Hunters Creek Nursing And Rehab Center
Inspection history, citations, penalties and survey trends for this long-term care facility in Orlando, Florida.
- Location
- 14155 Town Loop Blvd, Orlando, Florida 32837
- CMS Provider Number
- 105987
- Inspections on file
- 27
- Latest survey
- December 19, 2024
- Citations (last 12 mo.)
- 0
Citation history
Health deficiencies cited at Hunters Creek Nursing And Rehab Center during CMS and state inspections, most recent first.
The facility failed to properly store and label food items in the walk-in cooler, with several perishable items found beyond their discard dates. Additionally, hot foods were not held at the correct temperatures before service, with chicken noodle soup and cream of chicken soup not reheated to the required temperature. The facility's policy lacked guidance on the storage life of cheese, leading to uncertainty among staff.
The facility failed to treat residents with dignity during meal assistance. A resident with dementia and other conditions was left unattended with a meal tray, and staff referred to her as a 'feeder.' Another resident was also referred to as a 'feeder,' and an RN fed her while standing, against facility policy. The term 'feeder' was commonly used, which the Administrator recognized as a dignity issue.
A resident with intact cognition and multiple diagnoses was not managed according to pharmacy recommendations for Lidocaine patch use. The patch was left on for more than 12 hours, contrary to instructions, and the facility failed to act on the pharmacist's advice. The DON had signed the recommendation, but it was not implemented, leading to a deficiency in medication management.
A resident with diabetes in an LTC facility preferred a sandwich as a nighttime snack for blood sugar control. However, the sandwich was often left unrefrigerated for several hours, posing a risk of foodborne illness. The facility's dietary and nursing staff failed to coordinate effectively to ensure the sandwich was stored safely until the resident was ready to eat it. The facility's Administrator acknowledged the responsibility to provide food safely, regardless of resident requests.
A resident developed a stage 4 pressure ulcer within 12 days of admission due to the facility's failure to identify early skin breakdown and initiate timely wound care. Despite being assessed as having a mild risk for pressure ulcers, the facility did not conduct thorough skin evaluations or follow up on concerns raised by the resident's daughter. The resident's condition worsened, leading to hospitalization and significant physical and psychosocial harm.
A facility failed to ensure an accurate MDS assessment for a resident, incorrectly documenting two unstageable pressure injuries. The resident was admitted for short-term rehabilitation with no pressure injuries noted upon hospital discharge. Despite facility assessments showing intact skin, the Lead MDS Coordinator assumed the presence of pressure injuries based on small white areas on the skin, leading to inaccurate MDS documentation. The DON confirmed the interdisciplinary team found no evidence of pressure injuries at admission, highlighting a failure in the assessment process.
A resident admitted for short-term rehabilitation developed a stage 4 pressure injury due to the facility's failure to update the baseline care plan with appropriate interventions. Initially, the resident's skin was noted to be intact, but a new wound was discovered, and the care plan was not revised to address the risk factors and promote healing. The facility's staff acknowledged the care plan was incomplete and not updated in a timely manner, and the resident's family was not informed of the wound's severity.
A resident with severe cognitive impairment and multiple medical conditions eloped from a facility due to inadequate supervision and failure to implement preventive measures. Despite being assessed as an elopement risk, the resident was able to exit through an unlocked door, leading to Immediate Jeopardy. Staff were aware of the resident's wandering behaviors but did not document or implement additional supervision.
A resident with severe cognitive impairment and a history of wandering eloped from the facility after a receptionist unlocked the door without verifying his identity. The resident, who had removed his alerting bracelet, was found by law enforcement with minor injuries over an hour later. The facility failed to ensure proper supervision and secure environment, contributing to the incident.
Deficiencies in Food Storage and Temperature Control
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure proper storage and labeling of food items in the walk-in cooler, as observed during a survey. Several perishable food items, including turkey slices, ham, mozzarella cheese, goat cheese, and Italian bread, were found to be stored beyond their recommended discard dates according to the facility's policy. Additionally, opened containers of mayonnaise, Italian salad dressing, and sour cream were not labeled with the date they were opened, which is a requirement of the facility's food storage and labeling policy. The Certified Dietary Manager (CDM) was unable to provide specific guidance on the shelf life of certain items, such as cheese, and was not aware of the exact policies regarding the storage duration of unopened turkey slices and raw ground beef. The facility also failed to ensure that hot foods were held at the correct temperatures before service. During the survey, individually portioned bowls of chicken noodle soup were observed to be held without a heat source and were not reheated to the required temperature of 165 degrees Fahrenheit before being served. The CDM and dietary staff were aware of the requirement to reheat food to the correct temperature but failed to do so in this instance. Additionally, cream of chicken soup was found to be sitting on the counter without a heat source and required reheating to reach the appropriate temperature. The facility's food storage and labeling/dating policy, provided by the Regional Healthcare Manager, indicated that all food items should be labeled with the date of receipt, opening, and storage after preparation. The policy also specified discard timelines for various food items, such as raw ground beef, unsliced ham, and vacuum-packed deli meats. However, the policy did not include guidance for the storage life of cheese, leading to uncertainty among staff about how long cheese could be kept after opening.
Failure to Ensure Resident Dignity During Meal Assistance
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure residents were treated with dignity, as observed in the cases of two residents who required assistance with meals. Resident #11, who had a history of dementia, hemiplegia, hemiparesis, dysphagia, and aphasia, was found lying in bed with her lunch tray on the bedside table, unattended. A CNA referred to her as a 'feeder' and admitted to not having received training on assisting residents with meals. The facility's policy emphasized treating residents with dignity and using their preferred names, but this was not adhered to in the case of Resident #11. Similarly, another incident involved Resident #48, where a CNA referred to the resident as a 'feeder' in the presence of an RN. The RN left the meal tray uncovered in front of the resident and later fed her while standing over her, contrary to the facility's policy, which required staff to sit next to residents while assisting them with meals. The term 'feeder' was also found on the master roster, indicating its common use in the facility, which the Administrator acknowledged as a dignity issue.
Failure to Address Pharmacy Recommendation for Lidocaine Patch
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to address a pharmacy recommendation for a resident who was receiving a Lidocaine patch for pain management. The resident, who had intact cognition, was readmitted with multiple diagnoses including Parkinson's Disease and congestive heart failure. The pharmacy recommendation, issued in October, advised that the Lidocaine patch should be removed after 12 hours and not exceed three patches within a 24-hour period. However, the resident reported that the patch was not removed at night, and the LPN confirmed that the patch was often left on for more than 12 hours, contrary to the instructions. The Director of Nursing had signed the pharmacy recommendation, but it was not implemented, and the Regional Nurse Consultant could not explain why the recommendation was not addressed. The Consultant Pharmacist stated that his role included reviewing previous recommendations to ensure completion and that using the Lidocaine patch longer than recommended could lead to over-absorption. The facility's policy on Medication Regimen Review emphasized the importance of acting upon pharmacy recommendations, but in this case, the recommendation was not followed, leading to a deficiency in medication management for the resident.
Inadequate Food Safety Practices for Diabetic Resident
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure that staff had the appropriate competencies and skills to carry out the functions of the food and nutrition service, which led to a potential risk of foodborne illness for a resident with diabetes. The resident preferred a sandwich as a nighttime snack for blood sugar control but often received it on her dinner tray, which she did not consume until several hours later. This practice resulted in the sandwich being left unrefrigerated for an extended period, posing a safety risk. The resident's dinner meal typically arrived before 6:00 PM, and she would eat the sandwich between 10:30 PM and 12:30 AM, well beyond the safe time for perishable food to remain unrefrigerated. The Registered Dietitian and Certified Dietary Manager were aware of the resident's preference for a sandwich as a nighttime snack. However, they did not ensure that the sandwich was stored safely until the resident was ready to consume it. The facility's Administrator acknowledged the responsibility to provide food safely, regardless of resident requests. The Certified Nursing Assistants confirmed the resident's routine of eating the sandwich late at night but were not aware of the exact time. The deficiency highlights a lack of communication and coordination among dietary and nursing staff to ensure food safety for the resident.
Failure to Prevent and Manage Pressure Ulcer
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to provide appropriate care and services to prevent the development and worsening of a pressure injury for a resident. Upon admission, the resident's skin was intact, but within 12 days, she developed a stage 4 pressure injury. The facility did not identify early signs of skin breakdown or promptly initiate wound care and treatment. The resident's daughter reported a skin issue to the staff, but there was no documented follow-up or intervention until the wound had significantly worsened. The resident was admitted with no pressure injuries and was assessed as having a mild risk for pressure ulcer development. Despite this, the facility's staff did not conduct thorough and timely skin evaluations. A request for a skin evaluation by the resident's daughter was not acted upon promptly, and the resident's condition deteriorated. The wound nurse eventually identified a stage 4 pressure injury, but by then, the wound had already progressed significantly, requiring surgical intervention and hospitalization. The facility's care plan for the resident did not include adequate interventions to prevent skin impairment, and the staff failed to communicate effectively about the resident's condition. The resident's daughter was not informed of the severity of the wound until it required hospital transfer. The lack of timely and appropriate interventions led to the resident suffering physical and psychosocial harm, including a decline in mobility and depression.
Inaccurate MDS Assessment of Pressure Injuries
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure an accurate Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment for a resident, which inaccurately reflected the presence of pressure injuries. The resident, a female admitted for short-term rehabilitation, was initially assessed with no pressure injuries upon discharge from the hospital. However, the MDS Admission assessment incorrectly documented two unstageable pressure injuries, despite the absence of such findings in the medical record and assessments conducted by the facility's staff. The Lead MDS Coordinator, responsible for completing the MDS assessment, relied on various sources of information, including staff interviews and medical records. Despite the documentation indicating intact skin with no open areas, the coordinator assumed the presence of pressure injuries based on the description of small white areas on the resident's skin. This assumption led to the inaccurate documentation of pressure injuries in the MDS assessment, which was not supported by the facility's own skin assessments and lack of physician orders for wound care. The Director of Nursing (DON) confirmed that the interdisciplinary team, including the Lead MDS Coordinator, reviewed the resident's chart and found no evidence of pressure injuries at the time of admission. The DON acknowledged that the Lead MDS Coordinator should have sought clarification to ensure the accuracy of the MDS assessment. The facility's policy emphasized the importance of accurate MDS assessments, which are foundational for developing appropriate care plans, but this process was not followed correctly in this instance.
Failure to Update Baseline Care Plan for Pressure Injury
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to develop, implement, and update an appropriate baseline care plan for a resident, leading to a deficiency in managing the risk factors for skin impairment. Upon admission, the resident was noted to have clear skin integrity with no conditions present, but a small, white intact area was observed on her sacrum and left buttock. Despite this, the baseline care plan only included an intervention to turn and reposition the resident, which was not updated when a new wound was discovered. The resident's condition worsened when a stage 4 pressure injury was identified on her sacrum, yet the care plan was not updated to include necessary interventions to prevent further deterioration and promote healing. The facility's staff, including the Lead MDS Coordinator, acknowledged that the baseline care plan was incomplete and not updated in a timely manner. The resident's daughter was not informed of the severity of the wound or any noncompliance issues, and there was no documentation of the resident refusing care. The Director of Nursing confirmed that the baseline care plans did not reflect the facility's expected processes. The facility's policy required the development of a baseline care plan to include necessary instructions for effective, person-centered care, but this was not adhered to, resulting in inadequate care for the resident's pressure injury.
Failure to Prevent Resident Elopement
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to protect a resident from neglect by not implementing measures to prevent elopement. The resident, a male with severe cognitive impairment and multiple medical conditions, was admitted from a hospital where he was determined to be at risk of harm and falls without 24-hour supervision. Despite being assessed as an elopement risk, the facility did not provide adequate supervision, allowing the resident to exit the building unsupervised. On the day of the incident, the resident was able to leave the facility through an unlocked lobby door, which was opened by a receptionist who mistook him for a visitor. The resident, who was wearing an alerting bracelet, was not stopped or questioned, and he managed to walk across a high-traffic road to a nearby apartment complex. The facility was unaware of his absence until a CNA noticed he was missing. The resident was later found by police with minor injuries, highlighting the facility's failure to implement preventive interventions to mitigate the risk of elopement. Interviews with staff revealed that the resident had been exhibiting wandering and exit-seeking behaviors, which were known to the staff. However, no additional supervision or interventions were documented or implemented to address these behaviors. The facility's lack of action and failure to ensure a secure environment placed the resident at risk, resulting in Immediate Jeopardy.
Removal Plan
- The receptionist on duty was suspended.
- An Ad Hoc Quality Assurance Performance Improvement (QAPI) meeting was held.
- An audit was conducted to ensure all current residents were present, alerting bracelets and physician's orders were in place, and elopement risk evaluations were validated.
- Door system alarm checks for proper functioning were completed.
- The Nursing Home Administrator educated the receptionist who was on duty.
- Audits were conducted to ensure BIMS, evaluations, care plans, leave of absence and alerting bracelet orders were correct and present for all new admissions.
- Elopement book audits were conducted to ensure accuracy.
- A total of nine staff assigned receptionist duties were re-educated by the Business Office Manager regarding the front door process and received competency checks.
- A majority of staff were re-educated regarding Abuse, Neglect, and Exploitation that included at-risk resident elopement risk identification and implementation of preventive measures, protection of residents from harm, identification of resident neglect, signs and symptoms of elopement risk including wandering, and expectations for a missing alerting bracelet.
- An Ad Hoc QAPI meeting was conducted to ensure all interventions were in place and root cause analysis was completed.
- Ongoing audits were continued for new admissions to ensure accuracy of the BIMS, Leave of Absence, bracelets, alerting batch orders, and care plans.
Failure to Prevent Resident Elopement
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to provide adequate supervision and a secure environment to prevent the elopement of a resident, who was identified as being at high risk for elopement. The resident, who had severe cognitive impairment and a history of wandering, was able to exit the facility unsupervised when a receptionist unlocked the front door without verifying his identity. The resident was later found by law enforcement in a nearby apartment complex parking lot with minor injuries, more than an hour after he left the facility. The resident had been admitted to the facility with multiple medical conditions, including dementia, and was assessed as being at risk for elopement. Despite this, the facility failed to ensure that the alerting bracelet, which was supposed to prevent such incidents, was functioning properly. The resident was able to remove the bracelet using a butter knife, which prevented the exit alarm from sounding when he left the building. Staff members, including the receptionist, did not follow established procedures to verify the identity of individuals exiting the facility, contributing to the resident's unsupervised departure. Interviews with staff revealed that the resident had been exhibiting exit-seeking behavior and was anxious about leaving the facility. Despite these signs, the facility did not take adequate measures to prevent the elopement. The receptionist, who was not aware of the elopement risk binder, mistakenly believed the resident was a visitor and allowed him to exit without following the sign-out process. This oversight, combined with the resident's ability to remove the alerting bracelet, led to the resident's elopement and placed him at risk of serious harm.
Removal Plan
- The receptionist on duty was suspended.
- An Ad Hoc Quality Assurance Performance Improvement (QAPI) meeting was held.
- An audit was conducted to ensure all current residents were present, alerting bracelets and physician's orders were in place, and elopement risk evaluations were validated.
- Majority of staff were re-educated regarding at-risk resident elopement risk identification and implementation of preventive measures, identification of exit-seeking residents and process to minimize risk, protection of residents from harm, signs and symptoms of elopement risk including wandering, expectations for a missing alerting bracelet, sign in/out process, and elopement books.
- The NHA educated the Receptionist who was on duty.
- Door system alarm checks for proper functioning were completed.
- Audits were conducted to ensure BIMS, evaluations, care plans, and Leave of Absence and alerting bracelet orders were correct and present for all new admissions.
- Elopement book audits were conducted to ensure accuracy.
- A total of nine staff assigned receptionist duties were re-educated by the Business Office Manager regarding the front door process and received competency checks.
- The front door process, Receptionist Competency for Visitors and Vendors was laminated and placed at the front reception desk.
- An Ad Hoc meeting was conducted to ensure all interventions were in place and a root cause analysis was completed.
- Ongoing audits were to be continued for new admissions to ensure accuracy of the BIMS, Leave of Absence, bracelets, alerting batch orders, and care plans.
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.
