Westminster Winter Park

Penalty

No penalty information released

The penalty, as released by CMS, applies to the entire inspection this citation is part of, covering all citations and f-tags issued, not just this specific f-tag. For the complete original report, please refer to the 'Details' section.

Summary

Surveyors identified a deficiency related to the facility’s Emergency Preparedness (EP) Program under 42 CFR 483.73(a). During record review at 4:00 PM, surveyors examined the facility’s EP documentation and found no evidence that the emergency preparedness plan had been reviewed or updated on an annual basis as required. The regulation mandates that LTC facilities develop and maintain an emergency preparedness plan that is reviewed and updated at least annually to comply with applicable Federal, State, and local emergency preparedness requirements. In an interview, the Administrator acknowledged that the facility’s Emergency Management Plan had not been reviewed or updated. No documentation was provided to show that the required annual review and update of the EP plan had occurred. The deficiency is based solely on the lack of documented annual review and update of the emergency preparedness plan by facility administration; no specific resident cases or clinical events were described in the report.

Plan Of Correction

Preparation and/or execution of the Plan of Correction does not constitute admission or agreement of the provider of the truth of the facts alleged or conclusions set forth in the statement of deficiencies. The Plan of Correction is prepared and/or executed solely because it is required by the provision of Federal and State law. Facility EP was reviewed and signed off on by the DON, Maintenance Director and Administrator. The facility has determined that all residents have the potential to be affected. An in-service education program will be conducted by the administrator. The administrator will conduct monthly random checks to verify completed documentation.

Penalty

No penalty information released

The penalty, as released by CMS, applies to the entire inspection this citation is part of, covering all citations and f-tags issued, not just this specific f-tag. For the complete original report, please refer to the 'Details' section.

Summary

Surveyors identified that the facility failed to provide a safe, clean, comfortable, and homelike environment as required by 42 CFR 483.10(i). Upon entrance to the building on multiple days, surveyors noted a strong, pungent odor of urine and feces throughout the facility, with the odor particularly strong on the 200, 300, and 400 halls. Staff interviews confirmed that the building "usually smells like" urine, and staff attributed the odor to residents defecating and urinating on the floor, an old building structure, and cleaning products that sanitize but do not deodorize. Housekeeping staff reported that they clean resident rooms daily but that nursing staff must first clean fecal and urine waste before housekeeping can sanitize, and delays by nursing staff in doing so postponed housekeeping’s ability to address the odors. On the 300 unit, surveyors observed multiple environmental and sanitation issues in resident rooms and bathrooms. The hallway had torn flooring, food particles, and a butter knife on the floor. Individual rooms had food debris, a straw on the floor, and broken blinds. Bathrooms contained dark brown stains on walls, rusted ceiling tile trim, toilets with brownish substances inside, and wet floors around toilets. Trim was missing around toilet bases, exposing a black, mold-like substance. Corroded and rusted sink faucet handles, leaking faucets, rusted pipes under sinks with buildup of corrosion, and rusted sprinklers were observed. Some toilets and three-in-one commodes had duct tape on them, and bathroom walls had black, mold-like substances. Doors and door facings showed rust, scrape marks, chipped and peeling paint, and exposed wood. In some rooms, electrical outlets had no covers while oxygen concentrators were plugged into them, boards covered windows, light fixtures over beds lacked covers with sockets exposed, and one fixture had only one bulb. A resident bed appeared dirty with a black substance on it, and dresser drawers were broken with drawer fronts on the floor. On the 400 unit, surveyors again noted a strong odor of urine upon entry and found additional environmental deficiencies. Bathrooms had missing ceiling tiles, broken emergency light covers with no pull strings, and toilet tank covers that did not fit properly, exposing the inside of the tank. In one bathroom, torn toilet paper and used briefs were lying in the corner of the floor, and toilets had brown, rust-like substances inside the bowls. Door facings appeared cracked with brown substances along the sides, and toilets had brownish-black buildup around the bases with broken, peeling trim. Light bases on walls had rust-like appearances, multiple rooms had broken or missing blinds, and some outlets lacked covers while oxygen concentrators were plugged into them. Some rooms had unmade beds, exposed wires at outlets, toilets with dark brown-black rings around the base and flooring, uncovered light fixtures, leaking sinks with rusted pipes, loose flooring, loose toilet seats, and dry red substances on door frames. Surveyors also observed deficiencies in the outdoor patio area adjacent to the locked unit. The gate code was broken, and a resident lock was placed on the gate. The patio and surrounding fencing had fallen palm fronds on the grass, broken and rotted wooden fence railings, unsteady railings, and multiple exposed rusted nails protruding from the railings where boards were broken or detached. Overgrown trees and bushes from the perimeter extended through the fence railings. When asked, the Administrator acknowledged that the area was not safe for residents and stated that they planned to have it redone in the future. The Maintenance Director reported that he and one other maintenance person relied on work orders and verbal reports to identify needed repairs and stated he was not aware of the specific room and equipment issues on the 300 and 400 units. Housekeeping staff stated they would report broken items via a work order book or text to maintenance, but one housekeeper, who cleaned the 400 unit daily, denied noticing stains or biohazard-like materials on walls and door frames despite the surveyors’ observations. Review of facility documents showed that the housekeeper job description required staff to maintain assigned work areas in a clean, safe, comfortable, and attractive manner and to report maintenance problems noted during cleaning. A facility policy titled "Policies and Practices - Control" stated that the facility must maintain a safe, sanitary, and comfortable environment for personnel, residents, visitors, and the public. The DON stated that blinds had been changed out and new cabinets and door handles purchased, and that staff were directed to use standard precautions when cleaning rooms, but also stated there was no policy specific to cleaning the environment. These observations and interviews demonstrated that the facility did not maintain sanitary, orderly, and comfortable interior conditions, did not adequately control offensive odors, and did not ensure that the physical environment, including resident rooms, bathrooms, and outdoor areas, was maintained in a safe, clean, and homelike condition as required by regulation.

Penalty

No penalty information released

The penalty, as released by CMS, applies to the entire inspection this citation is part of, covering all citations and f-tags issued, not just this specific f-tag. For the complete original report, please refer to the 'Details' section.

Summary

The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to report an elopement incident to required state and federal agencies as mandated by 42 CFR 483.12(c). On the referenced date, Resident #5 exited the building through his bedroom window around 12:15 PM and walked across the facility property toward the perimeter fence. A CNA observed the resident outside and called for assistance, after which staff redirected and escorted the resident back into the building and placed him on one-to-one supervision. The facility’s internal incident documentation noted the window exit and subsequent maintenance inspection of the window seals but did not include any staff or witness statements. The DON later stated that the resident never left facility grounds and was returned without injury, and therefore the incident was not considered reportable. However, interviews and external records showed that the resident did leave the facility premises and that law enforcement was involved. Resident #5 recalled being outside the facility, being brought back by staff and a “police man,” and being told by the officer not to leave again. A police report from the local police department confirmed an encounter with the resident outside the facility and that an officer assisted staff in escorting him back. Maintenance staff (Staff G) also reported that the resident climbed out the window, left the facility property, and was stopped “down the road,” then redirected back with law enforcement assistance. In interviews, the DON initially denied that law enforcement had been notified or involved, then later acknowledged that law enforcement had responded but asserted they did not come into the facility. The DON also confirmed awareness that any incident in which law enforcement investigates or responds is required to be reported, yet the elopement and law enforcement involvement were not reported to the State Survey Agency or other required officials within the required time frames.

Penalty

No penalty information released

The penalty, as released by CMS, applies to the entire inspection this citation is part of, covering all citations and f-tags issued, not just this specific f-tag. For the complete original report, please refer to the 'Details' section.

Summary

Surveyors found that the facility failed to provide necessary ADL care, including grooming and hygiene, to a dependent resident over multiple days. The resident was repeatedly observed in visibly soiled clothing with a strong odor of urine, first standing in his doorway holding onto a wheelchair with wet navy pants saturated down to his calves, stating he had been waiting for staff to change his clothes. More than an hour later the same day, he remained in the same soiled pants and shirt while seated in a wheelchair near the nurses’ station. The following day, he was again observed wearing the same soiled clothes, smelling of urine, with his shirt stained with food and a dark liquid. His room had a strong urine odor, his bed was soiled with urine, and only two pairs of pants were seen on a chair with no other clothing available in the room. On a subsequent observation, he was seated on the edge of his bed wearing different pants and no shirt, with yellow-stained sheets beneath him and his previously soiled clothes on the floor; he reported that he had requested assistance but no staff had come, so he changed himself. Record review showed the resident had a history of stroke and repeated unspecified conditions, with a recent Quarterly MDS indicating moderate cognitive impairment (BIMS score of 10). The MDS documented him as independent for toileting, showering, personal hygiene, and related ADLs, and only occasionally incontinent, but his care plan did not specify the level of assistance he required for incontinence care and other ADLs. In contrast, an LPN familiar with the resident stated he required staff assistance with bathing, grooming, toileting, and care, and that he did not refuse such assistance and appropriately requested help. The LPN also explained that personal clothing was laundered at the facility and left bagged in the linen room for nursing staff to distribute, rather than being returned directly to resident rooms. The DON stated that staff were expected to follow best practices, including rounding every two hours and as needed to keep residents clean and dry, and acknowledged that all residents required some level of assistance with ADLs. The DON further stated the facility had no written ADL, resident care, or quality of care policies, despite these expectations.

Penalty

No penalty information released

The penalty, as released by CMS, applies to the entire inspection this citation is part of, covering all citations and f-tags issued, not just this specific f-tag. For the complete original report, please refer to the 'Details' section.

Summary

The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to provide immediate and appropriate basic life support, including CPR, to a resident with a documented full code status when the resident was found unresponsive. The resident had diagnoses including a slow-progressing circulatory condition involving narrowing or blockage of vessels, a condition that restricts airflow and makes breathing difficult, and other listed conditions. The physician’s order specified “Full Code,” and the care plan documented that the resident was under court-ordered guardianship with wishes honored as full code. The facility’s policy required that in the event of cardiac or respiratory arrest, staff immediately call for assistance, overhead page a code, begin CPR in the absence of a valid DNR, and continue CPR until EMS assumes responsibility or the resident responds. On the night of the incident at approximately 2:00–2:07 a.m., a CNA found the resident unresponsive in bed and notified the RN on duty. One CNA’s written statement indicated that the RN said she already knew the resident was going to die and instructed the CNA to clean and cover the resident. Another CNA’s account stated that the RN came to the room, took vital signs, and then instructed her to clean the resident. The RN’s own written statement and interview indicated that she called a code blue, that an LPN brought the crash cart, and that they performed CPR for approximately 20 minutes. The LPN’s statement corroborated that a code blue was called, that he brought the crash cart, and that CPR was performed for about 20 minutes before the RN stopped and stated that the resident was gone or words to that effect. The RN acknowledged that the resident had no vital signs but was warm and not responding, and she stated that she believed the resident was on hospice and therefore did not call 911. After CPR was discontinued, the RN did not activate EMS and instead notified the DON, the provider, and the resident’s family. The DON documented receiving a message from the RN that the resident had no pulse and no blood pressure and that the assigned nurse had initiated CPR but was unable to revive the resident. The DON later received a text from the RN that the resident had expired. The DON stated that at approximately 6:00 a.m. she called the facility and asked if 911 had been called, and upon learning it had not, she instructed the RN to call 911. The RN then reinitiated CPR at around 6:00 a.m., approximately four hours after the resident was first found without pulse or respirations, and stated that they tried to do something until EMS arrived because EMS had to see them doing CPR. EMS records showed activation at 6:18 a.m., arrival at 6:27 a.m., and pronouncement of death at 6:31 a.m., with documentation that CPR was not attempted by EMS because it was considered futile and that the resident exhibited postmortem changes. The Medical Director confirmed that the resident was full code and stated that staff should have started CPR and called 911 and that CPR should not be done four hours after a resident is pronounced dead. The facility’s investigation and a root cause analysis concluded that the RN and LPN did not follow the facility’s established policy and procedure to call 911 and administer CPR to a full code resident until EMS arrival. The root cause was identified as the nurse’s belief that the resident was on hospice and her failure to check the resident’s code status as outlined in facility policy. The surveyors determined that the failure to immediately activate EMS and to continue CPR until EMS arrival for this full code resident constituted noncompliance with the requirement to provide basic life support and resulted in an Immediate Jeopardy determination.

Plan Of Correction

This plan of correction is submitted as required under Federal and State regulations and statutes applicable to long term care providers. This plan of correction does not constitute an admission of liability on the part of the facility, and such liability is hereby specifically denied. The submission of this plan does not constitute agreement by the facility that the surveyors' findings or conclusions are accurate, that the findings constitute a deficiency, or that the scope or severity regarding any of these deficiencies cited are correctly applied. Resident #1 no longer resides in the facility as of 4.7.26. This has the potential to affect all residents in the facility. All codes to 1.1.26 were reviewed to ensure protocol was followed. No outliers were noted. All licensed nurses received education from the Director of Nursing and/or nursing management on [R] policy and procedure and Florida [R] policy. This includes where to find the code status. Education addressed what to do for full code hospice residents. Education completed with CNA's that protocol is that they do not assist with [R] or breaths during a [R] event. All education will be added to new hire orientation. Code drills will occur 3 x weekly x 4 weeks, followed by 2 x weekly x 4 weeks, followed by 1 x weekly x 4 weeks. Results will be brought to QAPI to determine need for ongoing auditing.

Removal Plan

• Educated licensed nurses on CPR policy and procedure and Florida Do Not Resuscitate (DNRO) policy, including where to find code status and what to do for full code hospice residents; emphasized initiating emergency services immediately when resident is full code, continuing CPR until EMS arrives, and that nurses cannot pronounce death or stop CPR on a full code resident unless instructed by EMS.
• Implemented emergency response “Code Blue” drills on all three shifts, including full code and full code hospice scenarios, with emphasis on calling 911 immediately.
• Educated licensed nurses and CNAs on the facility abuse and neglect policy, including resident rights.
• Required licensed nurses to complete a CPR post-test; restricted staff who have not completed education/testing from working until completion.
• Educated licensed nurses regarding change in condition.
• Placed laminated instructions on how to overhead page during a code at all nursing station phones and other designated phones.
• Held a Quality Improvement Performance Committee meeting to review root cause analysis findings and approve recommendations.
• Held a Quality Improvement Performance Committee meeting to review progress of the plan and approve recommendations.
• Completed a “like resident” audit of all expired residents and rehospitalizations for a defined period to determine whether involved staff were the same as the code event and whether proper procedure was followed.

Penalty

No penalty information released

The penalty, as released by CMS, applies to the entire inspection this citation is part of, covering all citations and f-tags issued, not just this specific f-tag. For the complete original report, please refer to the 'Details' section.

Summary

The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to ensure that nursing staff possessed and demonstrated the competencies required to respond appropriately to a cardiopulmonary emergency for a resident with full code status. Resident #1, who was designated as full code, was found unresponsive and without respirations or pulse at approximately 2:07 a.m. Clinical staff, consisting of an RN (Staff A) and an LPN (Staff B), initiated CPR but did not activate Emergency Medical Services (EMS) as required by facility policy for a full code resident. After approximately 20 minutes of CPR, the RN and LPN stopped resuscitation efforts without EMS involvement. The RN, without authority to do so, pronounced the resident deceased based on the absence of vital signs and did not verify the resident’s code status before discontinuing CPR. The RN later stated she believed the resident was on hospice and therefore did not call 911, and that she was confused about which residents were hospice and which were full code. The LPN reported that he assumed the RN had called 911 and continued CPR for about 20 minutes until the RN “called the code” and left, and he acknowledged that he knew CPR should continue until EMS arrival but did not speak up. Four hours after CPR was stopped, at approximately 6:00 a.m., the RN restarted CPR and activated EMS after receiving instructions from the DON. The investigation further identified that the RN had no documented orientation, onboarding education, or skills competency assessments since hire, despite being promoted to weekend supervisor. Her BLS certification had been obtained through a fully online course without an instructor or live feedback. The LPN’s BLS certification was expired, and a CNA who performed several chest compressions also had an expired BLS certification, even though facility policy did not permit CNAs to perform CPR. Facility records showed that monthly code blue drills had been conducted, but there was no documentation that the RN had ever participated in these drills. Leadership interviews confirmed that required clinical orientation and competency evaluations had not been completed for the RN, and that she had failed tests for a clinical manager position but was nonetheless functioning in a supervisory role. These actions and omissions led surveyors to determine that staff were not adequately trained or competent to respond to cardiopulmonary arrest for residents with full code status, resulting in an Immediate Jeopardy determination. The facility’s own root cause analysis, as reflected in meeting minutes, identified that the nurse did not check the resident’s code status and lacked knowledge about when CPR could be discontinued and when 911 should be called. The analysis documented that the nurse believed the resident was hospice and therefore did not start or continue CPR appropriately or call EMS when the resident was found without respirations and pulse. The facility assessment tool and policies referenced the need for staff training and competencies in identifying changes in condition, end-of-life care, advance care planning, and adherence to the CPR policy, but the documented events showed that these expectations were not met in practice for the staff involved in this incident. Surveyors concluded that the failure to ensure nursing staff were trained and competent to respond appropriately to cardiopulmonary arrest for a full code resident, including immediate initiation and continuation of CPR and activation of EMS, constituted noncompliance with requirements for sufficient and competent nursing staff. The failure affected Resident #1 and placed other full code residents at risk, leading to an Immediate Jeopardy finding that was later reduced in scope and severity after verification of an acceptable Immediate Jeopardy removal plan.

Plan Of Correction

This plan of correction is submitted as required under Federal and State regulations and statutes applicable to long term care providers. This plan of correction does not constitute an admission of liability on the part of the facility, and such liability is hereby specifically denied. The submission of this plan does not constitute agreement by the facility that the surveyors' findings or conclusions are accurate, that the findings constitute a deficiency, or that the scope or severity regarding any of these deficiencies cited are correctly applied Resident # 1 no longer resides in the facility as of 4.7.26. This has the potential to affect all residents in the facility. All licensed nurses were audited to ensure current [R] certification. Facility will ensure [R] certification through a [R] provider whose training includes a [R] on session either in a physical or virtual instructor-led setting in accordance with accepted national standards. Human resources, or designee, will audit monthly to ensure all licensed nurses have a current [R] certification.Education was completed with licensed nurses on initiating [R] services immediately when a resident is full code. Education included that [R] is to continue on a full code resident until [R] arrives and that the nurse cannot pronounce [R] on the full code resident and/or stop [R] until instructed by [R].Education will be added to new hire orientation.7 random licensed nurses will complete a knowledge quiz related to code events. Per week x 4 weeks, followed by 5 nurses x 4 weeks, then 3 nurses x 4 weeks. Results will be brought to QAPI to determine need for ongoing auditing.

Removal Plan

• Regional Director of Clinical Services educated the Administrator and Director of Nursing regarding the CPR policy and the need to immediately contact emergency medical services (911) in the event of a full code; Administrator and DON signed the education
• Regional Director of Clinical Services provided documented education to the Administrator and Director of Nursing regarding the CPR policy and the need to immediately contact emergency medical services (911) in the event of a full code
• Director of Nursing and/or nursing management educated all licensed nurses on the CPR policy and procedure, including where to find code status and what to do for full code hospice residents
• Reinforced through education that CPR must be initiated immediately for full code residents, continued until EMS arrives, and that nurses cannot pronounce death or stop CPR on a full code resident unless instructed by EMS
• Conducted an Ad Hoc Quality Improvement Performance Committee meeting to review root cause analysis recommendations related to the incident; recommendations approved
• Conducted a follow-up Ad Hoc Quality Improvement Performance Committee meeting to review progress on the plan; recommendations approved

Penalty

No penalty information released

The penalty, as released by CMS, applies to the entire inspection this citation is part of, covering all citations and f-tags issued, not just this specific f-tag. For the complete original report, please refer to the 'Details' section.

Summary

Surveyors identified deficiencies related to the use and maintenance of relocatable power taps (RPTs) and extension cords that did not comply with NFPA 101, NFPA 99, and NFPA 70 requirements. During a facility tour conducted between 11:00 a.m. and 3:30 p.m. with the Maintenance Director, surveyors observed in the social services office an RPT plugged into another RPT, which was then plugged into a wall outlet, with the cord running across a walkway and taped to the floor. In the multipurpose room, a television was found plugged into an extension cord, contrary to standards that prohibit using extension cords as a substitute for fixed wiring and require temporary extensions to be removed immediately after use. Further observations included the MDS office, where an RPT was plugged into another RPT and an outlet adapter was in use. These configurations did not meet the NFPA 99 provisions governing the proper use of power strips and extension cords, including requirements that power strips be appropriately rated and used only as intended, and that extension cords not be used as permanent wiring. During concurrent interviews, the Maintenance Director acknowledged these findings as they were observed by the surveyors.

Plan Of Correction

The RPT observed plugged into an RPT plugged into an outlet in the Social Services Office was removed. The extension cord used to plug in the television in the multipurpose room was removed. The RPT plugged into an RPT and outlet adapter in the MDS office was removed. Additional offices and resident care areas will be reviewed for the improper use of plug adapters, power strips and extension. The Executive Director/designee will educate the Maintenance Director on the importance of NFPA 101 Electrical Equipment- Power and Extension specific to the improper use of plug adapters, power strips, and extension and will continue to monitor in accordance with NFPA standards. Any findings will be reported to the monthly QAPI Committee for further review. The RPT observed plugged into an RPT plugged into an outlet in the Social Services Office was removed. The extension cord used to plug in the television in the multipurpose room was removed. The RPT plugged into an RPT and outlet adapter in the MDS office was removed. Additional offices and resident care areas will be reviewed for the improper use of plug adapters, power strips and extension. The Executive Director/designee will educate the Maintenance Director on the importance of NFPA 101 Electrical Equipment - Power and Extension specific to the improper use of plug adapters, power strips, and extension and will continue to monitor in accordance with NFPA standards. Any findings will be reported to the monthly QAPI Committee for further review.

Penalty

No penalty information released

The penalty, as released by CMS, applies to the entire inspection this citation is part of, covering all citations and f-tags issued, not just this specific f-tag. For the complete original report, please refer to the 'Details' section.

Summary

The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to allow a resident to return following a hospitalization and involuntary mental health evaluation, and failure to follow required transfer, discharge, and bed-hold procedures. The resident had been admitted with diagnoses including problems with social environment, mild cognitive impairment due to unknown origin, a condition with mixed features, and an adjustment disorder with mixed anxiety and depressed mood. A quarterly MDS showed intact cognition and no physical or verbal behavioral symptoms directed toward others at that time. The resident’s care plan documented that he wished to remain in LTC at the facility and identified goals related to managing verbally aggressive behaviors such as yelling at other residents. Progress notes show that on one day the provider documented that the resident had been increasingly agitated, responding to internal stimuli, refusing medications and care, and exhibiting aggressive and impulsive behavior that was considered dangerous to himself. The provider stated that the resident had failed all staff interventions to keep him safe and required a higher level of care, leading to an involuntary emergency mental health examination. The DON documented in a late entry that the resident had a burst of anger with uncontrolled behavior, including screaming, kicking the entrance door of his room and creating a hole in the wall, and kicking another wall near his TV, also creating a large hole. Law enforcement and EMS were notified, a Baker Act order was presented, and the resident was transported from the facility under this order. The DON noted that the behavior was frightening to staff and other alert residents and that the resident needed to be out of the facility for the safety of staff and residents. The clinical record did not contain documentation that a bed-hold policy was offered to the resident or his representative at the time of transfer. The hospital record shows that the resident was admitted under involuntary commitment for evaluation of mental health concerns following reported aggression at his memory care facility. On admission to the hospital, he was calm, cooperative, and oriented, with no acute distress, and denied suicidal or homicidal ideation. He was medically cleared in the ED, and a psychiatric evaluation, including telemedicine consultation, determined that he did not meet criteria for involuntary inpatient or outpatient psychiatric placement; the Baker Act and associated safety protocols were discontinued, and he was cleared for discharge from a psychiatric standpoint. Case management and social work became involved because the prior SNF refused to accept him back, and alternative placement options were explored. The DON confirmed there was no documentation that a bed hold was offered and stated that the resident’s emergency contact had declined the bed hold, and that when the resident was ready for discharge from the hospital, the facility refused to take him back because she believed he would be better off in a group home due to his age and volatile behavior. The emergency contact reported that, because the facility refused readmission, the resident was placed in another nursing home approximately 73 miles away, and she expressed a desire for him to return to the original facility. The Admissions Director stated that several days after the transfer, the hospital notified the facility that the resident was ready to return, but her regional leader instructed her not to accept the resident and not to admit him to any sister facilities. The Administrator acknowledged that a bed hold was not offered and that there was no documentation of the basis for the resident’s discharge, and stated that the regional team decided not to allow the resident to return based on information from facility staff.

Plan Of Correction

This plan of correction is submitted as required under Federal and State regulations and statutes applicable to long term care providers. This plan of correction does not constitute an admission of liability on the part of the facility, and such liability is hereby specifically denied. The submission of this plan does not constitute agreement by the facility that the surveyors' findings or conclusions are accurate, that the findings constitute a deficiency, or that the scope or severity regarding any of these deficiencies cited are correctly applied. 1. The identified resident's #2 discharge documentation was reviewed. Resident no longer resides in facility. 2. A 100% audit of all transfers/discharge forms and bed hold within the past 30 days was conducted to verify compliance with F627 requirements. Any discrepancies identified were immediately corrected, including issuance of proper notices and documentation updates. Residents under consideration for transfer/discharge will be reviewed to ensure full compliance with regulatory requirements. 3. A discharge checklist was developed to ensure all required steps are completed prior to any transfer or discharges. Education completed with all licensed nurses on discharge checklist and transfer/discharge forms and bed hold education. All planned discharges will be reviewed by IDT prior to discharge to ensure compliance. 4. Social Services Director or designee will conduct 4x/week audits of all transfers/discharges for 4 weeks, then, 3x/week x 4 weeks; then, 2x/week x 4 weeks; then, weekly x 4 weeks to ensure regulatory compliance. The findings of these quality reviews will be reported to the Quality Assurance/Performance Improvement Committee monthly x 3 or until committee determines substantial compliance has been met.

Penalty

No penalty information released

The penalty, as released by CMS, applies to the entire inspection this citation is part of, covering all citations and f-tags issued, not just this specific f-tag. For the complete original report, please refer to the 'Details' section.

Summary

The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to provide sufficient nursing staff and ensure accessible, functional call lights for dependent residents, as required by its own call light policy and federal regulations. The facility’s written policy states that residents must have a call light within reach, that call lights must be answered promptly by facility personnel, and that all personnel are expected to respond. During an initial tour at 8:45 a.m., multiple dependent residents were observed in bed with their call lights on the floor and not accessible, and the DON confirmed that these residents should have had call bells within reach. Photographic evidence was obtained of call lights on the floor. Multiple residents reported prolonged delays in call light response and difficulty obtaining assistance. One resident stated she had recently filed a grievance about call light response times and reported waiting about 30 minutes to an hour before anyone answered, sometimes having to walk to the nurses’ station herself. Another resident reported waiting “hours” after pressing the call bell and said that when staff did not come, she would go to the desk in her wheelchair; she believed there was not enough help at night and on weekends. A third resident reported that sometimes it took a very long time for staff to answer the call light, and that on one occasion when he did not have a call bell at his side, he yelled repeatedly and ultimately called 911 from his phone to get help. Additional residents described ongoing problems with unanswered call lights and unmet care needs. One resident reported that it could take up to an hour for staff to respond and that at the time of interview he had been waiting about an hour for a simple request for water; when he activated his call light, the indicator above the door did not illuminate until an RN adjusted the wall connection, confirming the call light had not been working. Another resident stated he had filed grievances about staff not answering call lights and reported that he sometimes waited two hours or more for toileting assistance, resulting in soiling himself; he said he did not think there was enough staff and that this had been an ongoing issue. Nursing staff interviews further described workload and response-time issues. One LPN stated that all staff are responsible for answering call bells, that the required response time was within 30 minutes, and that she had to triage which residents to see first; she reported sometimes being unable to respond timely and described working night shift with 35–38 residents, saying she did not feel her license or the residents were safe. Another LPN stated that everyone was responsible for answering call lights and that the expectation was a response within 10 minutes, but that this did not occur because staff were too busy; she reported caring for 20–29 residents per shift and had told management that, given resident acuity and needs, this was too many. Review of the grievance logs showed repeated, non-specific complaints about call bell issues over multiple review periods. For one review period, there were seven call light grievances, all documented as “call bell issues” and handwritten by the Activities Director, without specific times or dates. The facility’s documented resolution for these grievances was staff education and call bell audits, but the same audit documentation was used across different review periods, and for some periods there was no documentation that audits or education were actually completed. The Activities Director stated she wrote all resident grievance forms, knew many residents had issues with timeliness of call light response, and that residents could not recall specific times or dates. She reported that during resident council meetings, residents continued to voice that delayed call light response remained an ongoing problem. In an interview, the Administrator acknowledged that answering call lights was a “work in progress” and stated that they kept educating staff. He noted that when the issue was raised in resident council, residents would start to complain about it and that there were many similar complaints on the same day, sometimes from the same residents. He also stated that he could only staff according to what his management allowed. The DON reiterated that call lights should be within reach of each resident and answered as quickly as possible, stating that any time a call light is set off it could be an emergency. Despite these stated expectations, the observations, resident interviews, staff interviews, and grievance documentation collectively showed that dependent residents did not consistently have accessible, functional call lights and experienced significant delays in staff response, reflecting insufficient nursing staff to meet residents’ needs.

Penalty

No penalty information released

The penalty, as released by CMS, applies to the entire inspection this citation is part of, covering all citations and f-tags issued, not just this specific f-tag. For the complete original report, please refer to the 'Details' section.

Summary

The deficiency involves failure to adhere to the facility’s own medication storage policy and state requirements for secure storage of drugs and biologicals. Surveyors observed medicated ointments and topical solutions stored at residents’ bedsides rather than in locked medication storage. On one observation, a container of Diclofenac ointment was found on top of the sink in the room of a resident admitted with heart failure and documented as having no cognitive impairment. In another observation on two separate days, a tube of hydrophilic wound dressing was seen in a basket on the nightstand of a resident admitted with a cerebral infarction due to embolism of the right middle cerebral artery, who was documented as severely cognitively impaired. A third observation found a container of Ciclopirox topical solution on the nightstand of a resident admitted with malignant neoplasm of overlapping sites of the bladder and no cognitive impairment. Record review of the facility’s “Storage of Medications” policy, revised January 2026, showed that all drugs and biologicals are to be stored in locked compartments under proper environmental controls. Staff interviews confirmed that the facility’s practice is that medications and ointments are to be kept on the locked cart and not allowed at the bedside, with staff stating that creams, ointments, and medicated nail polish are to be returned to the treatment cart after use, and that CNAs are to notify nurses if medications are seen in resident rooms. Despite these stated practices, surveyors found multiple medicated products left in resident rooms, demonstrating that medications were not consistently stored in locked or secure areas as required by policy and regulation.

Plan Of Correction

Preparation and execution of this plan of correction does not constitute admission or agreement by the provider of the terms or conclusions set forth in the statement of deficiencies. This plan of correction is prepared and/or executed solely because it is required by provisions of the Federal and State laws. The facility continues to ensure that all drugs and biologicals are stored appropriately. IMMEDIATE CORRECTIVE ACTION Medications were immediately removed from room for residents #58, #20 and # 29 on 5/11/26. Residents #58, #20 and #29 were not adversely affected by alleged deficient practice. IDENTIFICATION OF OTHER RESIDENTS HAVING POTENTIAL TO BE AFFECTED All active residents in the facility can potentially be affected by the alleged deficient practice. No residents were adversely affected by the alleged deficient practice. Director of Nursing and/or designee conducted a facility-wide observation audit to ensure that drugs and biologicals are stored appropriately on 05/12/2026. SYSTEMATIC CHANGES The Director of Nursing and/or designee initiated ongoing in-service education with staff on standards of drug and biological storage on 05/20/2026. MONITORINGNursing Supervisor and/or designee will conduct random observation audits to ensure drugs and biologicals are stored appropriately, 5 days a week for 1 month, then weekly for 3 months.The Director of Nursing and/or designee will report findings of observation/audits to the quality assurance committee monthly for 4 months to ensure continued substantial compliance.