Highland Pines Rehabilitation Center
Inspection history, citations, penalties and survey trends for this long-term care facility in Clearwater, Florida.
- Location
- 1111 S Highland Ave, Clearwater, Florida 33756
- CMS Provider Number
- 105690
- Inspections on file
- 29
- Latest survey
- March 4, 2026
- Citations (last 12 mo.)
- 3
Citation history
Health deficiencies cited at Highland Pines Rehabilitation Center during CMS and state inspections, most recent first.
A resident with multiple comorbidities, including bilateral BKA and diabetes, developed a skin tear and infection of the right fifth finger after it became caught in a wheelchair. Nursing staff documented the open area and later described the finger as swollen, discolored, with drainage, necrosis, and signs of infection, and notified the UM and wound care team, but no treatment orders were implemented at that time. The PCP later confirmed having seen the resident in person and giving orders for an x-ray, oral Doxycycline, and topical Bacitracin for the injured finger on the same day the wound was first documented, yet these orders were not entered into the system until two days later. During this delay, the resident continued to experience pain and went without ordered infection treatment, and subsequent imaging showed findings consistent with osteomyelitis, leading to transfer and surgical amputation of the affected finger.
Two residents did not receive urinary catheter care consistent with professional standards. For one resident with chronic kidney disease and obstructive uropathy, surveyors observed the catheter drainage bag repeatedly resting on the floor with cloudy urine, despite documentation of catheter care and a care plan requiring the bag to be kept off the floor. Staff, including a CNA, an LPN, and the DON, acknowledged that catheter bags should not be on the floor. For another resident with multiple comorbidities and a care plan identifying catheter-related infection risk, daily notes initially documented clear urine and normal abdominal findings, but the resident later became lethargic and was sent to the hospital, where severe sepsis due to UTI and a malpositioned catheter balloon in the urethra with marked bladder distention and hydroureteronephrosis were identified. No assessment of catheter patency was documented, and interviewed staff could not recall the resident’s catheter status, despite describing general routines of rounding and catheter bag monitoring.
Two residents with documented moderate to severe pain and intact cognition did not consistently receive or have documented pain management as ordered. One resident, with a knee contusion and muscle weakness, had scheduled Hydrocodone-Acetaminophen every 8 hours but missed documented doses and reported that when pain meds were not given as scheduled, pain persisted all day. Another resident, with osteoporosis and abdominal pain, had orders for pain monitoring every shift and multiple scheduled opioid regimens (oxycodone and Hydrocodone-Acetaminophen via G-tube), yet the MAR showed missed doses, missing pain scores, and unclear entries without supporting progress notes, while the resident reported episodes of severe pain when medications were not administered. The facility’s own policy required medications to be given per prescriber orders, within 60 minutes of scheduled time, with immediate MAR documentation.
A facility failed to protect residents from neglect in medication management and lab follow-up, affecting eleven residents. One resident experienced serious harm due to unmonitored medication levels and lack of consultation. The facility's inadequate processes for managing lab orders and notifying physicians of abnormal results contributed to the neglect.
The facility failed to provide competent physician services and proper monitoring of medication levels for residents, leading to serious harm for a resident who required transfer to a higher level of care. Systemic issues in lab processes, including missed lab draws and delayed communication of critical results, were identified. Interviews with staff revealed a lack of oversight and follow-up on lab results, contributing to inadequate medical supervision.
The facility failed to ensure nursing staff competency in lab monitoring and communication, leading to a resident's serious medical event due to unmonitored medication levels. Systemic issues included missed lab orders, delayed communication of critical results, and unclear responsibilities among staff, resulting in Immediate Jeopardy.
The facility failed to manage lab orders and results, affecting eleven residents. One resident experienced serious harm due to unmonitored medication levels, leading to a worsened condition and transfer to a higher level of care. The DON acknowledged a systemic failure in the lab process, with no assigned responsibility for ensuring labs were drawn and results communicated to providers.
A facility failed to monitor medication levels and adverse events effectively, leading to a resident experiencing a severe medical episode. The resident's medication levels were not adequately checked or communicated to the physician, resulting in a transfer to a higher level of care. Systemic failures in lab processes and medication management were identified, with multiple residents affected by inadequate monitoring and reporting of lab results.
A long-term care facility failed to ensure competent nursing staff in managing lab monitoring, order follow-through, and physician communication, leading to serious harm for a resident. The facility's broken lab process resulted in missed lab draws, unreported critical results, and inadequate follow-up on consultations. Staff interviews revealed systemic issues, including lack of access to lab portals and unclear responsibilities, contributing to significant lapses in care for multiple residents.
The facility failed to protect residents from neglect in medication management and lab follow-up, affecting eleven residents. A resident experienced serious harm due to unmonitored medication levels and lack of provider consultation. The facility's lab process was described as broken, with no clear responsibility for overseeing lab orders and results, leading to missed or delayed lab draws and inadequate care.
The facility failed to update PASRRs for residents with mental disorders and intellectual disabilities, affecting five residents. A resident's PASRR was incomplete, missing updates for dementia and schizophrenia diagnoses. Other residents' PASRRs lacked necessary checks and updates, and one resident's PASRR was missing entirely. Staff interviews revealed a lack of access to the PASRR submission program, contributing to the deficiency.
The facility failed to maintain a clean and sanitary environment in resident rooms across three halls, with issues such as strong urine odors, stained floors and walls, and broken furniture. Staff shortages and inadequate cleaning practices contributed to the ongoing problems, as confirmed by staff interviews and observations. The facility's maintenance director acknowledged ventilation issues and the need for repairs, while the housekeeping manager admitted to the lack of cleanliness and accountability.
A facility failed to maintain a medication error rate below 5%, resulting in an 18.75% error rate. A registered nurse administered medications late to two residents, as confirmed by eMAR records. Interviews revealed that medications should be given within one hour of the scheduled time, but the nurse admitted to administering them late. The facility's policy requires adherence to scheduled times, yet no orders were documented to allow late administration.
The facility failed to maintain effective infection control practices, as staff frequently entered rooms of residents on isolation without proper PPE. Observations showed CNAs and housekeeping staff disregarding PPE protocols, despite clear signage indicating the need for gloves, gowns, and masks. Interviews revealed confusion and lack of awareness among staff regarding isolation procedures, contributing to non-compliance with infection prevention measures.
The facility failed to maintain an ongoing antibiotic stewardship program for July and August 2024, with no documentation of infection surveillance or antibiotic orders. Confusion over infection control responsibilities and lack of engagement in surveillance or audits by new staff contributed to the deficiency. The facility's policy required tracking of antibiotic use, which was not implemented, and staff were unaware of the Department of Health contact for outbreaks.
A resident was repeatedly exposed to inappropriate sexual behavior by a roommate, with staff failing to provide adequate privacy or intervention. Additionally, two residents had their urinary catheter bags left uncovered and visible from the hallway, violating their privacy. Staff acknowledged these issues but did not take effective action, highlighting a gap between the facility's policies and actual practices.
The facility failed to ensure call lights were within reach for residents in eight rooms across two halls. Observations showed call lights on the floor, and staff interviews revealed a lack of consistent practice in ensuring accessibility. The DON confirmed the absence of a formal policy for call light placement, despite staff education on its importance.
A resident with severe cognitive impairment was repeatedly observed performing sexual acts in his room without the privacy curtain being drawn, exposing him to others. Despite known behavioral issues, the care plan did not address privacy concerns, and staff efforts to ensure privacy were inconsistent. Interviews with staff and the resident's guardian highlighted the need for privacy, which was not adequately provided, violating the facility's policy on resident rights.
The facility failed to provide adequate language assistance for two residents with limited English proficiency. One resident used a personal translation app due to the lack of interpreting services, while another relied on inconsistent Spanish-speaking staff despite severe cognitive impairment. The facility's policy promised free language assistance, but staff interviews revealed a lack of access to such services.
A resident with severe cognitive impairment experienced increased sedation and lethargy after a significant increase in psychotropic medication dosages. The facility failed to document concerns or communicate with the PA about the resident's condition, leading to inadequate monitoring of medication side effects. The DON acknowledged the need for better documentation and communication regarding changes in condition.
A resident with a detached retina experienced significant delays in receiving necessary vision services due to the facility's failure to arrange timely ophthalmology consultations and transportation. Despite multiple orders and documented attempts to secure appointments, the resident missed several scheduled visits, and efforts to send the resident to the ER were unsuccessful.
The facility failed to monitor medication-related side effects and behaviors for two residents, leading to a deficiency in ensuring drug regimens were free from unnecessary drugs. One resident, with multiple diagnoses, had no documented behaviors in August 2024 despite a care plan requiring it. Another resident, with dementia and anxiety, lacked behavior monitoring orders and documentation. The DON noted the need for medication review due to lethargy. Facility policy required behavior monitoring for psychoactive medications, which was not followed.
A resident with moderate cognitive impairment was found with eye drops in their nightstand, which they should not have had access to. Additionally, two medication rooms contained improperly stored medications, including those belonging to expired and discharged residents. Staff were unaware of the contents and reasons for storage, violating the facility's medication storage policy.
Two residents in the facility did not receive adequate dental care. One resident had broken and missing teeth and was supposed to get dentures, but there was no documentation of dentures being provided. The resident missed three appointments with the oral surgeon due to various reasons. Another resident had broken and discolored teeth but lacked a care plan for dental needs. Despite claims of regular dental visits, there was no documentation to support this.
A facility failed to coordinate hospice care and code status for a resident with conflicting resuscitation orders. The resident's records showed hospice care for a terminal diagnosis, but also had a full resuscitation order. Staff interviews revealed missing hospice documentation, and the facility's policy on advance directives was not followed.
A resident dependent on a wheelchair for mobility was left without it overnight due to cleaning, causing significant distress. Staff confirmed the wheelchair was removed for cleaning, and no alternate was provided, despite the resident's repeated requests and dependency on the wheelchair for ambulation.
Failure to Timely Enter and Implement Wound Care and Antibiotic Orders for Infected Finger Injury
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to implement and enter physician orders for wound care and infection treatment in a timely manner for a resident with a right fifth finger injury. The resident had multiple significant medical diagnoses, including bilateral below-knee amputations, chronic congestive heart failure, Type 2 diabetes mellitus with diabetic chronic kidney disease, muscle wasting and atrophy, altered mental status, and delusional disorder. A skin evaluation dated 10/20/2025 documented bruising and an open area on the right hand pinky, identified as a new in-house skin tear. Progress notes from that date showed the nurse observed an open area on the right pinky finger, notified the unit manager and wound care team, and documented that the resident reported his finger had become tangled in the wheelchair wheel. However, no treatment orders were documented or implemented at that time for the finger wound. Staff interviews revealed that on 10/20/2025, an LPN observed the resident’s right pinky finger as swollen, necrotic, with pus and a blister, and stated she could tell the finger was infected and that it appeared to have been developing for a few days. She acknowledged that no treatment was provided until 10/22/2025 and that she should have immediately notified the provider but did not. On 10/21/2025, the wound care nurse and unit manager saw the resident for other wound care and noted the right pinky as swollen, discolored, with drainage and a blister, but the skin issue entry for the finger remained “not evaluated,” and there was no documentation of treatment orders being obtained or initiated that day. The DON and regional nurse consultant both stated that facility expectations were that any open area should prompt immediate provider notification, with documentation of that notification and prompt entry of any resulting orders. Record review showed that the resident’s primary care provider saw the resident in person on 10/20/2025 and, according to an untitled document later signed by the provider, gave orders for an x-ray of the right hand, Doxycycline, and topical Bacitracin for the right fifth digit on that date. However, these orders were not entered into the facility’s system until 10/22/2025 and 10/23/2025, when an x-ray order dated 10/22/2025 and medication orders dated 10/23/2025 appeared in the physician orders. A late entry progress note dated 10/22/2025 documented a call placed to the physician regarding the infected, swollen, and bruised right pinky finger and indicated the physician would examine the resident while rounding. The regional nurse consultant and DON confirmed that orders should be added as soon as they are given and that the facility’s policy requires noting, dating, signing, and confirming the accuracy of physician orders, with daily review to identify errors of omission. The failure to promptly enter and implement the provider’s wound care and antibiotic orders resulted in the resident going without ordered infection treatment for two days before further diagnostic testing and transfer occurred. Radiology records showed that an x-ray of the right hand, performed on 10/22/2025 and reported on 10/23/2025, demonstrated subtle bone loss at the fifth DIP joint with swelling, with a conclusion suggesting osteomyelitis and recommending an MRI. The DON stated that the primary care provider suspected osteomyelitis related to the right pinky finger and that the x-ray results revealed osteomyelitis. Hospital records documented that the resident presented for evaluation of the right small finger injury, with initial hand x-rays demonstrating signs of cellulitis and osteomyelitis, and that IV antibiotics were initiated. The resident subsequently underwent resection (amputation) of the right small finger. Throughout this sequence, the survey findings focused on the gap between the provider’s in-person assessment and orders on 10/20/2025 and the facility’s failure to timely enter and implement those orders, despite multiple staff observations and documentation of the injured, infected right pinky finger.
Failure to Maintain Proper Urinary Catheter Care and Assessment
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to provide urinary catheter care and services in accordance with professional standards for two residents. For one resident with chronic kidney disease (Stage 4) and obstructive uropathy, surveyors repeatedly observed the urinary catheter drainage bag detached from the bed and resting directly on the floor, with urine that appeared slightly cloudy. These observations occurred multiple times on the same day, despite the treatment administration record indicating catheter care was provided and a care plan directing staff to keep the drainage bag below bladder level and off the floor. During interviews, a CNA and an LPN both stated that catheter bags should be kept off the floor to prevent infection and that they routinely check catheter tubing, drainage bag placement, and urine characteristics, yet the resident’s catheter bag remained on the floor during the LPN’s visit to the room. The DON also confirmed that CNAs are responsible for catheter care and that catheter bags should not be on the floor. For another resident with obstructive uropathy, renal disease, communicating hydrocephalus, altered mental status, dementia, and acidosis, the care plan identified use of a urinary catheter with risk for infection and complications and directed staff to change the drainage bag routinely and as needed and to provide daily catheter care. Daily skilled nursing notes documented clear, yellow urine and normal abdominal findings on several days. However, the resident was later found lethargic and not responding to verbal stimuli, and was sent to the hospital, where records showed admission for severe sepsis secondary to UTI, life-threatening hypernatremia, and acute kidney injury. A CT scan revealed the catheter balloon was inflated in the urethra rather than the bladder, causing a significantly distended bladder and bilateral hydroureteronephrosis. Despite this change in condition, there was no documented assessment of urinary catheter patency, and interviewed staff, including an LPN and CNAs, had no recollection of the resident’s catheter status, though they described general practices of frequent rounding, monitoring, and emptying catheter bags.
Failure to Administer and Document Scheduled Pain Management as Ordered
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to provide and document pain management as ordered for two cognitively intact residents with documented pain. One resident, admitted with conditions including a right knee contusion, muscle weakness, and need for assistance with personal care, had an MDS showing a BIMS score of 15 and an average pain intensity of 7/10 over the prior five days. This resident had a physician’s order for Hydrocodone-Acetaminophen 5-325 mg, one tablet by mouth every 8 hours for chronic pain, but the MAR for January showed missed scheduled doses on two occasions. In interview, the resident reported not receiving pain medication as scheduled and stated that when this occurred, she experienced pain for the rest of the day. The Activities Director recalled that this resident had filed a grievance a few months earlier about not receiving medications, but did not know the outcome. The second resident, admitted with diagnoses including generalized anxiety disorder, age-related osteoporosis, and unspecified abdominal pain, had an MDS showing a BIMS score of 13 and an average pain intensity of 7/10 over the prior five days. This resident had a physician’s order to monitor and record pain every shift on a 0–10 scale, but the MAR showed a missing pain assessment on one night shift and documented severe pain (10/10) and moderate pain (5/10) on other shifts. The resident also had multiple scheduled pain medication orders, including oxycodone 5 mg every 8 hours and Hydrocodone-Acetaminophen 5-325 mg and 7.5-325 mg via G-tube every 6 hours, with the MAR showing missed doses on several dates and unclear entries such as “NA” and “9 (see progress notes)” without corresponding progress note documentation. In interview, this resident reported sometimes not receiving scheduled pain medication, resulting in severe pain. The Regional Nurse Consultant acknowledged that both residents should have received medications as ordered and that any omitted doses should have been accompanied by appropriate documentation, consistent with the facility’s medication administration policy requiring administration per prescriber orders, timely administration within 60 minutes of scheduled time, and immediate documentation on the MAR.
Neglect in Medication Management and Lab Follow-Up
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to protect residents' rights to be free from neglect, specifically in the area of medication management and follow-up laboratory orders for medication therapeutic levels. Eleven residents were affected, with serious harm occurring to one resident whose medication levels were not monitored, and consultation was not obtained as requested by the provider. This resident experienced a significant medical event and had to be transferred to a higher level of care due to the facility's failure to monitor and manage medication levels appropriately. The report details multiple instances where residents' medication levels were not checked as ordered, and abnormal lab results were not communicated to the appropriate medical providers. For example, one resident had low medication levels that were not reported to the physician, leading to a severe medical event. The facility's process for managing lab orders and results was inadequate, with orders not being transcribed correctly, and lab results not being reviewed or acted upon in a timely manner. Interviews with staff, including the DON and medical providers, revealed systemic failures in the facility's processes for lab management and physician notification. The DON admitted to not having a primary person assigned to oversee labs and review results, leading to missed lab draws and unreported critical lab values. The facility's lack of a structured process for ensuring lab orders were executed and results communicated contributed to the neglect of residents' medical needs.
Plan Of Correction
Free from & Neglect/N204 1. What corrective action(s) will be accomplished for those residents found to have been affected by the deficient practices? Residents #5 and #10 no longer reside in the facility. Laboratory orders for medication management were received for residents #1, #2, #3, #4, #6, #7, #8, #9, and #11. Results of labs were reported to resident physicians, documented in the clinical record, and new orders were transcribed as indicated. Consult was for resident #1 as requested by physician. 2. How you will identify other residents who have the potential to be affected by the same deficient practice and what corrective actions will be taken. A facility-wide audit of current residents on medications was conducted by Director of Nursing/designee to ensure that residents on medications had appropriate lab monitoring orders in place and that consultation orders for were completed as indicated. Any residents identified without lab monitoring orders or fully executed consults were reported to physician and new orders transcribed as indicated. 3. What measures will be put in place or what systematic changes you will make to ensure that the deficient practice does not recur. Director of Nursing/Designee will educate licensed nursing staff on the lab monitoring process to include ensuring that residents on medication receive proper lab monitoring, physician notification of abnormal lab values or refused labs, documentation of physician notification and new orders is recorded in the resident clinical record, and consultation orders for are properly executed. 4. How the corrective action(s) will be monitored to ensure the deficient practice will not recur. What quality assurance program will be put into place. Director of Nursing/Designee will randomly audit residents on medications to ensure that appropriate lab orders for monitoring medication levels are in place weekly for four weeks and then monthly for two months. Results of the audits will be submitted by the Director of Nursing/designee to the Quality Assessment, Assurance, and Compliance Committee monthly for three months for further recommendations and guidance.
Removal Plan
- The Regional Nurse Consultant educated the Administrator and Director of Nursing on neglect, and as they relate to ensuring proper follow-through with consultation orders, laboratory monitoring of therapeutic levels for medications, physician notification of abnormal labs, and follow-up procedures and resident condition change related to laboratory results. Education is 100% complete.
- The Consultant Physician provided education to facility Medical Director and physician extender on neglect, and as they relate to ensuring proper follow-through with consultation orders, laboratory monitoring of therapeutic levels for medications, and follow-up procedures related to laboratory results.
- The Director of Nursing or designee educated 100% of staff on neglect, and as they relate to ensuring proper follow-through with consultation orders, laboratory monitoring of therapeutic levels for medications, physician notification of abnormal lab values, and follow-up procedures related to laboratory results.
- Process Change: Director of Nursing is responsible for reviewing consultation log(s) and making sure that consultation orders were executed, monitoring the laboratory monitoring processes for medications that require lab levels, reviewing progress notes to ensure physician notification has taken place, and ensuring complete follow-through with relation to laboratory results.
- All education and in-service sign-in sheets were reviewed and validated 53 out of 93 employees had received neglect, and training as they relate to ensuring proper follow-through with consultation orders, laboratory monitoring of therapeutic levels for medications, physician notification of abnormal labs, and follow-up procedures and resident condition change related to laboratory results.
- Interviews were conducted with 53 staff members across various shifts, the Nursing Home Administrator, the Assistant Director of Nursing, the DON, and the Medical Director. The staff members were able to verbalize they had been trained and were knowledgeable about the new policies.
Deficient Physician Services and Lab Monitoring in LTC Facility
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to provide competent physician services for the treatment and monitoring of diagnoses for eleven residents. This deficiency was evidenced by the lack of monitoring and consultation for medication levels, which led to serious harm for one resident. The resident's medication levels were not monitored, and consultation was not obtained as requested by the provider, resulting in the resident experiencing a severe medical event and requiring transfer to a higher level of care. The report details multiple instances where residents' lab results were not properly monitored or communicated to the appropriate medical personnel. For example, one resident had low medication levels that were not reported to the physician, and another resident's critical lab results were not communicated in a timely manner. Additionally, there were failures in ensuring that lab orders were entered into the lab portal, leading to missed or delayed lab draws. Interviews with facility staff, including the Director of Nursing (DON), revealed systemic issues in the lab process, such as the lack of a designated person to oversee lab results and ensure follow-up. The DON acknowledged that the facility's process for managing lab orders and results was broken, contributing to the failure to provide adequate medical supervision and care for the residents.
Plan Of Correction
Residents Care Supervised by a Physician. 1. What corrective action(s) will be accomplished for those residents found to have been affected by the deficient practice. Resident #5 and #10 no longer reside in facility. Laboratory orders for medication management were received for residents #1, #2, #3, #4, #6, #7, #8, #9, and #11. Results of labs were reported to resident physicians, documented in the clinical record, and new orders were transcribed as indicated. Consult was for resident #1 as requested by physician. 2. How you will identify other residents having potential to be affected by the same deficient practice and what corrective action will be taken. Facility-wide audit of current residents on medications was conducted by Director of Nursing/designee to ensure that residents on medications had appropriate lab monitoring orders in place and consults have been completed as indicated. Any residents identified without lab monitoring orders were reported to physician and new orders transcribed as indicated. Any prior consultation orders not properly executed were scheduled. 3. What measures will be put into place or what systematic changes you will make to ensure that the deficient practice does not recur. Director of Nursing/Designee will educate licensed nursing staff on ensuring appropriate physician oversight of resident care related to the lab monitoring process, ensuring that residents on medication receive proper lab monitoring, physicians are notified of abnormal lab values or refused labs, outside providers are consulted as indicated, and documentation of physician notification and new orders is recorded in the resident clinical record. 4. How the corrective action(s) will be monitored to ensure the deficient practice will not recur i.e. what quality assurance program will be put into place. Director of Nursing/Designee will randomly audit residents on medications to ensure that the results of lab orders for monitoring medication levels have been reported to the physician, new orders are transcribed as indicated, and consultation orders for outside providers are completed as indicated. Audits will be performed weekly for four weeks and then monthly for two months. Results of the audits will be submitted by the Director of Nursing/designee to the Quality Assessment, Assurance, and Compliance Committee monthly for three months for further recommendations and guidance.
Removal Plan
- The Regional Nurse Consultant educated the Administrator and Director of Nursing on ensuring a competent physician process is in place for residents with diagnoses.
- A consulting was credentialed with Point Click Care access and on site.
- The Consultant Physician provided education to facility Medical Director and physician extender on the process for monitoring therapeutic lab levels for residents with diagnoses and the medication prescribing standards for such.
- The Director of Nursing or designee educated 100% of licensed nursing staff on the process for ensuring that consultation orders are completed, lab work is ordered for residents on medications, abnormal lab results are reported to physicians, and new orders are transcribed appropriately.
- Process Change: The Director of Nursing is responsible for making sure that a competent physician process is in place for residents with diagnoses.
- Education and in-service sign-in sheets were reviewed and validated with 12 out of 18 licensed nursing staff on the process for ensuring that consultation orders are completed, lab work is ordered for residents on medications, abnormal lab results are reported to physicians, and new orders are transcribed appropriately.
- Interviews were conducted with 10 licensed nurses across various shifts, the Assistant Director of Nursing, the DON, and the Medical Director. The staff members were able to verbalize they had been trained and were knowledgeable about the new policies.
Deficient Nursing Staff Competency and Lab Monitoring
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure that nursing staff were competent in caring for residents, particularly in the areas of laboratory monitoring, following through with orders, processing consultations, and communicating with physicians. This deficiency was evident in the case of a resident whose medication levels were not adequately monitored, leading to a serious medical event. The resident's medication levels were found to be low, and despite orders for consultation and lab tests, there was no evidence that these were completed or that the physician was notified of the results. The report highlights multiple instances where lab results were not communicated to the appropriate medical personnel, and orders were not followed through. For example, several residents had lab orders that were either not entered into the lab portal or not completed, resulting in missed or delayed lab tests. In some cases, critical lab results were not reported to the physician in a timely manner, if at all. This lack of communication and follow-through contributed to the deterioration of residents' conditions. Interviews with staff revealed systemic issues in the facility's lab process, including a lack of access to the lab portal for some nurses, insufficient training on lab procedures, and unclear responsibilities for ensuring lab orders were completed. The Director of Nursing acknowledged these failures, noting that there was no assigned person to oversee lab processes and that the system for managing lab orders and results was broken. This systemic failure in managing lab processes and communication with physicians led to the determination of Immediate Jeopardy.
Plan Of Correction
Competent Nurse staffing 1. What corrective action(s) will be accomplished for those residents found to have been affected by the deficient practices? Residents #5 and #10 no longer reside in the facility. Laboratory orders for medication management were received for residents #1, #2, #3, #4, #6, #7, #8, #9, and #11. Results of labs were reported to resident physicians, documented in the clinical record, and new orders were transcribed as indicated. Consult was for resident #1 as requested by physician. 2. How will you identify other residents having potential to be affected by the same practice and what corrective actions will be taken? A facility-wide audit of current residents on medications was conducted by Director of Nursing/designee to ensure that medications residents on had appropriate lab monitoring orders in place and that any consults that were previously ordered were scheduled. Any residents identified without lab monitoring orders or fully executed consults were reported to physician and new orders transcribed as indicated. 3. What measures will be put into place or what systematic changes will you make to ensure that the practice does not recur? Director of Nursing/Designee will educate licensed nursing staff on the care of residents with a diagnosis to include ensuring that lab orders are in place to monitor medication levels, physicians are notified of abnormal lab values or refused labs, documentation of physician notification of lab levels and new orders is recorded in the resident clinical record, and that consultation orders for or other outside providers are executed appropriately. 4. How the corrective action(s) will monitor to ensure the practice will not recur, i.e., what quality assurance program will be put in place(s); will be accomplished for those residents: Director of Nursing/Designee will randomly audit residents on medications to ensure that appropriate lab orders for monitoring medication levels are in place and consultation orders for outside providers are completed weekly for four weeks and then monthly for two months. Results of the audits will be submitted by the Director of Nursing/designee to the Quality Assessment, Assurance, and Compliance Committee monthly for three months for further recommendations and guidance.
Removal Plan
- Regional Nurse Consultant educated the Administrator and Director of Nursing on ensuring proper follow-through with consultation orders, laboratory monitoring of therapeutic levels for medications, physician notification of abnormal lab values, and follow-up procedures and resident condition change related to laboratory results.
- Current resident audit conducted by Director of Nursing/designee for review of residents taking medications with no concerns identified.
- Consultant Physician provided education to facility Medical Director and physician extender regarding standards of practice for monitoring and treating residents with related diagnoses.
- Director of Nursing or designee educated 100% of licensed nursing staff on ensuring proper follow-through with consultation orders, laboratory monitoring of therapeutic levels for medications, physician notification of abnormal lab values, and follow-up procedures related to laboratory results.
- Process Change: Director of Nursing is responsible for ensuring proper follow-through with consultation orders, laboratory monitoring of therapeutic levels for medications, physician notification, and follow-up procedures related to laboratory results.
- All education and in-service sign-in sheets were reviewed and validated 10 out of 18 licensed nursing staff on ensuring proper follow-through with consultation orders, laboratory monitoring of therapeutic levels for medications, physician notification of abnormal lab values, and follow-up procedures related to laboratory results.
- Interviews were conducted with 10 licensed nurses across various shifts, the Assistant Director of Nursing, the DON, and the Medical Director. The staff members were able to verbalize they had been trained and were knowledgeable about the new policies.
Failure to Manage Lab Orders and Results
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure that laboratory orders were properly entered into the electronic medical record and laboratory portal, resulting in incomplete lab tests and delayed notification of abnormal results to providers. This deficiency affected eleven residents, all of whom were sampled in the survey. For instance, one resident experienced serious harm due to unmonitored medication levels and lack of timely consultation, leading to a worsened condition and transfer to a higher level of care. The resident's medication levels were consistently low, and there was no evidence that the physician was notified of these critical results. The facility's Director of Nursing (DON) acknowledged a systemic failure in the lab process, including the lack of a primary person to oversee lab orders and results. Interviews with staff revealed that lab results were often not communicated to providers unless they were critical, and even then, the process was inconsistent. The DON admitted that the facility's process for managing lab orders and results was broken, with no assigned responsibility for ensuring that labs were drawn and results were reviewed and communicated to the appropriate providers. Multiple residents had lab orders that were not completed or documented, and there was no evidence of provider notification for abnormal results. The facility's failure to manage lab orders and results led to residents not receiving necessary medical interventions in a timely manner. The DON and other staff members confirmed that the facility did not have a policy for laboratory processes or for managing changes in residents' conditions, contributing to the deficiencies identified in the survey.
Plan Of Correction
F773 lab services 1. What corrective action(s) will be accomplished for those residents found to have been affected by the deficient practices? Resident #5 and #10 no longer reside in facility. Laboratory orders for medication management were received for residents #1, #2, #3, #4, #6, #7, #8, #9, and #11. Results of labs were reported to resident physicians, documented in the clinical record, and new orders were transcribed as indicated. Consult was for resident #1 as requested by physician. 2. How you will identify other residents having potential to be affected by the same deficient practice and what corrective action will be taken. Facility-wide audit of current residents on medications was conducted by Director of Nursing/designee to ensure that residents on medications had appropriate lab monitoring orders in place and that any consults that were previously ordered were scheduled. Any residents identified without lab monitoring orders or fully executed consults were reported to physician and new orders transcribed as indicated. 3. What measures will be put into place or what systematic changes you will make to ensure that the deficient practice does not recur. Director of Nursing/Designee will educate licensed nursing staff on the lab process to include ensuring that lab orders are in place to monitor medication levels, physicians are notified of abnormal lab values or refused labs, and documentation of physician notification of lab levels and new orders is recorded in the resident clinical record. 4. How the corrective action(s) will be monitored to ensure the deficient practice will not recur i.e. what quality assurance program will be put into place. Director of Nursing/Designee will randomly audit residents on medications to ensure that appropriate lab orders for monitoring medication levels are in place weekly for four weeks and then monthly for two months. Results of the audits will be submitted by the Director of Nursing/designee to the Quality Assessment, Assurance, and Compliance Committee monthly for three months for further recommendations and guidance.
Removal Plan
- On the Regional Nurse Consultant educate the Administrator and Director of Nursing on ensuring proper follow-through with consultation orders, laboratory monitoring of therapeutic levels for medications, lab process with morning meeting process review compared to lab binder by clinical leadership, physician notification of abnormal labs, and follow-up procedures related to laboratory results.
- On the Consultant Physician provide education to facility Medical Director and physician extender on ensuring proper and timely monitoring and treating of residents with -related diagnoses.
- On the Director of Nursing or designee educated 100% of licensed nursing staff on making sure that consultation orders are properly executed, labs are in place to monitor therapeutic levels for medications, physicians are notified of abnormal lab results, and lab monitoring guidelines are followed related to laboratory results.
- Process Change: Effective the Director of Nursing is responsible for making sure that consultation orders are properly executed, labs are in place to monitor therapeutic levels for medications, physicians are notified of abnormal lab results, and lab monitoring guidelines are followed related to laboratory results.
- On all education and in-service sign-in sheets were reviewed and validated with licensed nursing staff on making sure that consultation orders are properly executed, labs are in place to monitor therapeutic levels for medications, physicians are notified of abnormal lab results, and lab monitoring guidelines are followed related to laboratory results.
- On interviews were conducted with licensed nurses across various shifts, the Assistant Director of Nursing, the DON, and the Medical Director. The staff members were able to verbalize they had been trained and were knowledgeable about the new policies.
Failure in Medication Monitoring and Lab Management
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to effectively monitor adverse events, specifically in the management of medication levels for multiple residents. This deficiency was highlighted by the case of a resident whose medication levels were not adequately monitored, leading to a significant medical event. The resident was admitted with various medical diagnoses and had specific medication orders that were not consistently followed. Laboratory results indicating low medication levels were not communicated to the physician, and necessary consultations were not obtained, resulting in the resident experiencing a severe medical episode that required transfer to a higher level of care. The report details multiple instances where the facility did not maintain effective systems for monitoring and reporting adverse events. Several residents had medication levels that were either not checked or not reported to the appropriate medical personnel, leading to suboptimal management of their conditions. The facility's process for handling lab orders and results was inadequate, with orders not being entered into the lab portal, results not being communicated to providers, and critical lab values not being addressed in a timely manner. Interviews with facility staff, including the Director of Nursing and other medical personnel, revealed systemic failures in the lab process and medication management. There was a lack of accountability and oversight in ensuring that lab results were reviewed and acted upon. The facility's Quality Assurance and Performance Improvement (QAPI) plan did not adequately address these issues, leading to a breakdown in the monitoring and management of residents' health care needs.
Plan Of Correction
QAPI/N 901 QA Program 1. What corrective action(s) will be accomplished for those residents found to have been affected by the deficient practices? Residents #5 and #10 no longer reside in the facility. Laboratory orders for medication management were received for residents #1, #2, #3, #4, #6, #7, #8, #9, and #11. Results of labs were reported to resident physicians, documented in the clinical record, and new orders were transcribed as indicated. Consult was for resident #1 as requested by physician. 2. How will you identify other residents having potential to be affected by the same practice and what corrective actions will be taken? A facility-wide audit of current residents on medications was conducted by the Director of Nursing/designee to ensure that residents on medications had appropriate lab monitoring orders in place and that any consults that were previously ordered were scheduled. Any residents identified without lab monitoring orders or fully executed consults were reported to physician and new orders transcribed as indicated. 3. What measures will be put into place or what systematic changes will you make to ensure that the practice does not recur? The Regional Nurse Consultant educated the Nursing Home Administrator and Director of Nursing on ensuring that an effective Quality Assurance program is in place as it pertains to the care of residents with a diagnosis, ensuring that lab orders are in place to monitor medication levels, physicians are notified of abnormal lab values or refused labs, documentation of physician notification of lab levels and new orders is recorded in the resident clinical record, and that consultation orders for or other outside providers are executed appropriately. 4. How the corrective action(s) will monitor to ensure the practice will not recur, i.e., what quality assurance program will be put in place(s); will be accomplished for those residents: Director of Nursing/Designee will randomly audit residents on medications to ensure that appropriate lab orders for monitoring medication levels are in place and consultation orders for outside providers are completed weekly for four weeks and then monthly for two months. Results of the audits will be submitted by the Director of Nursing/designee to the Quality Assessment, Assurance, and Compliance Committee monthly for three months for further recommendations and guidance.
Removal Plan
- Regional Nurse Consultant educated the Administrator and Director of Nursing on ensuring that an effective Quality Assurance and Performance Improvement Plan is in place to ensure the safety of all residents.
- Administrator educated 100% of the members of the Quality Assurance and Assessment Committee on ensuring that an effective Quality Assurance and Performance Improvement Plan is in place to ensure the safety of all residents.
- Adhoc meeting held with interdisciplinary team and Medical director related to lab process monitoring and MD notification. Another Adhoc meeting was held on lab process/lab monitoring, following physician orders, clinical morning meeting process with review of lab binder, lab access availability audit.
- Daily audits were conducted on lab process with no new findings.
- Process Change: Administrator is responsible for ensuring that an effective Quality Assurance and Performance Improvement Plan is in place to ensure the safety of all residents.
- All education and in-service sign in sheets were reviewed and validated for 13 out of 13 members of the Quality Assurance and Assessment Committee on ensuring that an effective Quality Assurance and Performance Improvement Plan is in place to ensure the safety of all residents.
- Interviews were conducted with the Nursing Home Administrator, members of the interdisciplinary team, the Assistant Director of Nursing, and the DON. The staff members were able to verbalize they had been trained and were knowledgeable about the new policies.
Inadequate Lab Monitoring and Communication in LTC Facility
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure that nursing staff were competent in managing the care of residents, particularly in the areas of laboratory monitoring, following through with orders, processing consultations, and communicating with physicians. This deficiency was evident in the case of a resident who experienced serious harm due to inadequate monitoring of medication levels and failure to obtain a necessary consultation as requested by the provider. The resident was admitted with multiple medical diagnoses, including generalized idiopathic conditions, and required specific medication management. However, the facility did not monitor the resident's medication levels appropriately, leading to a significant medical event that necessitated transfer to a higher level of care. The report highlights multiple instances where the facility's processes for managing laboratory orders and results were inadequate. For several residents, including the one who suffered serious harm, there were repeated failures to notify physicians of critical lab results, to follow up on lab orders, and to ensure that consultations were scheduled and completed. Interviews with staff, including the Director of Nursing (DON), revealed systemic issues in the facility's lab process, such as the lack of a designated person to oversee lab results and ensure follow-up actions were taken. The DON acknowledged that the facility's process for managing labs was broken, leading to missed lab draws and unreported critical results. The deficiency was further compounded by communication breakdowns among staff and between the facility and external providers. Staff interviews indicated confusion and inconsistency in the lab process, with some staff lacking access to the lab portal and others unclear about their responsibilities in managing lab orders and results. The facility's failure to maintain a reliable system for lab management and communication resulted in significant lapses in care for multiple residents, as evidenced by the lack of documentation and follow-up on critical lab results and physician notifications.
Plan Of Correction
F 726 Competent Nurse staffing 1. What corrective action(s) will be accomplished for those residents found to have been affected by the deficient practices? Residents #5 and #10 no longer reside in the facility. Laboratory orders for medication management were received for residents #1, #2, #3, #4, #6, #7, #8, #9, and #11. Results of labs were reported to resident physicians, documented in the clinical record, and new orders were transcribed as indicated. Consult was for resident #1 as requested by physician. 2. How will you identify other residents having potential to be affected by the same practice and what corrective actions will be taken? Facility-wide audit of current residents on medications was conducted by Director of Nursing/designee to ensure that residents on medications had appropriate lab monitoring orders in place and that any consults that were previously ordered were scheduled. Any residents identified without lab monitoring orders or fully executed consults were reported to physician and new orders transcribed as indicated. 3. What measures will be put into place or what systematic changes will you make to ensure that the practice does not recur? Director of Nursing/Designee will educate licensed nursing staff on the care of residents with a diagnosis to include ensuring that lab orders are in place to monitor medication levels, physicians are notified of abnormal lab values or refused labs, documentation of physician notification of lab levels and new orders is recorded in the resident clinical record, and that consultation orders for or other outside providers are executed appropriately. 4. How the corrective action(s) will monitor to ensure the practice will not recur, i.e., what quality assurance program will be put in place(s); will be accomplished for those residents: Director of Nursing/Designee will randomly audit residents on medications to ensure that appropriate lab orders for monitoring medication levels are in place and consultation orders for outside providers are completed weekly for four weeks and then monthly for two months. Results of the audits will be submitted by the Director of Nursing/designee to the Quality Assessment, Assurance, and Compliance Committee monthly for three months for further recommendations and guidance.
Neglect in Medication Management and Lab Follow-Up
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to protect the residents' right to be free from neglect, particularly in the area of medication management and follow-up laboratory orders for medication therapeutic levels. Eleven residents were affected, with serious harm occurring to one resident whose medication levels were not monitored, and consultation was not obtained as requested by the provider. This resident experienced a significant medical event and had to be transferred to a higher level of care. The report details multiple instances where residents' medication levels were not properly monitored, and laboratory results were not communicated to the appropriate medical personnel. For example, one resident's medication levels were consistently low, yet there was no evidence that the physician was notified of these results. Additionally, there were lapses in ensuring that lab orders were entered into the lab portal, leading to missed or delayed lab draws. The Director of Nursing acknowledged a system failure in the facility's lab process, which contributed to these deficiencies. Interviews with staff revealed a lack of clear responsibility for overseeing lab orders and results. The facility's process for managing lab work was described as broken, with no designated person to ensure that lab results were reviewed and communicated to providers. This systemic issue resulted in residents not receiving the necessary medical oversight, leading to potential harm and inadequate care.
Plan Of Correction
1. What corrective action(s) will be accomplished for those residents found to have been affected by the deficient practices? Residents #5 and #10 no longer reside in the facility. Laboratory orders for medication management were received for residents #1, #2, #3, #4, #6, #7, #8, #9, and #11. Results of labs were reported to resident physicians, documented in the clinical record, and new orders were transcribed as indicated. Consult was for resident #1 as requested by physician. 2. How you will identify other residents who have the potential to be affected by the same deficient practice and what corrective actions will be taken. A facility-wide audit of current residents on medications was conducted by Director of Nursing/designee to ensure that residents on medications had appropriate lab monitoring orders in place and that consultation orders were completed as indicated. Any residents identified without lab monitoring orders or fully executed consults were reported to physician and new orders transcribed as indicated. 3. What measures will be put in place or what systematic changes you will make to ensure that the deficient practice does not recur. Director of Nursing/Designee will educate licensed nursing staff on the lab monitoring process to include ensuring that residents' medication receive proper lab monitoring, physician notification of abnormal lab values or refused labs, documentation of physician notification and new orders is recorded in the resident clinical record, and consultation orders for are properly executed. 4. How the corrective action(s) will be monitored to ensure the deficient practice will not recur. Director of Nursing/Designee will randomly audit residents on medications to ensure that appropriate lab orders for monitoring medication levels are in place weekly for four weeks and then monthly for two months. Results of the audits will be submitted by the Director of Nursing/designee to the Quality Assessment, Assurance, and Compliance Committee monthly for three months for further recommendations and guidance.
Deficiency in PASRR Updates for Residents with Mental Disorders
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure that the Preadmission Screening and Resident Reviews (PASRRs) for residents with mental disorders and intellectual disabilities were updated appropriately. This deficiency was identified for five residents who had qualifying mental health diagnoses. For instance, Resident #9 was admitted with a primary diagnosis of dementia and other diagnoses including schizophrenia and major depressive disorder. However, the PASRR documentation was incomplete, missing page 2, and did not reflect the updated primary diagnosis of dementia or consider the diagnosis of schizophrenia. The deficiency was further highlighted in the cases of other residents. Resident #7's PASRR did not have the qualifying diagnoses checked, and the need for a level II PASRR was not identified. Similarly, Resident #22's PASRR did not reflect the diagnosis of dementia, and Resident #39's PASRR also failed to identify the need for a level II PASRR. Additionally, Resident #23's medical record lacked a level I PASRR entirely, and the facility was unable to locate it. Interviews with facility staff revealed systemic issues in the PASRR process. The Director of Nursing (DON) and the Social Services Director (SSD) both indicated they lacked access to the PASRR web-based submission program, which hindered their ability to update PASRRs. The facility's policy required PASRR screenings to be conducted prior to admission, but the process was not effectively managed, leading to the oversight of necessary updates and reviews for residents with serious mental illnesses or intellectual disabilities.
Facility Fails to Maintain Clean and Sanitary Environment
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to maintain a clean and sanitary environment in resident rooms across three halls, as observed during a four-day survey. A strong urine odor was noted in the secured unit of hall 300, confirmed by staff interviews. Rooms were found with various cleanliness issues, including stained floors, walls, and curtains, grime on baseboards, and broken furniture. Interviews with staff revealed that the foul odor and unclean conditions were ongoing issues, exacerbated by residents urinating on the floors and a lack of accountability in housekeeping duties. Housekeeping staff from sister facilities were brought in to assist, indicating a shortage of regular staff due to illness. The facility's housekeeping manager admitted to the lack of cleanliness and the need for more frequent cleaning, especially in the mornings. Observations also noted missing door handles, moldy and musty smells, and a smoking area with safety hazards such as a fallen fence and insect infestations. The facility's maintenance director acknowledged the ventilation issues and the need for room repairs, including painting and furniture replacement. The facility's policy and procedure review highlighted the expectation of a safe, clean, and homelike environment for residents. However, the observed conditions and staff interviews indicated a failure to adhere to these standards. The maintenance director and nursing home administrator confirmed the presence of ongoing maintenance issues, prioritizing leaks over other concerns. The housekeeping manager outlined the daily cleaning procedures, but the observed deficiencies suggested these were not effectively implemented.
Medication Administration Errors Exceeding 5% Rate
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to maintain a medication error rate below 5%, as evidenced by observations of medication administration for two residents, resulting in an 18.75% error rate. During the observation, a registered nurse administered insulin and Cyanocobalamin to one resident and several medications, including Amlodipine and Naloxegol Oxalate, to another resident. In both cases, the medications were administered late, as indicated by the electronic medication administration records (eMAR) highlighted in red. The scheduled times for these medications were not adhered to, leading to the errors being identified. Interviews with the registered nurse and the Director of Nursing (DON) revealed that medications should be administered within one hour before or after the scheduled time. However, the nurse admitted to consistently administering medications after 10:00 a.m. The facility's policy on medication administration specifies that medications should be given according to the prescriber's written orders and within 60 minutes of the scheduled time. Despite notifying the physicians about the late administration, there were no documented orders to administer the medications late for the residents involved.
Inadequate Infection Control Practices
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to maintain an effective infection prevention and control program, as evidenced by multiple instances of staff not adhering to proper PPE protocols when entering rooms of residents under transmission-based precautions. Observations revealed that staff members, including CNAs and housekeeping managers, entered rooms with contact isolation signage without donning the required PPE such as gloves, gowns, and masks. Interviews with staff indicated a lack of awareness and understanding of the isolation status of residents and the necessary precautions to be taken. Specific incidents included staff entering rooms of residents who were on isolation for COVID-19 without the appropriate PPE. For instance, a housekeeping manager entered and exited a resident's room multiple times without donning or doffing PPE, despite the presence of a contact isolation sign. Additionally, staff members were observed assisting residents without using PPE, and some staff were unsure of the isolation requirements or the reasons for the posted signage. This lack of compliance was further highlighted by the presence of outdated isolation orders and inconsistent signage. The facility's infection prevention and control policies were not effectively implemented, as evidenced by the discrepancies between the expected PPE protocols and the actions of the staff. The Infection Control Preventionist confirmed that there was a lack of oversight regarding PPE supply and signage, contributing to the confusion and non-compliance observed. The facility's failure to ensure adherence to infection control protocols posed a risk of transmission of infections among residents and staff.
Failure in Antibiotic Stewardship Program
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to maintain an ongoing antibiotic stewardship program for two out of three months reviewed, specifically for July and August 2024. The infection prevention documentation lacked any records related to the surveillance of resident infections and antibiotic orders during these months. Interviews revealed confusion regarding the responsibility for infection control, with the Nursing Home Administrator initially stating that the Infection Control Preventionist was the Registered Nurse Unit Manager. However, the RN Unit Manager clarified that she was not responsible for infection control, indicating a lack of clarity in role assignments. Further interviews with the Director of Nursing and the Infection Control Preventionist, who was also the Unit Manager, revealed that both were new to the facility and not engaged in any surveillance or audits related to infection control practices. They were unable to provide monthly antibiotic stewardship program reports for July and August 2024. The facility's policy required ongoing tracking of antibiotic prescribing and use, but this was not being implemented. Additionally, neither the DON nor the ICP knew the contact for the Department of Health in case of an outbreak, highlighting a gap in communication and preparedness.
Failure to Ensure Resident Dignity and Privacy
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure a dignified living environment for several residents, notably Resident #56, who was exposed to inappropriate sexual behavior by his roommate. Despite having a care plan that emphasized promoting dignity and ensuring privacy, there were no specific interventions to address the roommate's behavior. Staff members, including CNAs and LPNs, acknowledged the ongoing issue but did not take effective measures to protect Resident #56 from exposure. Observations showed Resident #56 attempting to shield himself from his roommate's actions, indicating distress and discomfort, yet staff responses were inadequate and delayed. Additionally, the facility did not maintain the dignity of Residents #264 and #266, as their urinary catheter bags were left uncovered and visible from the hallway on multiple occasions. This lack of privacy was observed over two days, with staff acknowledging the absence of covers but failing to provide an explanation or remedy the situation. The facility's policy on resident rights emphasizes dignity and privacy, yet these were not upheld in practice. Interviews with various staff members, including CNAs, LPNs, and the Nursing Home Administrator, revealed a lack of awareness and action regarding the residents' rights to privacy and dignity. The Social Services Director and the Psychiatric Physician Assistant also expressed concerns but had not been informed of the issues. The facility's failure to address these deficiencies highlights a significant gap between policy and practice, impacting the residents' quality of life.
Call Light Accessibility Deficiency
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure that call lights were within reach for residents in eight rooms across two halls, specifically halls 200 and 300. During multiple facility tours, surveyors observed call lights on the floor in several rooms, indicating that residents did not have immediate access to them. Interviews with staff, including CNAs and LPNs, revealed that while they acknowledged the importance of having call lights within reach, they did not consistently ensure this was the case. Staff members admitted to not noticing the call lights on the floor and expressed intentions to rectify the situation when it was brought to their attention. The Director of Nursing (DON) confirmed that the facility lacked a formal policy and procedure for call light placement, although it was understood that call lights should be accessible to residents. Despite staff education on the importance of call light accessibility, the deficiency persisted, as evidenced by the repeated observations of call lights on the floor. This oversight suggests a gap in the implementation of practices to ensure resident safety and prompt access to assistance.
Failure to Ensure Resident Privacy During Inappropriate Behavior
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure privacy for a resident with severe cognitive impairment, who was observed performing sexual acts on himself in his room without the privacy curtain being drawn. This resident, who had a history of dementia, schizophrenia, major depressive disorder, and age-related cognitive decline, was exposed to other residents, visitors, and staff due to the lack of privacy measures. The care plan for this resident did not adequately address the dignity and privacy concerns for him and his roommate, despite the resident's known behavioral issues, including public disrobing and inappropriate sexual behavior. During multiple observations, the resident was seen engaging in sexual acts with the privacy curtain open, exposing him to the public and his roommate. Staff interviews revealed that the resident's behavior was a known issue, and while staff attempted to redirect him and pull the curtain, these measures were inconsistently applied. The roommate was observed trying to pull the curtain for privacy, and other residents were seen reacting to the behavior, indicating a lack of consistent privacy measures. Interviews with staff, including CNAs, LPNs, and the Social Services Director, highlighted a recognition of the need for privacy but also revealed lapses in ensuring it was provided. The facility's policy on resident rights emphasized the importance of dignity and privacy, yet the implementation was lacking, as evidenced by the repeated exposure of the resident during inappropriate behavior. The resident's guardian and psychiatric physician assistant also acknowledged the need for privacy and monitoring of the resident's behavior, underscoring the deficiency in maintaining the resident's dignity and privacy.
Failure to Provide Language Assistance for Residents with Limited English Proficiency
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to provide adequate communication accommodations for two residents with limited English proficiency. Resident #61, who is Vietnamese-speaking with intact cognition, was observed using a personal cell phone translation app to communicate with staff. Despite having a care plan that acknowledged the resident's primary language as Vietnamese, the facility did not provide access to interpreting services, relying instead on the resident's personal resources. Interviews with staff revealed that while a communication board was available, it was not utilized, and staff anticipated the resident's needs without formal language support. Resident #25, who is Spanish-speaking with severe cognitive impairment and visual disturbance, had a care plan that included utilizing Spanish-speaking staff for communication. However, it was unclear if Spanish-speaking staff were consistently available. A CNA mentioned using written notes to communicate, despite the resident's visual impairment. The facility's policy stated that language assistance should be provided without cost, but interviews indicated that staff did not have access to interpreting services, contradicting the facility's policy on communication with persons with limited English proficiency.
Failure to Address Change in Condition and Monitor Medication Side Effects
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to address a change in condition for a resident with severe cognitive impairment, who was on multiple psychotropic medications. The resident was observed to be lethargic and unresponsive, with staff noting increased sleepiness and difficulty in arousing him. Despite these observations, there was a lack of timely communication with the physician or PA regarding the resident's condition and potential medication side effects. The resident had recently experienced a significant increase in the dosage of Seroquel and Ativan, which may have contributed to his altered mental status and increased sedation. Staff failed to document any concerns related to sedation or drowsiness in the resident's electronic medical record, and there was no evidence that the PA was notified of these changes. The facility's monitoring of the resident's medication side effects was inadequate, as indicated by the lack of detailed documentation and communication with the healthcare provider. The Director of Nursing acknowledged the need for a review of the resident's medication dosages and response, noting that the monitoring should include specific documentation of behaviors or side effects. The facility did not have a clear policy for documenting changes in condition, and the Regional Nurse Consultant confirmed the absence of a CIC policy. This lack of documentation and communication contributed to the deficiency in addressing the resident's change in condition effectively.
Failure to Provide Timely Vision Services
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to provide necessary vision services for a resident with a detached retina, resulting in a significant delay in receiving medical attention. The resident, who was admitted to the facility with intact cognition, reported waiting since June for transportation to an eye doctor. Despite multiple orders and notes indicating the need for an ophthalmology consultation as soon as possible, the resident did not receive timely care. The resident's care plan, initiated in July, acknowledged impaired visual function related to a detached retina, with interventions including a vision consult as needed. However, progress notes revealed repeated failures to schedule and secure transportation for the resident's ophthalmology appointments. Attempts to send the resident to the emergency room for evaluation were unsuccessful, as the resident was returned to the facility without treatment. Throughout June and July, there were numerous documented attempts to arrange appointments and transportation, but these efforts were consistently unsuccessful. The resident missed several scheduled appointments due to transportation issues, and despite being aware of the need for urgent medical attention, the facility did not ensure the resident received the necessary care in a timely manner.
Failure to Monitor Medication Side Effects and Behaviors
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to adequately monitor medication-related side effects and behaviors for two residents, leading to a deficiency in ensuring each resident's drug regimen was free from unnecessary drugs. Resident #10, who was admitted with multiple diagnoses including epilepsy, mood disturbance, and schizoaffective disorder, was prescribed several medications such as Levetiracetam, Escitalopram Oxalate, and Olanzapine. Despite having a care plan that required documentation of behaviors and responses to interventions, there was no documentation of Resident #10's behaviors in the medication and treatment administration records for August 2024. A Licensed Practical Nurse indicated that behaviors were documented by exception in the progress notes, which was insufficient for monitoring purposes. Similarly, Resident #73, admitted with dementia and anxiety disorder, was prescribed Donepezil, Trazodone, and initially Risperdal, which was discontinued shortly after admission. The facility's records showed no orders for behavior monitoring, and the August 2024 Medication Administration Record lacked documentation of behavior monitoring. The Director of Nursing acknowledged that the resident should be reviewed for appropriate medication dosage and response, noting that the resident appeared lethargic. The facility's policy required behavior monitoring for residents on psychoactive medications, but this was not followed, as evidenced by the lack of documented behavior monitoring and side effects in the electronic medical record.
Improper Medication Storage and Security
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to appropriately store and secure medications, as observed in the case of a resident and in two medication rooms. Resident #20, who was readmitted to the facility with diagnoses including mood disorder and neutropenia, was found to have two bottles of eye drops in the drawer of his nightstand. The resident, who had a BIMS score indicating moderate cognitive impairment, stated that the eye drops were his and that he received them from a local hospital. A registered nurse confirmed that the resident should not have had medications accessible to him, as he was not assessed to administer them independently. In the Birch Unit medication room, a grey plastic shopping bag containing medication bottles was found stored in a cabinet. Staff members present during the observation were unaware of the contents of the bag or the reason for its storage in the medication room. Additionally, a container with a broken seal containing resident-specific medications and over-the-counter eye medications was found. Staff acknowledged that the resident-specific medications should have been disposed of. In the 200-hall medication room, a plastic bag with medication bottles labeled for expired and discharged residents was found, along with loose pills. Staff confirmed that these medications should have been disposed of properly. The facility's policy on medication storage requires that medications be stored properly and only accessible to authorized personnel. Medications belonging to expired or discharged residents should be destroyed or sent to the pharmacy. The Director of Nursing confirmed that medications should not be stored in residents' nightstands or inappropriately in medication rooms. The policy also mandates that medication storage areas be clean, organized, and free of clutter, which was not adhered to in this instance.
Inadequate Dental Care for Two Residents
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to provide adequate dental care and services for two residents. Resident #78, who was admitted with diagnoses including Major Depressive Disorder and Kyphosis, had broken and missing teeth, and the remaining teeth were brown in color. Despite having a care plan indicating the need for dentures, there was no documentation of dentures or partials being provided. The Social Service Director (SSD) acknowledged that the resident wanted dentures, but the in-house dental vendor did not accept his insurance. Additionally, the resident missed three appointments with the oral surgeon due to various reasons, including a canceled appointment, transportation issues, and a missing medical clearance form. Resident #84, admitted with Major Depressive Disorder and Generalized Anxiety, also had broken and discolored teeth but lacked a care plan addressing dental needs. The resident reported never having his teeth cleaned, and there was no documentation of dental cleaning from April to August 2024. The SSD mentioned that the resident often refused services and then complained about not receiving them. Although the SSD stated that the resident was seen by the hygienist every six months, there was no documentation to support this claim.
Failure to Coordinate Hospice Care and Code Status
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to effectively collaborate and coordinate care with hospice services regarding the code status of a resident receiving hospice care. The resident, who was admitted with diagnoses including cerebral infarction, emphysema, unspecified dementia, and major depressive disorder, had conflicting orders regarding resuscitation status. The resident's physician orders indicated hospice care for a terminal diagnosis of cerebrovascular disease, with a full resuscitation order dated later. Additionally, the hospice plan of care in the resident's chart showed an advanced directive of full code, while the facility's order listing report indicated a DNR order that was later discontinued. Interviews with facility staff, including a Licensed Practical Nurse/Unit Manager and the Social Services Director, revealed a lack of hospice documentation at the facility, except for the initial visit. The staff were unable to locate a current hospice care plan or communication sheets for the resident. The Nursing Home Administrator later provided hospice notes, which confirmed the advanced directive of full code during several hospice visits. The facility's policy on advance medical directives required that current directives be placed in the medical record and the care plan updated, which was not adhered to in this case.
Resident Denied Access to Wheelchair
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure that a resident had access to his wheelchair during the survey. On the day of the survey, the resident was heard yelling for his wheelchair, which he needed to ambulate and go outside for a cigarette. The resident, who had an acquired absence of the left leg below the knee and other mobility impairments, was dependent on his wheelchair for mobility. Despite his repeated requests, the resident did not have access to his wheelchair all night, which caused him significant distress. Interviews with staff revealed that the wheelchair had been removed for cleaning the previous night and was not returned promptly. The CNA and LPN confirmed the resident's dependency on the wheelchair, and the LPN admitted to not hearing the resident's calls due to the noise. The DON and DOR acknowledged that an alternate wheelchair should have been provided and that the housekeeping staff should have communicated with therapy to ensure a safe replacement. The NHA confirmed that wheelchair cleaning was scheduled at night and that residents should not be left without their wheelchairs for extended periods. The facility's policy on resident rights emphasized the importance of ensuring residents' access to necessary services and mobility aids.
Latest citations in Florida
Surveyors found that the facility’s only commercial cooking hood was not maintained in accordance with NFPA 101 and NFPA 96 requirements. During a kitchen tour with the Maintenance Director, the hood was observed to be not grease tight due to missing fire-resistant caulk, and the Maintenance Director acknowledged this condition at the time of the survey.
Surveyors found that the facility failed to comply with NFPA 99, NFPA 70, and NFPA 1 requirements for electrical equipment when, during a tour with the Maintenance Director, a power strip in the electrical room was observed being used as a permanent power source instead of a dedicated receptacle. The report states that this improper use of a relocatable power tap could lead to electrical hazards for residents and staff, and notes that extension cords and power strips are not to be used as substitutes for fixed wiring under the cited codes.
Surveyors found that the facility did not have documentation showing completion of the required annual 90‑minute test of emergency lighting. During record review and interview, the Director of Facilities confirmed that records of this annual test, required under NFPA 101 sections 19.2.9.1 and 7.9, were not available. This deficiency was cited as affecting all occupants in the event of a fire or other emergency.
Surveyors found that the facility failed to perform and/or document the required annual Duct Detector Differential testing for the fire alarm system in accordance with NFPA 101, NFPA 70, and NFPA 72. During record review and interviews with the Director of Facilities, no documentation could be produced to show that this annual testing had been completed, and the Director acknowledged the lack of records. This deficiency was cited as potentially affecting all occupants in the event of a fire or other emergency.
Surveyors found that the facility failed to perform and/or document required annual testing and exercising of main and feeder circuit breakers in accordance with NFPA 99 and manufacturer recommendations. During record review, no documentation could be produced to show that the annual breaker exercises had been completed, and the Director of Facilities acknowledged this lack of records. This deficiency relates to the essential electrical system that supports life safety and critical branches during emergencies.
Surveyors observed that an adapter was used to power a refrigerator in the kitchen and a refrigerator in the dining room manager's office was plugged into a power strip. The Director of Facilities confirmed both uses, which did not comply with NFPA 99 and NFPA 70 requirements prohibiting adapters and power strips from being used as substitutes for permanent wiring.
Surveyors found that food service operations failed to meet professional food safety standards in both the main and satellite kitchens. In the main kitchen, a cook’s facial hair was not fully covered, the handwashing sink did not initially provide warm water, wet-nested pans and dirty plate domes were stored for use, ice buckets were stained with mold-like discoloration, and the high-temp dishwasher failed to reach the required sanitizing temperature. In the satellite pantry, the dishwasher did not reach required wash temperatures, vents and cabinets above serving dishes had mold-like buildup and residue, floors were damaged and soiled, the dishwasher chemical cabinet was rusted, the AC filter was heavily soiled, the juice dispenser had debris near clean cups, and tray carts contained dirty sheet trays. During tray line observation, salad items were held above 41°F, and a pureed vegetable listed on the menu extension was not available on the line.
Two residents on physician-ordered modified diets (pureed and mechanical soft with nectar-thick liquids) were given Regular Menus listing items such as fresh fruit, salad greens, and grilled cheese that were not compatible with their diet orders. Both residents selected items from these Regular Menus, but the facility either could not provide the chosen foods due to diet restrictions or substituted different items (e.g., canned peach halves instead of fresh fruit), despite the residents’ expressed preferences. The RD and dietetic technician confirmed that Regular Menus were routinely provided to all residents, including those on mechanically altered diets, leading to menu choices that did not align with ordered diet consistencies.
Surveyors found that the facility did not follow physician-ordered therapeutic diets or provide prescribed Magic Cup nutritional supplements for several cognitively impaired residents. A resident on a pureed diet with honey-thick liquids was served a lunch without the ordered pureed vegetable, and tray line review on another day showed no pureed vegetables available despite the menu specifying them. Multiple residents with orders for Magic Cup supplements had these listed on their meal tickets but were instead served other desserts or received no supplement at all, while documentation on the MAR indicated full consumption. Dietary staff acknowledged responsibility for providing Magic Cups but could not explain why residents in the dining room did not receive them.
A resident with intact cognition and multiple cardiac and pulmonary diagnoses had clearly documented DNR orders, including signed advance directive forms and care plan entries confirming her wish to avoid resuscitation. During a cardiac emergency, a CNA found the resident unresponsive and notified an RN, who initiated a code blue response. Several RNs and LPNs transferred the resident to bed and began CPR without first verifying code status, despite one LPN asking and then leaving the room to check the record. Staff interviews and video review showed that chest compressions and use of a bag-valve mask continued for about 12 minutes until EMS arrived, even after staff learned the resident was DNR, and the physician confirmed the resident was already listed as DNR in the system, leading to an Immediate Jeopardy finding for failure to honor advance directives.
Commercial Cooking Hood Not Maintained Grease Tight per NFPA Standards
Penalty
Summary
Surveyors identified a deficiency involving the facility’s commercial cooking facilities. During a tour of the kitchen between 1:00 p.m. and 3:00 p.m. with the Maintenance Director, surveyors observed that the one commercial cooking hood in use was not grease tight. Specifically, the hood was missing required fire-resistant caulk, which is necessary for maintaining a grease-tight seal in accordance with NFPA 96 and NFPA 101 standards. The Maintenance Director acknowledged these findings at the time of observation. The deficiency was cited under NFPA 101 and NFPA 96 requirements for commercial cooking operations, which mandate that cooking equipment and associated hoods be protected and maintained in compliance with these fire and life safety codes.
Plan Of Correction
Preparation and/or execution of this plan does not constitute admission or agreement by the provider of the truth of the facts alleged or conclusions set forth on the statement of deficiencies. This plan of correction is prepared and/or executed solely because required. What corrective action(s) will be accomplished for those residents found to have been affected by the deficient practice? No residents were affected by this deficient practice. How you will identify other residents having potential to be affected by the same practice and what corrective actions will be taken; Commercial cooking hood system inspected; no additional deficient areas were identified. What measures will be put into place or what systematic changes will you make to ensure that the practice does not recur:Maintenance staff and Dietary staff education on proper use and reporting of issues related to cooking hood system.Verification of scheduled inspections and cleaning of cooking hood system by licensed vendor.How the corrective action(s) will be monitored to ensure the practice will not recur, i.e., what quality assurance program will be put in place:The maintenance director/designee will complete weekly audits of cooking hood system for 4 weeks, then monthly for 2 months to ensure compliance. The findings will be reported to the Quality Assurance Performance Improvement Committee for ongoing compliance. Preparation and/or execution of this plan does not constitute admission or agreement by the provider of the truth of the facts alleged or conclusions set forth on the statement of deficiencies. This plan of correction is prepared and/or executed solely because required. What corrective action(s) will be accomplished for those residents found to have been affected by the deficient practice? No residents were affected by this deficient practice. How you will identify other residents having potential to be affected by the same practice and what corrective actions will be taken; Commercial cooking hood system inspected; no additional deficient areas were identified. What measures will be put into place or what systematic changes will you make to ensure that the practice does not recur; Maintenance staff and Dietary staff education on proper use and reporting of issues related to cooking hood system. Verification of scheduled inspections and cleaning of cooking hood system by licensed vendor. How the corrective action(s) will be monitored to ensure the practice will not recur, i.e., what quality assurance program will be put in place; The maintenance director/designee will complete weekly audits of cooking hood system for 4 weeks, then monthly for 2 months to ensure compliance. The findings will be reported to the Quality Assurance Performance Improvement Committee for ongoing compliance.
Improper Use of Power Strip as Permanent Power Source in Electrical Room
Penalty
Summary
Surveyors identified a deficiency related to improper use of relocatable power taps (RPTs) and power strips in violation of NFPA 99, NFPA 70, and NFPA 1 requirements. During a facility tour conducted between 10:00 a.m. and 12:00 p.m. with the Maintenance Director, surveyors observed one power strip in the electrical room being used as a source of permanent power instead of being connected to a dedicated receptacle. The report notes that this use did not comply with standards that require extension cords and power strips not be used as a substitute for fixed wiring and that they be used only under specified conditions. The deficiency specifically concerns the facility’s failure to ensure that RPTs are maintained and used in accordance with NFPA 99 (2012 Edition) sections 10.2.3.6 and 10.2.4, and NFPA 70 (2011 and 2020 Editions) provisions governing flexible cords and temporary wiring, as well as NFPA 1 (2021 Edition) sections 11.1.2.2, 11.1.4.1, and 1.4.1. The report states that this condition could lead to electric hazards for residents and staff. No individual resident cases, medical histories, or specific clinical conditions are described in connection with this deficiency.
Plan Of Correction
What corrective action(s) will be accomplished for those residents found to have been affected by the deficient practice? No residents were affected by this deficient practice. How you will identify other residents having potential to be affected by the same practice and what corrective actions will be taken; Facility wide audit of electrical rooms was conducted to identify improper use of power strips. No additional concerns were identified. What measures will be put into place or what systematic changes you will make to ensure that the practice does not recur; The facility completed education reinforcing compliance with electrical safety requirements in accordance with National Fire Protection Association. How the corrective action(s) will be monitored to ensure the practice will not recur, i.e., what quality assurance program will be put in place: The maintenance director/designee will complete random electrical safety audits 2 times per week for 4 weeks, then monthly to ensure compliance with electrical safety standards. The findings will be reported to the Quality Assurance Performance Improvement Committee for ongoing compliance. What corrective action(s) will be accomplished for those residents found to have been affected by the deficient practice? No residents were affected by this deficient practice. How you will identify other residents having potential to be affected by the same practice and what corrective actions will be taken; Facility wide audit of electrical rooms was conducted to identify improper use of power strips. No additional concerns were identified. What measures will be put into place or what systematic changes you will make to ensure that the practice does not recur; The facility completed education reinforcing compliance with electrical safety requirements in accordance with National Fire Protection Association. How the corrective action(s) will be monitored to ensure the practice will not recur, i.e., what quality assurance program will be put in place; The maintenance director/designee will complete random electrical safety audits 2 times per week for 4 weeks, then monthly to ensure compliance with electrical safety standards. The findings will be reported to the Quality Assurance Performance Improvement Committee for ongoing compliance.
Failure to Document Required Annual 90‑Minute Emergency Lighting Test
Penalty
Summary
Surveyors identified a deficiency related to emergency lighting when, during record review and staff interview between 11:30 AM and 3:00 PM with the Director of Facilities, the facility was unable to provide documentation that the required annual 90‑minute testing of emergency lighting had been performed. The Director of Facilities acknowledged that there was no documentation available to show completion of this annual 90‑minute emergency lighting test, as required by NFPA 101 (2012 and 2021 editions), sections 19.2.9.1 and 7.9. This failure to document the annual emergency lighting test was cited as a noncompliance that could affect all occupants of the facility in the event of a fire or other emergency. No specific residents, medical histories, or clinical conditions were mentioned in the report; the deficiency pertains to facility-wide life safety systems and their required testing and documentation.
Plan Of Correction
Emergency Lighting CFR(s): NFPA 101 Preparation and/or execution of this plan does not constitute admission or agreement by the provider that a deficiency exists. This response is also not to be construed as an admission of fault by the facility, its employees, agents or other individuals who draft or may be discussed in this response and plan of correction. This plan of correction is submitted as the facility's credible allegation of compliance and Soley because it is required Emergency Lighting K0291 The facility immediately conducted a comprehensive inspection of all emergency lighting systems. On The Director of Facilities performed the required 90-minute annual testing of all emergency lighting units. Documentation of testing has been completed and is maintained on-site. 2. All areas of the facility were considered at risk due to lack of documented annual testing. A full facility-wide audit of all emergency lighting units was completed on by the Director of Facilities to ensure compliance. 3. The facility implemented a preventative maintenance schedule to ensure annual 90-minute emergency lighting testing is completed in accordance with NFPA 101 (2012), Section 7.9. A log tracking system has been developed to document all required testing. The Director of Facilities/designee will receive re-education on Life Safety Code requirements and documentation standards. 4. The Director of Facilities will review fire alarm testing records quarterly for 12 months, will present the findings for 12 months at Quality Assurance Performance Improvement (QAPI) meetings to confirm inspections have taken place. During and at the conclusion of the twelve months, the QAPI committee will re-evaluate and initiate necessary action or extend the review period. The Administrator is responsible for confirming implementation and ongoing compliance with the components of the Plan of Correction, and resolving variances that may occur. The Administrator is responsible for confirming the status of this Plan of Correction is reviewed and discussed at QAPI meetings and action initiated if required. Emergency Lighting CFR(s): NFPA 101 Preparation and/or execution of this plan does not constitute admission or agreement by the provider that a deficiency exists. This response is also not to be construed as an admission of fault by the facility, its employees, agents or other individuals who draft or may be discussed in this response and plan of correction. This plan of correction is submitted as the facility's credible allegation of compliance and Soley because it is required Emergency Lighting K0291 The facility immediately conducted a comprehensive inspection of all emergency lighting systems. On The Director of Facilities performed the required 90-minute annual testing of all emergency lighting units. Documentation of testing has been completed and is maintained on-site. 2. All areas of the facility were considered at risk due to lack of documented annual testing. A full facility-wide audit of all emergency lighting units was completed on by the Director of Facilities to ensure compliance. 3. The facility implemented a preventative maintenance schedule to ensure annual 90-minute emergency lighting testing is completed in accordance with NFPA 101 (2012), Section 7.9. A log tracking system has been developed to document all required testing. The Director of Facilities/designee will receive re-education on Life Safety Code requirements and documentation standards. 4. The Director of Facilities will review fire alarm testing records quarterly for 12 months, will present the findings for 12 months at Quality Assurance Performance Improvement (QAPI) meetings to confirm inspections have taken place. During and at the conclusion of the twelve months, the QAPI committee will re-evaluate and initiate necessary action or extend the review period. The Administrator is responsible for confirming implementation and ongoing compliance with the components of the Plan of Correction, and resolving variances that may occur. The Administrator is responsible for confirming the status of this Plan of Correction is reviewed and discussed at QAPI meetings and action initiated if required.
Failure to Perform and Document Annual Duct Detector Differential Testing
Penalty
Summary
Surveyors identified a deficiency related to the facility’s fire alarm system testing and maintenance, specifically the required annual Duct Detector Differential testing. During record review conducted between 11:30 AM and 3:00 PM, surveyors requested documentation demonstrating that this annual testing had been completed in accordance with NFPA 101 (2012 and 2021 editions), NFPA 70, and NFPA 72. The facility was unable to produce records showing that the Duct Detector Differential testing had been performed as required. In an interview conducted during the same time frame, the Director of Facilities acknowledged that the facility failed to provide documentation of the annual Duct Detector Differential testing. The deficiency was cited under NFPA 101 2012 (19.2.9.1, 7.9) and NFPA 101 2021 (19.2.9.1, 7.9), indicating noncompliance with the standards that require fire alarm detection systems, including duct detectors, to be tested and maintained annually. The report notes that this deficiency could affect all occupants of the facility in the event of a fire or other emergency.
Plan Of Correction
Fire Alarm System - Testing and Maintenance CFR(s): NFPA 101 Preparation and/or execution of this plan does not constitute admission or agreement by the provider that a deficiency exists. This response is also not to be construed as an admission of fault by the facility, its employees, agents or other individuals who draft or may be discussed in this response and plan of correction. This plan of correction is submitted as the facility's credible allegation of compliance and Soley because it is required Fire Alarm System - Testing and Maintenance K0345 1. On The facility a certified fire alarm vendor to perform annual duct detector differential testing. All required testing has now been completed and documented. 2. All residents and staff were considered at risk due to lack of documented testing. A facility-wide review of all fire alarm components was conducted on 3. The facility established a service agreement to ensure all fire alarm testing (including duct detectors) is completed annually per NFPA 72 and NFPA 101 requirements. A compliance calendar has been implemented with alerts for required inspections and testing. The Director of Facilities/designee has been re-educated on required testing intervals and documentation. 4. The Director of Facilities or designee will audit for 3 months all documentation for the annual testing and inspection of the duct detector pressure differential test. The Director of Facilities will present the findings of site inspections for 3 months at Quality Assurance Performance Improvement (QAPI) meetings to confirm inspections have taken place. During and at the conclusion of the three months, the QAPI committee will re-evaluate and initiate necessary action or extend the review period. The Administrator is responsible for confirming implementation and ongoing compliance with the components of the Plan of Correction, and resolving variances that may occur. The Administrator is responsible for confirming the status of this Plan of Correction is reviewed and discussed at QAPI meetings and action initiated if required Fire Alarm System - Testing and Maintenance CFR(s): NFPA 101 Preparation and/or execution of this plan does not constitute admission or agreement by the provider that a deficiency exists. This response is also not to be construed as an admission of fault by the facility, its employees, agents or other individuals who draft or may be discussed in this response and plan of correction. This plan of correction is submitted as the facility's credible allegation of compliance and Soley because it is required Fire Alarm System - Testing and Maintenance K0345 1. On The facility a certified fire alarm vendor to perform annual duct detector differential testing. All required testing has now been completed and documented. 2. All residents and staff were considered at risk due to lack of documented testing. A facility-wide review of all fire alarm components was conducted on. 3. The facility established a service agreement to ensure all fire alarm testing (including duct detectors) is completed annually per NFPA 72 and NFPA 101 requirements. A compliance calendar has been implemented with alerts for required inspections and testing. The Director of Facilities/designee has been re-educated on required testing intervals and documentation. 4. The Director of Facilities or designee will audit for 3 months all documentation for the annual testing and inspection of the duct detector pressure differential test. The Director of Facilities will present the findings of site inspections for 3 months at Quality Assurance Performance Improvement (QAPI) meetings to confirm inspections have taken place. During and at the conclusion of the three months, the QAPI committee will re-evaluate and initiate necessary action or extend the review period. The Administrator is responsible for confirming implementation and ongoing compliance with the components of the Plan of Correction. The Administrator is responsible for confirming the status of this Plan of Correction is reviewed and discussed at QAPI meetings and action initiated if required
Failure to Perform and Document Annual Main and Feeder Breaker Testing
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to perform and document required annual maintenance and testing of the main and feeder circuit breakers in accordance with NFPA 99 and manufacturer recommendations. During a record review conducted between 11:30 AM and 3:00 PM, surveyors requested documentation of the annual main and feeder breaker exercise. The facility was unable to provide records demonstrating that this testing and exercising had been completed as required. In interviews conducted during the same time frame, the Director of Facilities acknowledged that the facility did not have documentation showing that the annual main and feeder breaker exercise was performed according to manufacturer recommendations. The report notes that this failure to comply with NFPA 99 (2012 and 2021 editions, Sections 6.4.4 and 6.5.4) could affect all occupants of the facility in the event of a fire or other emergency, and that written records of maintenance and testing are required to be maintained and readily available.
Plan Of Correction
Electrical Systems - Essential Electric System CFR(s): NFPA 101 Preparation and/or execution of this plan does not constitute admission or agreement by the provider that a deficiency exists. This response is also not to be construed as an admission of fault by the facility, its employees, agents or other individuals who draft or may be discussed in this response and plan of correction. This plan of correction is submitted as the facility's credible allegation of compliance and Soley because it is required Electrical Systems - Essential Electric System Maintenance and Testing K0918 1. On A licensed electrical contractor performed the annual main and feeder breaker testing/exercising in accordance with manufacturer recommendations. Documentation has been completed and is maintained on-site. 2. All residents were considered at risk due to lack of documented testing. A full review of the essential electrical system was conducted on 3. A preventative maintenance program has been implemented to ensure that annual breaker testing is completed per NFPA 99 (2012). The facility has incorporated electrical system testing into its environmental compliance tracking system. The Director of Facilities/designee received re-education on NFPA requirements. 4. The Director of Facilities will audit electrical system maintenance logs quarterly for 12 months. Inspections have taken place. During and at the conclusion of the three months, the QAPI committee will re-evaluate and initiate necessary action or extend the review period. The Administrator is responsible for confirming implementation and ongoing compliance with the components of the Plan of Correction, and resolving variances that may occur. The Administrator is responsible for confirming the status of this Plan of Correction is reviewed and discussed at QAPI meetings and action initiated if required. Electrical Systems - Essential Electric System CFR(s): NFPA 101 Preparation and/or execution of this plan does not constitute admission or agreement by the provider that a deficiency exists. This response is also not to be construed as an admission of fault by the facility, its employees, agents or other individuals who draft or may be discussed in this response and plan of correction. This plan of correction is submitted as the facility's credible allegation of compliance and Soley because it is required Electrical Systems - Essential Electric System Maintenance and Testing K0918 1. On A licensed electrical contractor performed the annual main and feeder breaker testing/exercising in accordance with manufacturer recommendations. Documentation has been completed and is maintained on-site. 2. All residents were considered at risk due to lack of documented testing. A full review of the essential electrical system was conducted on . 3. A preventative maintenance program has been implemented to ensure that annual breaker testing is completed per NFPA 99 (2012). The facility has incorporated electrical system testing into its environmental compliance tracking system. The Director of Facilities/designee received re-education on NFPA requirements. 4. The Director of Facilities will audit electrical system maintenance logs quarterly for 12 months. Inspections have taken place. During and at the conclusion of the three months, the QAPI committee will re-evaluate and initiate necessary action or extend the review period. The Administrator is responsible for confirming implementation and ongoing compliance with the components of the Plan of Correction, , and resolving variances that may occur. The Administrator is responsible for confirming the status of this Plan of Correction is reviewed and discussed at QAPI meetings and action initiated if required.
Improper Use of Adapters and Power Strips for Refrigerators
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves improper use of electrical adapters and power strips as substitutes for permanent wiring, in violation of NFPA 99 and NFPA 70 requirements. During an observation with the Director of Facilities, surveyors found that an adapter was being used to power a refrigerator in the kitchen. The Director of Facilities acknowledged that an adapter was in use for this refrigerator, contrary to the standards that prohibit adapters from being used in place of fixed wiring. In a separate observation with the Director of Facilities, surveyors identified that a refrigerator in the dining room manager's office was plugged into a power strip. The Director of Facilities acknowledged that a power strip was being used for this refrigerator. These findings showed that the facility was not complying with NFPA 99 provisions that require power strips and adapters not be used as substitutes for permanent wiring for such equipment.
Plan Of Correction
Formatted text (without <text> tags or quotes): Electrical Equipment - Power and Extension Preparation and/or execution of this plan does not constitute admission or agreement by the provider that a deficiency exists. This response is also not to be construed as an admission of fault by the facility, its employees, agents or other individuals who draft or may be discussed in this response and plan of correction. This plan of correction is submitted as the facility's credible allegation of compliance and Soley because it is required Electrical Equipment - Power and Extension K0920 1. On The adapter in the kitchen refrigerator and the power strip in the dining room manager's office were immediately removed. All equipment was plugged directly into approved wall outlets. 2. On A facility-wide inspection was conducted by The Director of Facilities to identify improper use of power strips and adapters. Any non-compliant items were removed immediately. 3. On Staff were educated on proper electrical safety practices, including prohibited use of extension and adapters. Routine environmental rounds now include electrical safety checks. 4. The Director of Facilities/designee will conduct monthly environmental rounds for 3 months, then quarterly thereafter. Quality Assurance Performance Improvement (QAPI) meetings to confirm inspections have taken place. During and at the conclusion of the three months, the QAPI committee will re-evaluate and initiate necessary action or extend the review period. The Administrator is responsible for confirming implementation and ongoing compliance with the components of the Plan of Correction, and resolving variances that Continued from page occur. The Administrator is responsible for confirming the status of this Plan of Correction is reviewed and discussed at QAPI meetings and action initiated if required. Electrical Equipment - Power and Extension CFR(s): NFPA 101 Preparation and/or execution of this plan does not constitute admission or agreement by the provider that a deficiency exists. This response is also not to be construed as an admission of fault by the facility, its employees, agents or other individuals who draft or may be discussed in this response and plan of correction. This plan of correction is submitted as the facility's credible allegation of compliance and Soley because it is required Electrical Equipment - Power and Extension K0920 1. On The adapter in the kitchen refrigerator and the power strip in the dining room manager's office were immediately removed. All equipment was plugged directly into approved wall outlets. 2. On A facility-wide inspection was conducted by The Director of Facilities to identify improper use of power strips and adapters. Any non-compliant items were removed immediately. 3. On Staff were educated on proper electrical safety practices, including prohibited use of extension and adapters. Routine environmental rounds now include electrical safety checks. 4. The Director of Facilities/designee will conduct monthly environmental rounds for 3 months, then quarterly thereafter. Quality Assurance Performance Improvement (QAPI) meetings to confirm inspections have taken place. During and at the conclusion of the three months, the QAPI committee will re-evaluate and initiate necessary action or extend the review period. The Administrator is responsible for confirming implementation and ongoing compliance with the components of the Plan of Correction, and resolving variances that may occur. The Administrator is responsible for confirming the status of this Plan of Correction is reviewed and discussed at QAPI meetings and action initiated if required.
Food Safety and Sanitation Deficiencies in Main and Satellite Kitchens
Penalty
Summary
Surveyors identified multiple failures to store, prepare, distribute, and serve food in accordance with professional standards for food service safety in both the main kitchen and a satellite pantry kitchen. In the main kitchen, a cook’s beard cover did not fully cover all facial hair, and the handwashing sink initially did not provide warm water until the Executive Director manually adjusted a valve under the sink. In the pot washing area, full-sized steam table pans were stacked while still wet, and more than five plate domes with stuck-on food particles were found piled in the tray line area ready for use, indicating they had not been properly washed. Two large ice buckets were stained with black and grey mold-like discoloration and white wear marks. The high-temperature dishwashing machine in the main kitchen was run three times but failed to reach the required 180°F rinse temperature, only reaching 172°F, meaning dishes were not properly sanitized. In the second-floor satellite pantry kitchen, the high-temperature dishwashing machine was also run three times and failed to meet required wash temperatures, reaching only 139°F instead of the required 150–165°F, so dishes were not properly cleaned and sanitized. Additional sanitation and maintenance issues were observed, including a vent above serving dishes with a mold-like accumulation, broken and soiled cabinets above serving dishes with residue on the handles, and pantry floors with cracked, broken, and missing tiles with debris or residue buildup. The dishwasher chemical cabinet lock was rust-laden, the AC filter was covered with dark grey soot and dust, the juice dispenser with clean cups nearby had debris on top, and tray delivery carts contained large sheet trays with residue and stuck-on food debris. During a tray line observation, chopped tomatoes and sliced avocados on the salad line were held at 44°F and 45°F respectively, above the required 41°F or less, and the menu extension listed pureed peas for a pureed diet, but no pureed vegetable was present on the line.
Plan Of Correction
Food Procurement, Store/Prepare/Serve-Sanitary CFR(s): 483.60(i)(1)(2) §483.60(i) Food safety requirements. Preparation and/or execution of this plan does not constitute admission or agreement by the provider that a deficiency exists. This response is also not to be construed as an admission of fault by the facility, its employees, agents or other individuals who draft or may be discussed in this response and plan of correction. This plan of correction is submitted as the facility's credible allegation of compliance and Soley because it is required F0812 1. All identified sanitation issues were corrected on Hot water valve was fixed immediately by maintenance team Steam table pan wet nesting was corrected The 5 plate domes that were dirty were taken to the dishwasher to be washed Stained ice buckets were replaced with new ones Dishwashing machine not reaching temperature for rinse cycle was fixed by Eco lab the same day Team member was provided education and in-service on proper use of beard guard. Corrected on [R] 2.Identified issues from satellite Kitchen were corrected on [R] Dishwashing machine not reaching temperature for rinse cycle was fixed by Eco lab the same day The vent located above the serving dishes was cleaned by maintenance team The cabinets were cleaned immediately The floors of the pantry area were observed with broken, cracked, missing tiles, with buildup residue and debris. Maintenance director made aware in the process of getting replaced. The locking mechanism of the dishwasher chemical cabinet is rust laden. Laden removed and in the process of being replaced. The AC filter was cleaned by maintenance team Th juice dispenser was cleaned by dietary aide The large delivery trays with residue and food debris were discarded 3. Issues identified during Tray line observation were corrected: The chopped tomatoes and sliced avocados were discarded Pureed vegetable was added to the line. Inservice on serving all food groups, starches, protein and vegetables to residents on texture modified diet order. Inservice provided to all dietary aides Inservice on maintaining and holding temperatures for ready to eat foods. Inservice provided to all cooks and dietary aides Daily sanitation rounds will be conducted by the Certified Dietary manager /designee for one week. Weekly for 2 months. 4. The Certified Dietary Manager/Executive Chef/designee will report the findings of the above observations and audits to the monthly QAPI Committee. The Administrator is responsible for confirming implementation and compliance of this POC and and resolving any variances that may occur.
Failure to Honor Diet-Appropriate Menu Choices for Residents on Modified Diets
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to provide residents with menu choices that matched their physician-ordered diet textures and liquid consistencies. One resident with severe cognitive impairment had a physician order for a controlled diet with pureed texture and honey-thick liquids. During a noon meal observation, this resident’s meal ticket was stapled to a Regular Menu listing items such as lettuce and tomato salad, stir-fried vegetables, and a grilled cheese sandwich, none of which were appropriate for the resident’s ordered diet. The Registered Dietitian and the Dietetic Technician confirmed that Daily Menu printouts with Regular Menu options were provided to all residents, including those on mechanically altered diets, resulting in residents being offered choices that could not be honored due to diet restrictions. Another resident with moderate cognitive impairment had a physician order for a mechanical soft diet with nectar-thick liquids. This resident’s lunch tray ticket was also stapled to a Regular Menu that included salad greens, which are not allowed on a mechanical soft diet. On a separate breakfast observation, the same resident’s Regular Menu included fresh fruit as a choice, which the resident circled, but the tray contained canned peach halves instead. The resident stated she wanted her chosen fresh fruit rather than the peaches and reiterated her food preferences during the interview. Photographic evidence was obtained to document these discrepancies between ordered diets, menu offerings, and the food actually provided.
Plan Of Correction
Preparation and/or execution of this plan does not constitute admission or agreement by the provider that a deficiency exists. This response is also not to be construed as an admission of fault by the facility, its employees, agents or other individuals who draft or may be discussed in this response and plan of correction. This plan of correction is submitted as the facility's credible allegation of compliance and Soley because it is requiredF05501. Resident #54 and Resident #56 were immediately assessed by the Registered Dietitian (RD) & CDM (Certified Dietary Manager) for food preferences on Residents #54 and #56 were offered meal choices consistent with the prescribed diet. No adverse outcomes were identified. 2. 100% audit of all residents with therapeutic diets was completed on [R] by CDM to ensure menus and meal selections consistent with physician-ordered diets.On [R] , CDM provided in-service provided to dietary aides, certified nursing assistants, nurses, managers on new selective menu processes. 3. The facility implemented a diet-specific menu system and pre-meal diet verification process by reviewing the diet in tray ticket program IMPAC and PCC. Copies of the menus to be provided as part of the audits.Diet Menu was revised to include a mechanically altered diet to be consistent with physician orders. Therapeutic diets menus are available and offered to each resident according to physician orders. The Dietary Manager or designee will conduct weekly audits of 4 residents on therapeutic diets x 4 weeks then monthly x 2months, to verify the correct menu is offered and served. 4. The Dietary Manager or designee will report findings at the monthly QAPI meeting. The Administrator is responsible for confirming implementation and compliance with this POC and [R] , and resolving any variances that occur.
Failure to Follow Therapeutic Diet Orders and Provide Prescribed Nutritional Supplements
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to follow physician-ordered therapeutic diets and prescribed nutritional supplements for multiple residents. One resident with severe cognitive impairment and a physician’s order for a controlled diet with pureed texture and honey-thick liquids was observed at lunch without the ordered pureed vegetable; her plate contained only pureed chicken, a pureed starch, and possibly a pureed bread, all covered in gravy. The pureed menu for that meal listed broccoli as the vegetable, and a subsequent tray line observation on another day showed no pureed vegetables available, despite the pureed menu specifying pureed peas. The dietary manager and registered dietitian were informed of the missing pureed vegetables, and photographic evidence was obtained. The facility also failed to provide ordered Magic Cup nutritional supplements as prescribed. One resident with severe cognitive impairment and a care plan addressing risk for compromised nutritional status had a physician’s order for a 4 oz Magic Cup on day and evening shifts with lunch and dinner; during a breakfast observation, the meal ticket listed Magic Cup, but none was provided. Another resident with moderate cognitive impairment had a physician’s order for a 4 oz Magic Cup with lunch; during lunch observation, the meal ticket indicated Magic Cup, but the resident was served chocolate ice cream and ate coconut cream pie for dessert instead. The MAR documented 100% consumption of a Magic Cup on two consecutive days, despite the observed failure to provide it. During interviews, the RD and dietary manager explained that Magic Cups were to be provided by dietary staff either on trays or via the dessert/ice cream cart, but they could not explain why residents in the dining room did not receive the ordered supplements. Photographic evidence was obtained of these occurrences.
Plan Of Correction
Preparation and/or execution of this plan does not constitute admission or agreement by the provider that a deficiency exists. This response is also not to be construed as an admission of fault by the facility, its employees, agents or other individuals who draft or may be discussed in this response and plan of correction. This plan of correction is submitted as the facility's credible allegation of compliance and Soley because it is required F0803 1. Upon identification, resident #54 was given pureed vegetables. Residents #23, #39, and #54 were given Magic Cup supplements as ordered. On [R] CDM re-educated team members on supplement delivery including proper documentation and confirming that pureed diet being served matches what is listed on spread sheet. Dietary aides' morning and evening shifts are accountable for serving all food groups including vegetables when serving puree meals to residents. 2. A 100% audit of all residents with therapeutic diets and/or supplements was completed on [R] by Certified Dietary Manager. 3. A tray line checklist and diet/supplement reconciliation process between dietary and nursing were implemented by [R]. RD oversight of menu compliance was initiated. The Certified Dietary Manager or designee will audit food tray weekly x 4 weeks then weekly x 2 months. 4. The Certified Dietary Manager/Designee will report on the findings at the monthly QAPI meeting. The Administrator is responsible for confirming implementation and compliance with this POC and [R], and resolving any variances that may occur.
Failure to Verify and Honor DNR Order Before Initiating CPR
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to honor a resident’s clearly established Do Not Resuscitate (DNR) status during a cardiac emergency. The resident had multiple medical diagnoses, including cerebral infarction, COPD, cardiomyopathy, atherosclerotic heart disease, a nonrheumatic mitral valve disorder, cognitive communication deficit, and immunodeficiency. The medical record contained DNR orders created on two separate dates with no end dates, a DNR document signed by the resident and a nurse practitioner, and a 3008 form listing the resident’s advance directive as DNR. The resident’s MDS showed a Brief Interview for Mental Status score of 15, indicating intact cognition, and progress notes documented that the difference between DNR/no CPR and full code had been explained over 30 minutes, after which the resident chose DNR and reiterated to social services that she did not want to be resuscitated or undergo chest compressions. On the day of the incident, a CNA assigned to the resident checked on her and found her sitting in a wheelchair and unresponsive despite multiple verbal attempts to rouse her. The CNA notified the RN, who obtained a blood pressure machine, entered the room, then ran out to the nurses’ station, after which a code blue was paged over the intercom. The RN returned with a crash cart, and additional nursing staff, including RNs and LPNs, entered the room. Staff described transferring the unresponsive resident from the wheelchair to the bed and beginning chest compressions. Multiple staff members reported that when one LPN asked about the resident’s code status, no one in the room knew it at that time, and that this LPN left the room to verify the code status while CPR was already in progress. Interviews and video review confirmed that CPR was initiated and continued for approximately 12 minutes before EMS arrived, despite the resident’s existing DNR orders. Several nurses, including those who arrived after CPR had started, acknowledged that they did not check the resident’s code status before assisting with chest compressions or using a bag-valve mask. Staff later reported that the LPN who checked the record returned and announced that the resident was a DNR, yet compressions continued until EMS arrived. The physician stated that the resident was already in the system as a DNR and that staff were expected to check code status before performing CPR. The DON and regional nurse consultant confirmed, based on interviews and camera review, that staff failed to confirm the resident’s code status prior to initiating CPR and that CPR was performed against the resident’s wishes, leading surveyors to determine that this failure resulted in Immediate Jeopardy.
Removal Plan
- Implemented a revised admission/readmission process requiring an Advance Directive discussion form to be completed by the licensed nurse upon admission or with change in advance directives, with follow-up by Social Services.
- Reviewed Advance Directive discussion forms in the daily clinical meeting with the Interdisciplinary Team.
- Conducted a huddle on units after the clinical meeting to discuss any changes in advance directives/code status.
- Placed signage on each crash cart stating: "Stop check physician order prior to starting Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation."
- Implemented the "It Takes Two" process requiring two licensed nurses to verify code status/advance directives prior to initiation of CPR.
- Initiated an internal investigation including resident record review, staff interviews, and notification to the physician and resident representative.
- Suspended and terminated the assigned nurse and reported the nurse’s license to the licensing board.
- Suspended and terminated an additional nurse who responded and participated in initiation of CPR and reported the nurse’s license to the licensing board.
- Suspended two additional nurses pending investigation and returned them to work with disciplinary action, education on ANE/honoring advance directives, and participation in a code blue drill.
- Conducted a 100% audit of all current residents’ code status and care plans.
- Conducted a 100% audit of crash carts to ensure all required items were present.
- Reviewed CPR cards for identified nurses to confirm validity and inclusion of in-person skills competencies.
- Held an ad hoc QAPI meeting with Administrator, DON, Medical Director, and department heads.
- Completed an audit of residents discharged, transferred to the hospital, or expired to verify advance directives were honored.
- Provided staff education for licensed/certified staff on medical emergency response and communication of advance directives and code status, following physician orders related to advance directives, the "It Takes Two" verification process, and CNA roles during code blue.
- Provided all-staff education on Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation/Resident Rights with focus on honoring advance directives.
- Completed honoring advance directives attestation with licensed nursing staff.
- Completed physician orders education for licensed nursing staff.
- Completed medical emergency response and communication of code status education for licensed nursing staff.
- Completed ANE/Resident Rights education for all staff.
- Completed advance directives posttest for licensed staff.
- Completed ANE/Resident Rights posttest for all staff.
- Completed code blue process/"It Takes Two" education for licensed nursing staff.
- Began code blue drills every shift and required licensed nurses to attend a mock code blue quality assurance drill prior to working.
- Completed CNA roles-in-code-blue training.
- Completed quality reviews validating staff competencies for completed education.
- Completed quality reviews of newly admitted residents to verify completion of the advance directive discussion form.
- Implemented Director of Clinical Services chart review of residents who expire at the facility or are transferred to the hospital after a cardiac event to verify advance directives were followed.
Trusted data from CMS and state health departments
Every citation, penalty and Plan of Correction is sourced from public CMS records (latest release May 27, 2026) and official state health department websites — never guesswork.
Trusted by long-term care providers and associations.



