involved the resident and/or resident representative in creating a discharge plan that reflected the resident's discharge goals for 2 of 4 residents (R2 and R4) reviewed for discharge planning. The facility has no evidence that they discussed discharge plans with the R2 or R4. The facility failed to follow up on transfer referrals requested by R2. Evidenced by: The facility's policy titled Discharge Plan last reviewed on 1/2022 states in part, Standard: The facility will initiate a discharge plan for every resident that has been admitted to the facility. The plan will be developed to focus on the resident's discharge goals by actively engaging the resident, resident representative in their return home and/ or the community .Procedure: 1. Social Services will formulate a discharge plan with the Interdisciplinary Team (IDT), the resident and resident's representative .2. Social Services will initiate the discharge plan within 48 hours from the resident's admission to the facility .5. The discharge plan will indicate each of the resident outcomes to be accomplished prior to discharge which may include any of the following: *Medical needs to be resolved prior to discharge * Restored functional ability as a result of therapy services * Resident/ family/ caregiver education to be successfully completed * Adaptions to the resident's home * Resident/ family anxieties or fears to be resolved * Outside agency support required . Example 1 R2 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that include hemiplegia and hemiparesis following a cerebral infarction (stroke) affecting left non-dominant side, COPD (Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease), Cerebral Infarction, history of falling, Generalized anxiety disorder, and Major Depressive Disorder. R2's most recent MDS (Minimum Data Set) dated 2/20/23 states that R2 has a BIMS (Brief Interview of Mental Status) of 15/15 indicating that R2 is cognitively intact. R2's Baseline Care Plan, no date, indicates that R2's discharge goals are to return to the community/ home. On 3/14/23, Surveyor reviewed R2's EHR (Electronic Health Record) and there was no documentation indicating that facility staff had discussed discharge planning with him. On 3/14/23 at 11:40 AM, Surveyor interviewed R2. Surveyor asked R2 if facility staff has discussed discharge planning with him, R2 stated that he believed that therapy was working on a plan and that his plan is to return home. Surveyor asked R2 if the Social Worker has ever discussed discharge planning with him, R2 stated no. Surveyor asked R2 if he has ever requested to be transferred to another facility, R2 stated yes. Surveyor asked R2 who he spoke with, R2 stated that he had his family members talk to the facility staff to request a transfer. Surveyor asked R2 if the Social Worker has ever come in to talk with him, R2 stated no. Example 2 R4 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that include right femur fracture, paraplegia, retention of urine, hypertension, and benign neoplasm of colon. R4's most recent MDS (Minimum Data Set) dated 2/27/23 states that R4 has a BIMS (Brief Interview of Mental Status) of 15/15, indicating that R4 is cognitively intact. R4's Baseline Care Plan, no date, indicates that R4's discharge goals are to return to the community/ home. On 3/14/23, Surveyor reviewed R4's EHR (Electronic Health Record) and there was no documentation indicating that facility staff had discussed discharge planning with him. On 3/14/23 at 10:22 AM, Surveyor interviewed R4. Surveyor asked R4 if any facility staff has met with him to discuss discharge planning, R4 stated that they have not discussed that yet and that his sister will help him figure it out. On 3/14/23 at 3:04 PM, Surveyor interviewed SW O (Social Worker). Surveyor asked SW O when discharge planning begins, SW O stated that they have a care conference approximately 2 weeks after admission and learn what the resident's goals are. Surveyor asked SW O how often she meets with residents, SW O stated that she meets with resident upon request and when their quarterly assessments are due. Surveyor asked SW O how she knows what each resident's discharge disposition is, SW O stated that she usually gets that information from the hospital notes. Surveyor asked SW O what R2's discharge plans were, SW O stated that R2 will probably return home with his son. Surveyor asked SW O if R2 or any member of his family has requested a transfer to another facility, SW O stated yes. SW O reported that she made 3 referrals for R2, SW O then stated that 1 facility declined admission and the other 2 never responded. Surveyor asked SW O if she updated R2 or his family regarding the status of the referrals, SW O stated that R2 is his own person, so she updated him. Surveyor asked SW O if R2's request to transfer, referrals made, and status of referrals were documented, SW O stated no. Surveyor asked SW O if that information should have been documented, SW O stated probably. Surveyor asked SW O what the discharge plans were for R4, SW O stated that they have his care conference on Thursday and his goal is to go home. Surveyor asked SW O if she has met with R4, SW O stated no. It is important to note that SW O has not followed up on R2's referrals since 2/22/23. SW O provided Surveyor with a document titled Initial Care Conference dated 3/9/23 for R2. The document discusses how R2's discharge goal is to return to his son's house but does not indicate that R2 requested a transfer to another facility, or the status of the referrals made. On 3/14/23 at 4:30 PM, Surveyor interviewed DON B (Director of Nursing) and QA RN G (Quality Assurance Registered Nurse). Surveyor asked when does discharge planning begin, QA RN G stated discharge planning begins at admission. Surveyor asked DON B and QA RN G if a resident requests to transfer to a different facility, would you expect that the request, approvals, and denials be documented, QA RN G stated that it should have been. On 3/14/23 at 5:08 PM, Surveyor interviewed R2. Surveyor asked R2 if the Social Worker had given him any updates on the status of his referrals, R2 stated that no one has talked to him.
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, interview and record review, the facility did not maintain a safe and sanitary environment in which food is stored and distributed in accordance with professional standards for f...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility did not maintain a safe and sanitary environment in which food is stored and distributed in accordance with professional standards for food service safety. This has the potential to affect all 81 residents who reside in the facility. Surveyor observed undated supplements in a walk-in cooler in the main kitchen and in the East Wing Refrigerator. Surveyor observed a dried brownish tan substance in the East Wing Refrigerator. Evidenced by: The facility policy titled, Storage Procedures, with a revised date of 4/21, includes, in part: Policy: Food shall be properly stored to preserve flavor, nutritive value, and appearance. Procedure: .Refrigerated Storage: .3. Refrigeration equipment is to be routinely cleaned and defrosted .5. Food should be covered, dated, and stored loosely to permit circulation of air . On 3/14/23, during tour of main kitchen storage and East Wing Refrigerator with DM M (Dietary Manager), that began at 10:42AM, Surveyor observed the following: Main kitchen's walk-in cooler. -15 nutritional mighty shake supplements in a box. A label was affixed to the outer box that indicated a received date of 3/7/23. There were no thaw dates on the individual supplement containers nor was there a thaw date on the outer box. Printed on the supplements is the manufacturer's directions to use thawed product within 14 days. -Nutritional magic cup supplements in a box. A label was affixed to the outer box that indicated a received of date of 3/7/23. There were no thaw dates on the individual supplement containers nor was there a thaw date on the outer box. Printed on the supplements is the manufacturer's directions to consume within 5 days of thawing (under refrigeration). -A plastic container with a green lid that does not have a label to identify the food product or any dating information. Surveyor asked DM M if the supplements should be dated with a thaw date. DM M indicated, yes, usually we date the box not the individual container. Surveyor asked DM M if there was a thaw date on the outside of the box. DM M indicated there was not. Surveyor asked DM M if she knew what the product was inside the plastic container with the green lid. DM M indicated she felt it was mozzarella cheese. Surveyor asked DM M if she was able to locate any type of labeling on the container. DM M indicated she was not. Surveyor asked DM M if this should be labeled and dated. DM M indicated, yes to labeling and I don't know to the dating. East Wing Refrigerator: -8 nutritional mighty shake supplements were noted in the refrigerator with no thaw dates. Printed on the supplements is the manufacturer's directions to use thawed product within 14 days. -Refrigerator had a dried brownish tan substance spilled on the lower shelf on right hand side by lower drawer; both interior door shelves; and down the interior of the door itself. Surveyor asked DM M if the supplements should have a thawed date on them. DM M indicated, she did not believe the supplements were put in the refrigerator by the kitchen staff and that perhaps the staff may be taking them off the meal trays if they are not consumed and then putting them in the refrigerator. Surveyor asked DM M who is responsible for putting the supplements on the trays initially. DM M indicated the kitchen staff. Surveyor asked DM M if there is no thaw date on the container how would staff know when to throw them out. DM M indicated, we usually put thaw dates on the outside of the box. DM M indicated; she did not believe the kitchen oversaw this refrigerator. On 3/14/23 at 11:23AM Surveyor interviewed DON B (Director of Nursing) at the East Wing Refrigerator and asked who was in charge of monitoring the refrigerator. DON B indicated the night nurses check it and go through it. Surveyor asked DON B if she would consider the refrigerator clean. DON B indicated, no. On 3/14/23 at 11:25AM Surveyor interviewed CNA Q (Certified Nursing Assistant) and asked how the mighty shakes get to the East Wing Refrigerator. CNA Q indicated she believed the kitchen puts them in the refrigerator. Surveyor asked CNA Q if she has ever taken a mighty shake off a resident tray and placed it in the refrigerator. CNA Q indicated she had not. Surveyor asked CNA Q how she knows when it is originally thawed. CNA Q indicated, if it is not frozen use the expiration date on shakes and cups. On 3/14/23 at 11:45AM Surveyor observed RN R (Registered Nurse) assisting a resident to eat. Surveyor observed a magic cup as part of the resident's meal. Surveyor asked RN R how she would know what the thaw date of the magic cup is. RN R indicated, I suppose I don't. The kitchen puts them on the tray. Surveyor asked RN R if there was a thaw date written on the magic cup. RN R indicated there was not. Surveyor asked RN R how she would know if the magic cup was still good to serve. RN R indicated the expiration date. Surveyor showed RN R the instructions on the magic cup that indicate to consume within 5 days of thawing. RN R indicated, she would trust the kitchen to know if it was good. On 3/14/23 at 12:40PM DM M and QA RN G (Quality Assurance Registered Nurse) provided the manufacturer's recommendations for the nutritional shakes and cups. At this time DM M reported that the boxes in the cooler had been changed out. Surveyor asked how staff would know when the thaw date is if there is no date on the actual cup/shake. DM M indicated, because we put them on the tray in the kitchen and if they are not used they should be thrown out. Surveyor asked DM M if she knew how many days residents were receiving supplement cups from the box with a received date of 3/7 and no thaw date that was observed this AM. DM M shook her head no. On 3/14/12 at 5:10PM Surveyor asked DON B and QA RN G if all residents in the facility could potentially be served items out of the East Wing Refrigerator. Both indicated they could. On 3/14/23 at 5:22PM Surveyor interviewed [NAME] P with DM M present. Surveyor asked [NAME] P if he recalled when mozzarella cheese was last used. DM M and [NAME] P reviewed the menus. DM M indicated, probably 3/2 for pizza and the unlabeled container was probably left over. Surveyor asked [NAME] P if he recalled using mozzarella cheese on 3/2. [NAME] P indicated, he recalled opening a new bag of mozzarella cheese and putting the left over cheese in the container. Surveyor asked [NAME] P if the container should have been labeled and dated. [NAME] P indicated, yes. On 3/14/23 at 5:30PM Surveyor was provided with a list of residents that receive either the supplemental shakes or supplemental magic cups. Per QA RN G the title Shake/Medipass is referring to the supplemental shakes. The list contains 37 residents marked for Shake/Medipass and 21 residents marked for Magic Cup
Dec 2022 8 deficiencies 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 observations, interviews, record reviews, and review of facility policy, the facility failed to ensure 2 of 7 residents...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, interviews, record reviews, and review of facility policy, the facility failed to ensure 2 of 7 residents (R33 and R16) reviewed for falls received assistance devices to prevent accidents. The facility failed to implement a fall prevention measure for R33; as a result, R33 sustained a fall on 12/10/22 which resulted in a fractured hip. R33 was then placed on hospice services and passed away. In addition, the facility removed a U-bar (a device attached to a medical bed to assist with positioning), without assessing R16 for safety. R16 used the U-bar to assist him in and out of bed. When the U-bar was removed by the facility, R16 took a folding chair and attached the chair with a gait-belt to the bed frame and used it as a transferring device. Findings include: Review of a document provided by the facility titled Fall Prevention and Management Program, dated 01/22 indicated .Atrium Centers has established a standardized policy with guidelines that assigns responsibility and provides procedures for identifying residents at risk for falls; to systematically assess fall risk factors, providing guidelines for fall and repeat fall preventative interventions; outlines procedures for documentation and procedures for communication . Example 1: R33 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with a diagnosis of vascular dementia. The quarterly MDS (Minimum Data Set) assessment, dated 10/03/22, indicated R33 had a BIMS (Brief Interview for Mental Status score of 10 out of 15 suggesting moderate cognitive impairment. The assessment indicated R33 required extensive assistance of one staff for bed mobility and extensive assistance of two staff for transfers. The assessment indicated R33 had two or more falls since admission and had no major injuries as a result. An Observation Detail List Report dated 11/16/22 indicated the resident was considered to be at high risk for falls with a score of 9. The score grid, located on this document, revealed any score of five or greater was considered high risk. R33's Resident Progress Notes dated 12/04/22 indicated R33 was found by Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) lying parallel on the floor next to his bed. R33 was wrapped in his blanket. The progress notes revealed the resident had to be transferred back to the bed by a mechanical lift. The resident sustained no injuries. The Interdisciplinary Team (IDT) reviewed the resident's fall from 12/04/22 and recommended to place a fall mat on the floor next to his bed. This intervention was placed on R33's care plan on 12/5/22, R33's Resident Progress Notes dated 12/10/22 indicated R33 sustained a fall to the floor. LPN E (Licensed Practical Nurse) indicated the resident was found by a CNA and he was screaming in pain. R33 was moved by a mechanical lift, and this was when LPN E noticed his right leg was shorter than the left. LPN E notified the guardian and the physician. R33 was sent to the emergency room after this incident. Another entry on this same date indicated the resident was admitted to the hospital for a right fractured hip. R33 was placed on comfort measures and surgical repair was not pursued. R33 was discharged back to the facility on [DATE]. During an interview on 12/29/22 at 10:36 AM, DON B (Director of Nursing) stated the floor mat was not placed on the floor next to R33's bed as directed by the resident's care plan dated 12/05/22. DON B stated this was discovered during the investigation into the fall. During an interview on 12/29/22 at 2:59 PM, LPN E stated she was the staff member present during R33's fall on 12/10/22. LPN E confirmed there was no fall mat present when she assessed the resident after his fall. LPN E stated the resident would typically sit on the edge of his bed but never saw the resident attempt to get out of bed on his own. During an interview on 12/30/22 at 7:41 AM, LPN F confirmed she was the nurse on duty when R33 fell on [DATE]. LPN F stated she went to look for a fall mat after this incident and could not locate a mat. LPN F stated she worked the night shift again on 12/09/22 and did not remember a fall mat. LPN F stated she passed the need for a fall mat during report to the next nursing shift and was not aware the fall mat was never implemented by the facility. During an interview on 12/30/22 at 9:46 AM, DON B and QAN G (Quality Assurance Nurse) were present. DON B stated the goal was to prevent accidents for all residents and to provide safety. DON B stated when R33 returned back to the facility the staff had rearranged his room and provided a fall mat and made sure fall/accident interventions were put into place. Example 2: R16 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with alcohol induced ataxia (involuntary bodily movements). R16's Care Plan 08/16/21 indicated the resident was at risk for falls. There was no mention of a U-bar or other device to assist the resident into and out of the bed. R16's quarterly MDS dated [DATE] indicated R16 had a BIMS of 11 out of 15 which revealed the resident was moderately cognitively impaired. The assessment indicated the resident was independent with bed mobility and transfers. An Observation Detail List Report dated 11/16/22 indicated the resident was considered to be at high risk for falls with a score of six. The score grid, located on this document, revealed any score of five or greater was considered high risk. During an interview on 12/28/22 at 8:21 AM, R16 stated a U-bar was removed from the head of his bed and he used it to position himself and get himself in and out of his bed. Surveyor observed the resident's bed and he had a folding chair attached to the frame close to the head of the bed. A gait belt was used to attach the folding chair to the bed frame. During an observation on 12/28/22 at 2:36 PM, the folding chair was still attached with a gait belt to R16's bed frame. During an interview on 12/28/22 at 2:45 PM, CNA I and CNA H (Certified Nursing Assistant)confirmed they were familiar with R16. Both stated the resident used to have a U-bar to assist him into and out of the bed. Both stated the U-bar was taken off by the facility. Both CNAs stated they were aware of the folding chair being placed next to the bed. Also present during the conversation was was LPN J. All 3 of the staff entered R16's room and confirmed the resident had attached the folding chair to the bed frame. LPN J stated this was a potential accident hazard and would alert maintenance. During an interview on 12/28/22 at 2:50 PM, DON B stated the U-bar was removed from R16's bed and was not aware the resident used a folding chair as a positioning device. During an interview on 12/28/22 at 3:31 PM, DON B confirmed there was no assessment completed for R16 prior to the removal of the U-bar from his bed and was not aware the resident used the device to position himself. During an interview on 12/29/22 at 8:11 AM, DoR K (Director of Rehab) confirmed R16 was a fall risk based on his diagnosis of ataxia. The DoR K stated the use of a U-bar was appropriate for the resident.
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 F0572 (Tag F0572)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interviews, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure 1 of 19 sampled residents (R230) w...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interviews, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure 1 of 19 sampled residents (R230) was provided admission paperwork which included residents' rights and responsibilities. Findings include: Review of a document provided by the facility titled admission Policy, undated indicated .Prospective residents will be given a copy of [NAME] information Regarding Payment, Rights & Responsibilities, Services & Limitations, and all other applicable policies, prior to signing the Consent to Treat and admission Agreement, whenever practical . R230 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. R230's admission Packet dated 12/23/22 indicated the resident's representative signed the admission paperwork, which included rights and responsibilities of the resident. There was a hand-written note at the top of the cover sheet which stated, None of this was filled out or signed until 12/27/22 I was asked to date it at 12/23/22. There was no name at the end of this hand-written statement nor were there initials. During an interview on 12/28/22 at 12:52 PM, R230's family member stated she was not provided the admission paperwork until 12/27/22 and this was when she signed the documents. During an interview on 12/28/22 at 2:03 PM, AC-C (Admissions Coordinator) stated the admission paperwork was to be provided to the resident and/or the representative prior to the admission or the day of the admission. AC-C confirmed the paperwork was completed on 12/27/22 and the paperwork included the residents' rights and responsibilities. A subsequent interview on 12/29/22 at 2:47 PM, AC-C stated the handwritten statement on the cover sheet of the admission packet was written by R230's family member and not her. AC-C confirmed she post dated the admission packet with the date of 12/23/22 and not the actual date of the resident's family member. AC-C stated she did this in anticipation of the resident's scheduled admission on [DATE] and she stated she did not work on this date due to the holiday. AC-C stated she should have dated the documents on 12/27/22. During an interview on 12/30/22 at 9:46 AM, DON-B (Director of Nursing) stated it was her expectation the admission paperwork was completed timely.
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

Free from Abuse/Neglect (Tag F0600)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, staff interviews, and review of facility policy, the facility failed to ensure 1 of 6 residents (R38) re...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, staff interviews, and review of facility policy, the facility failed to ensure 1 of 6 residents (R38) reviewed for abuse remained free from physical abuse. R38 was physically assaulted by R15 on 3 separate occasions. Findings include: The facility policy titled Abuse Prevention Program Policy and Procedure with a revised date of 01/22 stated Each resident has the right to be free from abuse, neglect, and corporal punishment of any type by staff or anyone. The facility will provide a safe resident environment and protect residents from abuse. R15's Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] indicated no problems with her long-term and short-term memory; requiring modified independence with daily decision making; and being independent with bed mobility, transfers, walking, and locomotion. According to the assessment she exhibited verbal behaviors directed to others (threatening, screaming at others, cussing at others) during the 7 day look back period. Review of R38's annual MDS assessment dated [DATE] revealed she had a brief interview for mental status score of two out of 15 indicating she was severely cognitively impaired; she required extensive assistance with bed mobility, transfers, and dressing; and supervision with locomotion and eating. She was dependent on a wheelchair for locomotion. A progress note in R15's EMR dated 09/01/21 and timed 2:08 PM stated R15 hit another resident across the face and pulled her hair. On 12/29/22 at 4:02 PM, the Director of Nursing (DON) stated R38 was the resident R15 hit in the face and pulled her hair. Review of a document titled State of Wisconsin Misconduct Incident Report signed by NHA-A (Nursing Home Administrator) and dated 10/26/22 revealed on 10/20/22 at 11:45 AM, R15 struck R38 on the side of the head after moving R38's wheelchair that had been in the path of R15. According to the report, R38 placed her hand on the side of her head for approximately 10 seconds immediately after being struck and then proceeded to move in another direction as if nothing happened. According to the report, R38 did not recall the incident due to cognitive impairments. The residents were immediately separated, and a body check was completed on R38 after the incident occurred. The report included a Witness Statement dated 10/20/22 from the MtD D (Maintenance Director) who was the only witness to the resident-to-resident altercation. During an interview on 12/28/22 at 1:20 PM, MtD D revealed he witnessed the incident. MtD D stated R38 was sitting in the doorway between the 100 hallway and the dining room in her wheelchair. R15 became upset stating R38 was in her way and R15 pulled R38 back in the wheelchair and hit R38 on the side of her head with the back of her hand as she passed R38. According to MtD D, R15 was ambulating with her walker at the time of the incident. MtD D stated he immediately reported the incident to the nurse, he could not remember the nurse's name. MtD D stated R38 did not react as if she was hurt and continued her way. Review of an Observation Detail List Report indicated a body check was completed on R38 on 10/20/22 at 3:02 PM and no area of skin impairments were noted. Example 2: R15's progress notes dated 09/23/22 stated R15 became upset with another resident for slowing down in front of her room and began hitting the resident's wheelchair with her walker. On 12/29/22 at 4:02 PM DON B (Director of Nursing was queried about who the resident was, and she stated it was R38. On 12/29/22 at 4:02 PM, DON B verified the 2 incidents of substantiated abuse in the last year by R15 towards R38. Example 3: A progress note in R15's record dated 11/17/21 and timed 4:57 PM stated R15 grabbed another resident by the neck. On 12/29/22 at 4:02 PM, DON B stated the other resident was R38.
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Investigate Abuse (Tag F0610)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and staff interviews the facility did not ensure that further potential abuse did not occur for 1 of 6 sa...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and staff interviews the facility did not ensure that further potential abuse did not occur for 1 of 6 sampled residents (R38). R38 was physically assaulted by R15 on multiple occasions. Following each incident, the facility did not take action to ensure R38 was not further abused in the future. Findings include: Review of R15's quarterly MDS (Minimum Data Set) assessment dated [DATE] revealed R15 had no problems with her long-term and short-term memory; requiring modified independence with daily decision making; and was independent with transfers, walking, and locomotion. According to the assessment, R15 exhibited verbal behaviors directed to others (threatening, screaming at others, cussing at others) during the 7 day look back period. R15's plan of care has a problem start date of 09/14/21 stating, resident has had altercations with another resident. Staff updated on whom. The approach dated of 09/14/21 stated to Attempt to keep residents separated if able. Redirect when needed. Report any concerns to Administrator or DON (Director of Nursing). The care plan had not been updated since 09/14/21. Review of R38's Annual MDS assessment dated [DATE] revealed she had a brief interview for mental status score of 2 indicating she was severely cognitively impaired; she required extensive assistance with bed mobility, transfers, and dressing; and supervision with locomotion and eating. She was dependent on a wheelchair for locomotion. A State of Wisconsin Misconduct Incident Report signed by NHA A (Nursing Home Administrator) and dated 10/26/22 revealed on 10/20/22 at 11:45 AM, R15 struck R38 on the side of the head after moving R38's wheelchair that had been in the path of R15. According to the report, R38 placed her hand on the side of her head for approximately 10 seconds immediately after being struck and then proceeded to move in another direction as if nothing happened. The residents were immediately separated, and a body check was completed on R38 after the incident occurred. The report included a Witness Statement dated 10/20/22 from the MtD D (Maintenance Director ) who was the only witness to the resident-to-resident altercation. Review of R15's progress revealed three additional altercations without injury involving R38. The altercations included: A progress note in R15's EMR dated 09/01/21 and timed 2:08 PM stated R15 hit another resident across the face and pulled her hair. On 12/29/22 at 4:02 PM, DON B (Director of Nursing) stated R38 was the resident R15 hit in the face and pulled her hair. A progress note in R15's record dated 11/17/21 and timed 4:57 PM stated R15 grabbed another resident by the neck. On 12/29/22 at 4:02 PM, DON B stated the other resident was R38. A progress note dated 09/23/22 and timed 12:28 AM, stated R15 became upset with another resident for slowing down in front of her room and began hitting the resident's wheelchair with her walker. On 12/29/22 at 4:02 PM, DON B was queried about who the resident was, and she stated it was R38. On 12/29/22 at 4:02 PM, DON B verified R15's care plan had not been updated and no new interventions had been initiated to ensure R38 was safe from R15's abuse since 09/14/21 even though there had been 3 additional incidents involving resident-to-resident confrontations between R15 and R38.
CONCERN (D)

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

Drug Regimen Review (Tag F0756)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, staff interview, and facility pharmacy policy review, the facility did not ensure that 1 of 6 residents'...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, staff interview, and facility pharmacy policy review, the facility did not ensure that 1 of 6 residents' (R13) medication regimens was free from medication irregularities. R13 had an order for as needed lorazepam (a psychotropic medication). There was no 14 day stop order. This irregularity was not identified during 5 monthly reviews. Findings include: Review of a document provided by the facility titled Drug Regimen Review for [NAME] Health Care Facility dated 02/01/21 indicated .To ensure timely pharmacist conducted drug regimen review (DRR) for every resident, including guidelines for documentation and communication to nursing, practitioners, and administrative team .Irregularities and recommendations identified during DRR will be printed, including date, resident name, medication name, and irregularity, by the pharmacist and provided to the charge nurse for distribution to practitioners for review at their next scheduled visit . R13 admitted to the facility on [DATE]. R13's physician orders include an order for lorazepam 0.25 milliters every 4 hour as needed for anxiety dated 9/6/22. This order was discontinued on 10/14/22. A second order, also dated 9/6/22 was for lorazepam 0.5 milligram tablet every 4 hours for anxiety. The end date was identified as Open Ended and there was no 14-day end date on this order. Review of R13's documentation found the Consultant Pharmacist completed monthly reviews from 06/28/22 through 11/19/22 and revealed there were no irregularities noted, such as the 14-day end date for the use of as needed Lorazepam. During an interview on 12/29/22 at 3:08 PM, the Consultant Pharmacist confirmed she missed identifying the 14-day end date on R31's as needed Lorazepam.
CONCERN (D)

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

Medication Errors (Tag F0758)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview, record review, and review of facility documents and policy, the facility failed to ensure 1 of 6 residents (...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview, record review, and review of facility documents and policy, the facility failed to ensure 1 of 6 residents (R13) reviewed for unnecessary medications did not receive an as needed psychotropic medication for greater than 14 days. R13 had 2 orders for as needed lorazepam. There were no stop orders for either order. R13 received the as needed lorazepam for greater than 14 days without the prescriber evaluating and documenting the clinical indications for the continued use and duration of therapy out of a total sample of 19 residents. Findings include: Review of a document provided by the facility titled Psychotropic Medication Use, dated 09/22 indicated .PRN orders for psychotropic drugs are limited to 14 days. Except if the attending physician or prescribing practitioner believes that it is appropriate for the PRN order to be extended beyond 14 days, he or she must document their rationale in the resident's medical record and indicate the duration for the PRN order. The attending physician or prescribing practitioner evaluates the resident for the appropriateness of the medication . R13 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with a diagnosis of dementia. R13's MDS assessment (Minimum Data Set) dated 09/16/22 indicated the resident had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 5 out of 15 which revealed the resident was significantly cognitively impaired. R13's Resident Progress Notes indicated the resident had behaviors such as hallucinations and anxiety. R13's Prescription Order dated 09/06/22 indicated the prescriber ordered Lorazepam 0.25 milliliters (ml) by mouth every four hours PRN for anxiety. There was no 14-day end date on this order. This order was discontinued on 10/14/22. The MAR (Medication Administration Record) from 09/06/22 through 10/14/22 indicated the resident did not receive the PRN Lorazepam 0.25 ml. R13's Prescription Order, also dated 09/06/22 indicated the prescriber ordered Lorazepam 0.5 milligrams (mg) tablet to be administered every four hours PRN for anxiety. The end date was identified as Open Ended and there was no 14-day end date on this order. The MAR from 10/14/22 through 12/28/22 indicated the resident received the PRN Lorazepam 0.5 mg 25 times. R13's clinical record did not include a re-evaluation of the clinical indications for continued use of the as needed lorazepam by the prescriber. During an interview on 12/29/22 at 2:30 PM, VPCS L (Vice President of Clinical Services) stated any PRN psychotropic needed to have a 14-day end date and to be re-evaluated if the prescriber believes the resident requires additional treatment. Prescriber re-evaluations for the continued use of Lorazepam was requested. Documentation was not provided by the end of the survey. During an interview on 12/30/22 at 9:46 AM, DON B (Director of Nursing) and QAN G (Quality Assurance Nurse) stated there should have been a 14-day end date to the original PRN Lorazepam orders. DON B stated the facility has done a great deal of work with the Nurse Practitioners and the physicians around this requirement, but it was missed.
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 staff interviews, the facility failed to follow appropriate infection control practices for 1 of 4 residents (R180) observed during medication administration. Nursing staff p...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, and staff interviews, the facility failed to follow appropriate infection control practices for 1 of 4 residents (R180) observed during medication administration. Nursing staff placed medications directly on an unclean surface. Findings include: On 12/30/22 at 7:46 AM, LPN O (Licensed Practical Nurse) administered medications to R180. LPN O poured R180's pills out of the medication cup and on to the bedside table. LPN O did not clean the table or place a barrier before pouring out the pills. R180 then picked up each medication one at a time until she had taken them all. During an interview on 12/30/22 at 8:03 AM, LPN O was asked if the bedside table where he poured R180's pills was clean. LPN O stated probably not, to be quite honest with you. LPN O stated further that R180 lacked the finger dexterity to handle pills from the medication cup, and that he let R180 pick up the pills herself to preserve her independence. During an interview with DON B (Director of Nursing) on 12/30/22 at 12:18 PM, DON B was told of the foregoing observations. The DON stated that it was not acceptable that LPN O pour pills on an unclean surface for R180.
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 observations, staff interview, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure food was prepared, stored, and served in a sanitary manner. This had the potential to affect all residents of t...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observations, staff interview, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure food was prepared, stored, and served in a sanitary manner. This had the potential to affect all residents of the facility. Findings include: Example 1: On 12/27/22 at 9:05 AM, the sanitizer in the red sanitizer bucket with wiping cloths was measured using a test strip by the DM M (Dietary Manager). The quaternary sanitizer in the solution measured 0 parts per million (ppm). The DM stated she had prepared the solution that morning to keep the wiping cloths in and to sanitize the food contact surfaces. The DM verified it was not at the correct concentration to sanitize the food contact surfaces. She stated it should have been 150 to 400 ppm. The facility policy titled Sanitation Terminology with a revised date of 07/2016 stated the quaternary solutions should be at 150 to 400 ppm in order to sanitize food contact surfaces. Example 2: On 12/27/22 at 9:15 AM, a one-half gallon carton of strawberry lemonade juice was in the medication room nourishment/resident refrigerator located in the medication room on the west (100/200) unit. The juice had been open and was about 3/4 full of the beverage. The date 12/08/22 was written on the outside of the carton with a black permanent marker and the manufacturer's use-by-date located on the top of the carton was 06/30/22. DM M was present and stated 12/08/22 would have been the date the container was opened and first used. She verified the juice was opened and used after the use-by-date. The DM stated the juice should not have been used after 06/30/22, the use by date. The facility policy titled Storage Procedures with a revised date of 04/2021 stated foods should not be used after the use-by-date. Example 3: On 12/29/22 at 12:00 PM, DA N (Dietary Assistant) was observed spraying off soiled dishes and putting them in a soiled rack and pushing them through the dishwasher. After touching/handling the soiled dishes, DA N turned on the water over the garbage disposal on the soiled end of the dishwasher and washed his hands for 5 seconds; turned off the water with his bare hands and went to the clean end of the dishwasher and removed clean insulated bowls from a clean rack of dishes and put them away. At 12:04 PM, DA N was queried about how he washed his hands and he verified he turned the faucet off with his bare hands. Review of the policy titled Hand Washing/Hand Hygiene with a reviewed date of 01/2022 revealed it was the facility policy for staff to wash their hands after handling soiled dishes and before handling the clean dishes or food. The procedure stated hands should be washed for at least 20 seconds and the faucet should be turned off using a paper towel.
Understanding Severity Codes (click to expand)
Life-Threatening (Immediate Jeopardy)
J - Isolated K - Pattern L - Widespread
Actual Harm
G - Isolated H - Pattern I - Widespread
Potential for Harm
D - Isolated E - Pattern F - Widespread
No Harm (Minor)
A - Isolated B - Pattern C - Widespread

Questions to Ask on Your Visit

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

Our Honest Assessment

Strengths
  • • 40% turnover. Below Wisconsin's 48% average. Good staff retention means consistent care.
Concerns
  • • Multiple safety concerns identified: 3 life-threatening violation(s), 2 harm violation(s), $319,127 in fines. Review inspection reports carefully.
  • • 55 deficiencies on record, including 3 critical (life-threatening) violations. These warrant careful review before choosing this facility.
  • • $319,127 in fines. Extremely high, among the most fined facilities in Wisconsin. Major compliance failures.
  • • Grade F (0/100). Below average facility with significant concerns.
Bottom line: This facility has 3 Immediate Jeopardy findings. Serious concerns require careful evaluation.

About This Facility

What is Mulder Health Care Facility's CMS Rating?

CMS assigns MULDER HEALTH CARE FACILITY an overall rating of 1 out of 5 stars, which is considered much below average nationally. Within Wisconsin, this rating places the facility higher than 0% of the state's 100 nursing homes. A rating at this level reflects concerns identified through health inspections, staffing assessments, or quality measures that families should carefully consider.

How is Mulder Health Care Facility Staffed?

CMS rates MULDER HEALTH CARE FACILITY's staffing level at 4 out of 5 stars, which is above average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 40%, compared to the Wisconsin average of 46%. This relatively stable workforce can support continuity of care.

What Have Inspectors Found at Mulder Health Care Facility?

State health inspectors documented 55 deficiencies at MULDER HEALTH CARE FACILITY during 2022 to 2025. These included: 3 Immediate Jeopardy (the most serious level, indicating potential for serious harm or death), 2 that caused actual resident harm, and 50 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 Mulder Health Care Facility?

MULDER HEALTH CARE FACILITY 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 ATRIUM CENTERS, a chain that manages multiple nursing homes. With 87 certified beds and approximately 75 residents (about 86% occupancy), it is a smaller facility located in WEST SALEM, Wisconsin.

How Does Mulder Health Care Facility Compare to Other Wisconsin Nursing Homes?

Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Wisconsin, MULDER HEALTH CARE FACILITY's overall rating (1 stars) is below the state average of 3.0, staff turnover (40%) is near the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (1 stars) is much below the national benchmark.

What Should Families Ask When Visiting Mulder Health Care Facility?

Based on this facility's data, families visiting should ask: "What changes have been made since the serious inspection findings, and how are you preventing similar issues?" "Can I visit during a mealtime to observe dining assistance and food quality?" "How do you handle medical emergencies, and what is your hospital transfer rate?" "Can I speak with family members of current residents about their experience?" These questions are particularly relevant given the facility's Immediate Jeopardy citations.

Is Mulder Health Care Facility Safe?

Based on CMS inspection data, MULDER HEALTH CARE FACILITY has documented safety concerns. Inspectors have issued 3 Immediate Jeopardy citations (the most serious violation level indicating risk of serious injury or death). The facility has a 1-star overall rating and ranks #100 of 100 nursing homes in Wisconsin. Families considering this facility should ask detailed questions about what corrective actions have been taken since these incidents.

Do Nurses at Mulder Health Care Facility Stick Around?

MULDER HEALTH CARE FACILITY has a staff turnover rate of 40%, which is about average for Wisconsin nursing homes (state average: 46%). Moderate turnover is common in nursing homes, but families should still ask about staff tenure and how the facility maintains care continuity when employees leave.

Was Mulder Health Care Facility Ever Fined?

MULDER HEALTH CARE FACILITY has been fined $319,127 across 3 penalty actions. This is 8.8x the Wisconsin average of $36,270. Fines at this level are uncommon and typically indicate a pattern of serious deficiencies, repeated violations, or failure to correct problems promptly. CMS reserves penalties of this magnitude for facilities that pose significant, documented risk to resident health or safety. Families should request specific documentation of what issues led to these fines and what systemic changes have been implemented.

Is Mulder Health Care Facility on Any Federal Watch List?

MULDER HEALTH CARE FACILITY 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.