Prestige Care Center Of Fairfield
Inspection history, citations, penalties and survey trends for this long-term care facility in Fairfield, Iowa.
- Location
- 400 Highland Street, Fairfield, Iowa 52556
- CMS Provider Number
- 165602
- Inspections on file
- 31
- Latest survey
- June 11, 2025
- Citations (last 12 mo.)
- 0
Citation history
Health deficiencies cited at Prestige Care Center Of Fairfield during CMS and state inspections, most recent first.
Multiple residents experienced unsafe conditions, including being left unattended in a shower chair, being knocked down by another resident in a wheelchair, and falling from a mechanical lift due to improper equipment use. Staff shortages, inadequate supervision, and lack of appropriate interventions contributed to these incidents. Additionally, oxygen tanks were observed being transported without proper securing, violating facility policy.
The facility did not ensure continuous on-site coverage by CPR-certified staff, as required by policy. Review of staff schedules and certification lists showed multiple shifts, especially overnight and on weekends, without a CPR-certified staff member present. Leadership acknowledged awareness of these coverage gaps, though no residents required CPR during the period reviewed.
Multiple residents did not receive medications as directed by professional standards or manufacturer/pharmacist instructions. For example, a resident with diabetes received insulin without timely access to food, another had medications set up by a CMA but administered by an RN, and a resident prescribed levothyroxine received it with other medications instead of separately. Additionally, morning medications for a resident with a G-tube were given significantly later than scheduled. These deficiencies were confirmed through observation, record review, and staff interviews.
Surveyors found that insufficient staffing led to delayed responses to call lights, with some residents waiting over 30 minutes for assistance with mobility, toileting, and repositioning. Staff interviews confirmed that reduced staffing levels contributed to these delays, and residents with significant care needs were left unattended for extended periods.
Surveyors found unsanitary kitchen conditions, including dirty equipment, food debris, and improper glove use during meal preparation. The Dietary Manager and staff handled multiple surfaces and utensils with the same gloves before serving food to residents, and cleaning schedules were inconsistent and incomplete. Facility policies for hand hygiene and sanitation were not consistently followed.
A resident with moderately impaired cognition had conflicting documentation regarding code status, with both DNR and full code orders present in the medical record and code status book. Staff interviews revealed confusion about the resident's current wishes, and the resident was unable to clearly communicate her preference, requesting staff to consult her family. The facility did not consistently follow its policy on advance directives and CPR documentation.
A resident with severe cognitive impairment and multiple diagnoses developed a deep tissue injury to the right heel. Despite care plan orders and provider instructions to offload pressure using heel protectors, staff repeatedly failed to ensure the resident wore the required devices, leaving the heel in contact with the mattress. Observations confirmed the lack of intervention, and the DON acknowledged staff responsibility to provide heel protectors.
A resident with ESRD who received dialysis did not have post dialysis assessments consistently completed and documented as required by facility policy. Staff interviews confirmed that both pre and post dialysis assessments should have been performed and recorded, but electronic health records showed missing post dialysis assessments on multiple occasions.
The facility did not update its Facility Assessment to reflect the needs of residents receiving hemodialysis and those with G-tubes, despite having several such residents in care. The assessment lacked identification of required specialized staff training and medical supplies, even though the facility's policy and leadership recognized these needs and the importance of updating the assessment with changes in resident care requirements.
A resident with severe cognitive impairment and frequent urinary incontinence was found to have a persistent urine odor in their room, despite daily linen changes and cleaning efforts by staff. Staff interviews and observations confirmed the odor was ongoing, with wet areas noted in the bathroom and incomplete resolution of the issue, contrary to facility policy requiring a sanitary and comfortable environment.
Staff did not provide a meal in a timely manner to a resident with intact cognition, resulting in distress, and failed to use a dignity cover for a catheter bag for another resident with severe cognitive impairment. Nursing staff and the DON confirmed that catheter bag covers were not available, and facility policy required their use to promote dignity.
The facility did not complete required self-medication administration assessments for two residents—one with diabetes and another with severe allergies and an order for an EpiPen at bedside. Both residents were either observed with medications at bedside or had orders to self-administer, but there was no documented interdisciplinary assessment as required by facility policy. Staff were also unaware of one resident's allergies and the location of emergency medication.
A resident with severe cognitive impairment and a G-tube was administered medications and tube feeding by an LPN while the room door remained open, exposing the resident's abdomen and G-tube. Staff interviews and facility policy confirmed that privacy should have been maintained during such procedures.
A resident with severe cognitive impairment was routinely administered risperidone without clear documentation or identification of targeted behaviors justifying its use. Clinical records, care plans, and staff interviews indicated the resident did not exhibit significant behavioral disturbances, and the facility failed to specify or monitor behaviors as required by policy for psychotropic medication administration.
The facility did not report multiple allegations of abuse and resident-to-resident altercations within the required timeframe. Incidents included a resident being knocked down and injured by another resident in a wheelchair, a staff member allegedly handling a resident aggressively, and a resident with a history of inappropriate behavior touching another resident. In each case, reporting to authorities was delayed or not documented as required by policy.
A resident with intact cognition was discharged without an ongoing discharge planning process, as required documentation and care plan updates were missing, and discharge notifications were not properly completed or signed. Facility administrators provided inconsistent accounts of the discharge process, and there was no evidence that the resident was adequately prepared for a safe transfer, as outlined in facility policy.
The facility did not update care plans to address significant weight loss, severe allergies, wheelchair safety, and changes in advanced directive status for several residents. For example, a resident with notable weight loss did not have this addressed in their care plan, another involved in a wheelchair incident lacked additional safety interventions, a resident's change to DNR status was not reflected in the care plan, and a resident with severe allergies had no care plan interventions or documentation for EpiPen use.
Two residents dependent on staff for bathing did not receive the required number of baths, with documentation showing missed or delayed bathing and lack of follow-up when baths were not provided. One resident was cognitively intact and denied refusing care, while the other had moderate cognitive impairment and multiple medical conditions, including pressure ulcers. Staff interviews and documentation confirmed gaps in bathing care, contrary to facility policy.
Two residents with diabetes experienced multiple episodes of hyperglycemia, with blood sugar readings exceeding 399 mg/dl, but staff failed to document provider notifications or follow-up interventions as required by care plans and medication orders. Staff interviews revealed inconsistent practices regarding provider notification, and the DON acknowledged inadequate documentation.
A resident with an indwelling urinary catheter did not receive proper infection control and catheter care, including inconsistent use of Enhanced Barrier Precautions, improper hand hygiene, and failure to use appropriate anchoring devices. Staff used improper cleaning techniques, did not promptly address a leaking catheter bag, and did not follow facility policy for catheter care, resulting in continued discomfort and risk of infection for the resident.
A resident with severe cognitive impairment, hemiplegia, and a feeding tube experienced a significant, rapid weight loss. Facility staff did not clarify discrepancies in weight records, failed to document a required weekly weight, and did not notify the physician or implement interventions in a timely manner, despite care plan and policy requirements. Staff interviews confirmed inconsistent monitoring and lack of follow-up on the resident's weight changes.
A resident with multiple medical conditions and intact cognition requested physical therapy to improve mobility, but the facility did not document any follow-up or provision of therapy services after the initial request, despite policy requiring such services.
Surveyors found that the facility did not post daily nurse staffing and census information in a visible area as required by policy. The Administrator confirmed the absence of the posting, and the Staffing Coordinator reported she was unaware of her responsibility to post this information. Facility policy requires this information to be posted daily and accessible to residents, staff, and visitors.
A resident with atrial fibrillation and a prosthetic heart valve received unnecessary doses of warfarin after staff failed to follow physician orders to hold the medication following elevated INR results. Despite clear orders and facility policy, the resident continued to receive warfarin, resulting in a critically high INR and subsequent hospital admission. Staff interviews revealed confusion and lack of clarity regarding medication hold procedures and documentation.
The facility failed to maintain a clean and sanitary environment, as observed in the rooms of two residents requiring maximal assistance. One resident reported her room was filthy, with gritty floors and debris on the toilet. Another resident's room was found dirty, with unswept and unmopped bathroom floors. Despite cleaning efforts by a housekeeper, issues persisted, and the Housekeeper Director could not provide records of monthly deep cleaning.
The facility failed to follow its policy requiring two licensed nurses to conduct shift change narcotic counts, leading to discrepancies in narcotic counts. A Certified Medication Aide completed a count alone and left keys unsecured, a practice noted as common. A Registered Nurse also counted narcotics alone and passed keys without a proper count, resulting in missing narcotics, including Hydrocodone/APAP and Morphine sulfate, discovered by another aide. The discrepancies were reported to the Administrator and DON.
A facility failed to secure medication cart keys, allowing unauthorized access and resulting in missing narcotics. Staff C, a Certified Medication Aide, left keys in an unlocked drawer, leading to Staff A accessing the cart. The next day, Staff E found missing Hydrocodone/APAP and Morphine sulfate from two residents' supplies, and later, an entire bubble pack of Oxycodone was missing. The facility did not follow its policy requiring two licensed nurses to account for controlled substances and keys at shift changes.
The facility failed to accurately code medications and services in the MDS assessments for four residents. A resident's MDS inaccurately coded insulin use, another's failed to indicate hospice services, and two residents' MDS assessments incorrectly listed anticoagulant medication use instead of antiplatelet medication. These discrepancies highlight the facility's failure to ensure accurate MDS coding, impacting the care and services provided to the residents.
The facility failed to provide comprehensive individualized care plans for four residents, omitting critical aspects such as diabetes management, oxygen therapy, wound care, and hospice services. These omissions were identified through observations, interviews, and record reviews, highlighting a lack of specific interventions and documentation in the care plans.
A long-term care facility failed to provide adequate staffing during lunch, resulting in insufficient assistance for residents with eating and toileting needs. An LPN was the only staff member present, leading to an incontinent episode for a resident with severe cognitive impairment. Other residents reported long wait times for assistance and medication errors, highlighting the staffing issues. Interviews with staff revealed that the facility was short-staffed due to a CNA attending an appointment, impacting the quality of care provided.
The facility did not follow the prescribed pureed diet menu, omitting pureed cornbread from a meal. A cook prepared the meal without pureeing the cornbread, despite it being listed on the Week 4 Wednesday Diet Spreadsheet. The Dietary Manager acknowledged the oversight, noting that the cornbread might have been missed. The facility's guidelines required adherence to written menus and standardized recipes, which were not followed.
The facility failed to maintain kitchen sanitation and proper food safety practices. Observations included unsanitary storage of food items, such as open bags of hamburger and undated sour cream, and inadequate testing of dishwasher temperature and chemical levels. Additionally, dietary staff transported uncovered plates of food to residents' rooms due to a lack of lids, with the Dietary Manager suggesting the use of foil as a temporary measure.
A resident with intact cognition and chronic kidney disease was not given meal choices, contrary to facility policy. The resident reported receiving meals without being consulted, and staff interviews revealed inconsistencies in offering meal options. The Dietary Manager admitted that meal preferences were not always documented, and some residents were missed, leading to a deficiency in supporting resident choice.
A resident with moderately impaired cognition was hospitalized and returned the next day, but the facility failed to notify the Ombudsman as required. The Social Worker was trained to notify only for overnight stays, contrary to the facility's policy that required notification for emergency transfers.
The facility failed to follow PASRR Level II recommendations for two residents, including not designating a POA for a resident with schizophrenia and submitting a PASRR Level I screen almost a year late for a resident with mental health diagnoses. Staff interviews revealed misunderstandings of PASRR requirements, leading to federal compliance issues.
The facility failed to ensure proper medication administration for two residents, leading to deficiencies in professional standards of care. A CMA administered medications without proper documentation and used another staff member's login, while another resident received incorrect medications multiple times. The facility's policy on medication administration was not followed, resulting in medication errors.
The facility failed to follow bowel management protocols for a resident with impaired cognition, resulting in a lack of bowel movements over several days without administering prescribed medications. Additionally, the facility did not adequately assess and document a diabetic foot ulcer for another resident, leading to discrepancies in treatment orders and documentation. The facility's policies for bowel management and wound care were not adhered to, resulting in deficiencies in resident care.
A resident with Alzheimer's and fragile skin was injured during repositioning in bed when their head hit the bed rail, resulting in a bruise. Despite the care plan's instructions to use caution, the resident's resistance and positioning too close to the bed's edge contributed to the incident. Staff interviews highlighted challenges in moving the resident safely.
A resident with severe cognitive impairment and multiple health conditions was not provided with continuous oxygen therapy as ordered by the physician. Observations showed the resident without oxygen in the dining room, despite having an order for continuous administration. Staff noted the resident's non-compliance with wearing the oxygen tubing, and the DON suggested asking the resident if they wanted to wear oxygen while eating, rather than ensuring adherence to the physician's order.
The facility failed to effectively address previously identified quality deficiencies, resulting in repeat citations for issues such as MDS accuracy, care plan timing, professional standards, and more. Despite efforts to update processes, the facility continued to receive similar citations across multiple surveys.
The facility failed to serve mandarin oranges and room trays at the appropriate temperatures and did not maintain proper hygiene practices during food handling. The cook used gloved hands to move food items on plates without changing gloves or washing hands, and food temperatures were not within the required ranges.
The facility failed to notify the physician when a resident's blood glucose levels exceeded 450 mg/dl on multiple occasions. Despite the facility's policy, there was no documentation that the physician was informed of these elevated readings. Staff interviews confirmed that while the protocol was to notify the physician, the notifications were not consistently documented.
A resident with cerebral palsy waited approximately 48 minutes for assistance after activating her call light, despite the facility's policy requiring a response within 15 minutes. Staff interviews revealed inconsistencies in understanding the required response time, and the Director of Nursing acknowledged exceptions when multiple lights were on.
Failure to Prevent Accidents and Ensure Safe Transfers
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure a safe environment free from accident hazards and did not provide adequate supervision to prevent accidents for several residents. One resident with Alzheimer's disease, dementia, and Parkinson's disease, who was severely cognitively impaired and at risk for falls, was left unattended in a shower chair for an extended period. Staff interviews confirmed that the resident required two staff for transfers, but due to short staffing, she remained in the chair for a prolonged time, resulting in red indentations on her leg. Staff and the DON acknowledged that residents should not be left alone in shower chairs. Another incident involved a resident with severe cognitive impairment and gait abnormalities who was knocked down by another resident in a wheelchair, resulting in a large hematoma to the back of her head and a headache. The resident was transferred to the ER and later returned. The resident who caused the incident had a history of unsafe wheelchair use, including propelling himself backwards and running into others. Despite previous behavioral issues and staff concerns, the care plan lacked sufficient interventions to ensure wheelchair safety for this resident and others. Additionally, a resident dependent on staff for transfers fell from a mechanical lift due to the use of an inappropriate sling. Staff involved in the transfer noted that the sling was not the usual type, appeared unsafe, and was not designed for bed-to-chair transfers. Despite concerns raised during the transfer, the process continued, resulting in the resident sliding out of the sling and sustaining a hematoma and abrasion to the head. The facility also failed to ensure oxygen tanks were properly secured during transport, as observed on multiple occasions with staff carrying and setting tanks down without holders, contrary to facility policy.
Failure to Maintain 24/7 CPR-Certified Staff Coverage
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure that at least one CPR-certified staff member was available on-site 24 hours per day, 7 days per week, as required by facility policy. Review of nursing staff schedules and the list of CPR-certified staff revealed multiple shifts, particularly during third shift and weekends, where no CPR-certified staff were present. Both the Administrator and the DON acknowledged gaps in CPR coverage, with the Administrator specifically noting awareness of shortages during certain shifts and the DON confirming ongoing time gaps in coverage. The facility's policy mandates that CPR-certified staff be available at all times, but this standard was not met on several documented occasions. Interviews with facility leadership confirmed knowledge of the deficiency, and documentation showed that the most updated list of CPR-certified staff had not always been communicated. Despite these lapses, there were no reported incidents during the review period where residents required CPR. The facility census at the time was 59 residents, and the deficiency was identified through review of schedules, staff lists, policy, and staff interviews.
Failure to Administer Medications According to Professional Standards and Prescribed Timeframes
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure medications were administered according to professional standards and manufacturer or pharmacist directions for several residents. For one resident with diabetes, insulin aspart was administered without ensuring a meal was provided within the recommended 5-10 minutes post-injection, as observed when the resident did not receive food until over 30 minutes after administration. Another resident with multiple medication orders via G-tube had medications set up by a Certified Medication Assistant (CMA) but administered by a Registered Nurse (RN), contrary to professional standards and facility policy that require the same staff member to both set up and administer medications. Additionally, a resident prescribed levothyroxine was not consistently receiving the medication as intended; it was sometimes administered with other medications rather than by itself and not always at the scheduled time, despite pharmacist and facility expectations for it to be given separately and early in the morning. Staff interviews confirmed that the medication was not always administered according to these standards, with both night and day shift nurses involved in the inconsistency. For another resident requiring G-tube medications, multiple morning medications scheduled for 7:00 AM were observed being administered at 9:29 AM, well outside the facility's policy of administering medications within one hour before or after the scheduled time. Staff confirmed that this timing was considered late, and the facility's policy was not followed in this instance. These findings were based on direct observation, record review, and staff interviews, and affected multiple residents with complex medical needs.
Delayed Call Light Response and Insufficient Staffing
Penalty
Summary
Surveyors observed multiple instances where residents' call lights were left unanswered for extended periods, and residents requiring assistance did not receive timely care. On one occasion, two residents' call lights remained activated for over 15 minutes while a CNA attended to another resident, passing by the rooms without responding. Additional residents activated their call lights during this period, and staff were not present in the hallway. When the CNA eventually responded, residents requested assistance with toileting and repositioning, indicating unmet needs during the delay. Facility policy requires all staff to respond promptly to call lights, but this was not followed. A resident with Alzheimer's and Parkinson's disease, who required a mechanical lift and two staff for transfers, was left sitting alone in a shower chair for over 40 minutes due to insufficient staff available to assist with her transfer. Staff interviews confirmed that only two aides were present instead of the usual three, resulting in delays. The resident was eventually transferred to bed, and staff noted red indentations on her leg from prolonged sitting. Staff and the DON acknowledged that residents should not be left in shower chairs and that adequate staffing is necessary to meet residents' needs. Additional interviews with residents and staff revealed frequent delays in call light response, with some residents reporting waits of 30 minutes to over an hour, particularly during shifts with reduced staffing. Residents with significant mobility and cognitive impairments, as well as those dependent on staff for activities of daily living, were affected by these delays. Staff and the DON confirmed that call lights should be answered within 15 minutes, but this standard was not consistently met due to staffing shortages.
Failure to Maintain Sanitary Kitchen Conditions and Prevent Cross Contamination
Penalty
Summary
Surveyors observed multiple unsanitary conditions in the facility's kitchen during two meal preparations. The stove was found with spilled pancake batter, grime, and food crumbs, while the deep fat fryer had baskets coated in grime and dark brown oil. The microwave contained food crumbs and spills, and the dry storage room floor was littered with trash, including plastic spoons, papers, sugar packets, and boxes. An open paper bag of french fries was found in a freezer, with fries spilling onto the bottom. Additional observations revealed dirt and debris on the kitchen floor in several areas, as well as crumbs and debris on the lower shelf with clean sheet pans. During meal preparation, the Dietary Manager (DM) was seen handling multiple objects, such as oven mitts, food thermometers, writing pads, refrigerator doors, and various utensils, with the same pair of gloves, without changing gloves or performing hand hygiene between tasks. The DM then used these gloved hands to handle serving scoops, which were subsequently used to portion food for residents. A similar pattern was observed when the DM prepared mashed potatoes, again touching various surfaces and utensils with the same gloves before using serving scoops to portion food. Additionally, a dietary aide served soup in a bowl that was stacked on a cart with other bowls and plates that had visible dried food residue and crumbs. Interviews with the DM revealed inconsistencies in the cleaning schedule and responsibilities. The DM initially stated that staff followed a daily cleaning schedule, but was only able to provide a blank schedule and later clarified that cleaning tasks were shared among staff. The DM also admitted that the fryer was not included on the cleaning schedule and that the stove top was not cleaned daily. Facility policies required hand washing before food preparation and after contact with unsanitary items, as well as maintaining clean and sanitary food service areas, but these standards were not consistently followed.
Failure to Ensure Consistent Communication and Documentation of Code Status
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure consistent communication and clarification of a resident's code status, specifically whether to perform cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) or to follow a Do Not Resuscitate (DNR) order. The resident in question had moderately impaired cognition, as indicated by a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 10 out of 15. Multiple documents in the resident's record, including the care plan, IPOST form, resuscitation designation orders, and physician orders, contained conflicting information regarding the resident's code status. Some records indicated the resident was a full code, while others indicated DNR status. Additionally, staff interviews revealed uncertainty and confusion about the resident's current code status, with staff referencing both full code and DNR in different contexts. Observation of staff interactions with the resident showed that the resident was unable to provide a clear answer regarding her wishes for resuscitation and requested that the nurse follow up with her family. Review of the code status book in the dining room also revealed the presence of both DNR and full code documentation for the same resident. The Director of Nursing acknowledged the mix-up and the need to clarify the correct code status. The facility's policy requires adherence to residents' rights to formulate advance directives and to implement guidelines regarding CPR, but this was not consistently followed in this case.
Failure to Implement Pressure Ulcer Prevention and Treatment Interventions
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to implement and maintain appropriate interventions to prevent and treat pressure ulcers for a resident identified as being at risk. The resident, who had diagnoses including hemiplegia, dysphagia, and chronic pain syndrome, was assessed as severely cognitively impaired and at risk for pressure ulcers, but had no unhealed ulcers at the time of the initial assessment. Subsequent provider notes documented the development and ongoing presence of a deep tissue injury with eschar on the resident's right heel, with specific orders to offload pressure using heel protectors and to complete wound treatment twice daily. Despite these orders, multiple observations revealed the resident lying in bed without heel protectors, with the right heel in direct contact with the mattress. Staff, including a registered nurse, failed to apply the heel protectors during wound care, and the DON confirmed that staff were expected to ensure residents with pressure ulcers wore boots, locating alternatives if necessary. The facility's policy referenced surveillance for pressure injuries but did not specify interventions for prevention or treatment, and staff did not consistently follow the care plan directives to offload the resident's heel.
Failure to Consistently Complete Post Dialysis Assessments
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure consistent completion of post dialysis assessments for a resident with End Stage Renal Disease (ESRD) who received dialysis treatments while residing in the facility. Clinical record review showed that although pre-dialysis assessments were completed, post-dialysis assessments were missing on several occasions, specifically on 5/28/25, 6/6/25, and 6/9/25. The resident's care plan identified the risk for complications related to dialysis, and the facility's policy required ongoing assessment and monitoring before and after dialysis treatments. Interviews with staff, including an LPN and the Director of Nursing (DON), confirmed that the expected process was to complete both pre and post dialysis assessments and document them in the electronic health record. However, review of the resident's electronic health record revealed that post dialysis assessments were not completed or documented for the specified dates, contrary to facility policy and professional standards of practice.
Facility Assessment Failed to Address Hemodialysis and G-Tube Resident Needs
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure its Facility Assessment accurately identified and addressed the specialized staff training and supply needs for residents currently receiving hemodialysis and those receiving nutrition, hydration, and medications via a gastrostomy tube (G-tube). A review of the Resident Matrix showed that three residents were receiving hemodialysis and two residents were receiving care through a G-tube, yet the Facility Assessment did not reflect the presence of any such residents or their associated care requirements. None of these residents were new admissions, as all had been admitted more than 30 days prior to the review. During an interview, the Administrator acknowledged that specialized medical and nursing supplies, as well as staff education and training, would be necessary to care for residents with enteral feeding tubes and those receiving dialysis. The facility's policy and the Administrator both indicated that the Facility Assessment should be updated with changes in census case mix or the addition of new services, but the most recent assessment did not include the current needs of residents requiring hemodialysis or enteral feeding. This omission was identified despite the involvement of department heads, leadership, the Medical Director, and other stakeholders in the assessment process.
Failure to Maintain Sanitary and Comfortable Resident Room Environment
Penalty
Summary
A deficiency was identified when a pervasive urine odor was present in a resident's room, compromising the sanitary and comfortable environment required for residents, staff, and the public. Observations on multiple occasions revealed a strong urine odor upon entering the room, with staff interviews confirming that this was a persistent issue. The resident involved had severely impaired cognition, as indicated by a low BIMS score, and was frequently incontinent of urine. The care plan noted the resident's non-compliance with hygiene needs, specifically a refusal to wear incontinence products despite frequent incontinence. Housekeeping staff reported that the resident's bedding was changed daily and the mattress was sprayed, but acknowledged that the odor remained, particularly due to the resident missing the toilet frequently. Wet areas were observed on the bathroom floor, and staff confirmed that floors were mopped daily, but interventions only partially addressed the odor. Facility policy required prompt disposal of soiled linens and reporting of lingering odors, but the persistent urine smell indicated these measures were insufficient in this case.
Failure to Ensure Resident Dignity During Meal Service and Catheter Care
Penalty
Summary
Staff failed to treat residents with dignity in two separate incidents. In the first case, a resident with diagnoses of anxiety, depression, and morbid obesity, and with intact cognition, did not receive a breakfast tray in a timely manner. The resident reported to the nurse that she did not get her breakfast tray after trays were passed, which made her very upset. Staff interviews revealed that the CNA assigned to pass trays was not permitted in the resident's room, and instead of arranging for another staff member to deliver the meal, the resident was left waiting. The Director of Nursing acknowledged that a check-off system should be in place to prevent missed meal trays. In the second incident, a resident with severe cognitive impairment, Alzheimer's disease, multiple sclerosis, and bipolar disorder, who utilized an indwelling catheter, was observed in the dining room on multiple occasions without a dignity cover on the catheter bag. The catheter bag, containing visible dark yellow urine, was exposed in the presence of other residents. Staff interviews confirmed that catheter bag covers were not available in the facility storage, and both nursing staff and the DON stated that covers should be used to promote resident dignity. Facility policy required the promotion and maintenance of resident dignity, including the use of catheter bag covers.
Failure to Complete Self-Medication Administration Assessments
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure that self-medication administration assessments were completed for two residents who were permitted or requested to self-administer medications. For one resident with diagnoses including heart failure, diabetes, and anxiety disorder, the care plan noted non-compliance with medication administration, and the resident was observed with a cup of medications at bedside, specifically metformin from the previous night. Staff intervened and removed the medication, and review of the electronic health record revealed no documentation of a self-medication administration assessment for this resident. For another resident with multiple diagnoses including multiple sclerosis, paraplegia, seizure disorder, and severe allergies, there was an order for an EpiPen to be kept at bedside for self-administration in case of hypersensitivity reaction. Despite this, the resident reported not having the EpiPen available in the room and staff were unaware of the resident's allergies or the location of the EpiPen. The facility's records showed no completed self-medication administration assessment for this resident, even after the EpiPen was received. Facility policy required an interdisciplinary team determination before allowing self-administration, but this process was not documented for either resident.
Failure to Provide Privacy During Enteral Tube Feeding
Penalty
Summary
Staff failed to provide privacy during an enteral tube feeding procedure for a resident with severe cognitive impairment, hemiplegia, traumatic brain injury, and dysphagia. During the administration of medications and tube feeding via a gastrostomy tube, the LPN left the resident's room door open, exposing the resident's abdomen and G-tube throughout the procedure. A Certified Nursing Assistant also approached the open doorway and communicated with the LPN during the process, while the door remained open. Interviews with nursing staff and the Director of Nursing confirmed that the expectation is for staff to close resident doors and provide privacy during all care and nursing procedures. Review of the facility's policy on promoting and maintaining resident dignity also directed staff to maintain resident privacy. The failure to close the door and provide privacy during the procedure was observed and confirmed as not meeting facility policy and staff expectations.
Failure to Identify and Document Targeted Behaviors for Antipsychotic Use
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure that targeted behaviors were identified and documented for the use of antipsychotic medication in a resident with severely impaired cognition. The resident, who had a diagnosis of dementia with and without psychotic disturbance, was routinely administered risperidone, an antipsychotic medication. Clinical assessments, including the Minimum Data Set (MDS) and Preadmission Screening, indicated that the resident did not exhibit hallucinations, delusions, or behavioral disturbances, and had not shown behaviors while hospitalized prior to admission. Despite this, the care plan and physician orders referenced the use of antipsychotic medication for symptoms such as mild depression and psychotic features, but did not specify or describe the targeted behaviors that warranted the medication's use. Review of the resident's care plan and interventions revealed a lack of documentation regarding the specific behaviors or symptoms that justified the ongoing use of risperidone. The care plan noted a gradual dose reduction was declined due to continued symptoms, but did not detail what those symptoms were or how the resident's psychotic features manifested. Behavior monitoring records over the past 30 days showed only minimal episodes, such as two instances of anxious/restless behavior and one episode of elopement/exit seeking, with no consistent or significant behavioral issues documented. Interviews with nursing staff and CNAs further confirmed that the resident generally did not display problematic behaviors, with only occasional confusion, minor irritability, or missed toileting events reported. The facility's policy required that psychotropic medications be used only when appropriate to treat a specific, diagnosed, and documented condition, with ongoing monitoring and documentation of the resident's response. However, the documentation for this resident did not meet these requirements, as there was no clear identification or monitoring of targeted behaviors associated with the antipsychotic use. The deficiency was identified through observation, interview, and clinical record review, highlighting a failure to comply with facility policy and regulatory expectations regarding the use of psychotropic medications.
Failure to Timely Report Alleged Abuse and Resident-to-Resident Incidents
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to report allegations of abuse, neglect, or theft in a timely manner as required by regulatory guidelines for three separate incidents involving multiple residents and a staff member. In the first incident, a resident with severe cognitive impairment and a history of falls was knocked down by another resident in a wheelchair, resulting in a large hematoma to the back of her head and a complaint of headache. Documentation showed that staff had previously observed the resident in the wheelchair behaving unsafely and nearly injuring others, but the care plan lacked sufficient interventions to address this risk. The incident was not reported to authorities prior to the following day, despite staff witnessing the event and suspecting it may have been intentional. In the second incident, a staff member was alleged to have grabbed a resident with severe cognitive impairment by the wrists and pulled her in an aggressive manner, causing the resident distress. The staff member who witnessed the event reported it to a nurse, but the facility had no documentation of this report or evidence that the allegation was reported to the appropriate authorities as of the time of the survey. Interviews with facility leadership confirmed that such allegations should be reported, but there was no record of timely reporting or investigation. A third incident involved a resident with a history of sexually inappropriate behaviors who was witnessed touching another cognitively impaired resident on the shoulders and chest/breast area. Staff immediately separated the residents and assessed them, and the incident was reported to the state agency the following day. However, facility policy required that such allegations be reported immediately, but not later than two hours after the event if abuse or serious bodily injury was involved. The delay in reporting, as well as the lack of timely documentation and investigation in the other incidents, constituted a failure to follow regulatory requirements for reporting suspected abuse, neglect, or theft.
Failure to Ensure Ongoing Discharge Planning and Safe Transfer
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure an ongoing discharge planning process for a resident with intact cognition who was reviewed for discharge. The resident's care plan indicated no plans for discharge, and the care conference review form left the discharge potential section blank. Although a Notice of Transfer or Discharge form was prepared, it was not signed by the resident or their representative. Progress notes for the period leading up to the proposed discharge date lacked documentation regarding the resident's discharge plan. The resident was later sent to the emergency room for a psychiatric evaluation and subsequently discharged to an inpatient psychiatric facility, with no evidence of a documented discharge plan in the progress notes during this period. Interviews with facility administrators revealed inconsistencies regarding the discharge process, including whether involuntary discharge paperwork was completed and whether the resident received appropriate notifications. The facility's policy required orientation and preparation for transfer or discharge to ensure safety and minimize anxiety, but there was no documentation that these steps were followed. The resident ultimately did not return to the facility, and administrators were unclear about the resident's final placement or the completion of required discharge procedures.
Failure to Revise Care Plans for Significant Changes and Critical Information
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to revise and update care plans to reflect significant changes and critical information for several residents. For one resident with hemiplegia, dysphagia, and chronic pain syndrome, there was documented significant weight loss over a short period, but the care plan did not address this weight loss or provide direction for intervention, despite facility policy requiring individualized interventions for nutritional risk. The Director of Nursing confirmed that care plans should address significant weight losses and that staff should notify the physician and complete weights as ordered. Another resident with hemiplegia, morbid obesity, and a history of traumatic brain injury was involved in an incident where they propelled their wheelchair into another resident, causing a fall. The care plan included some interventions for wheelchair mobility and spatial awareness, but lacked additional safety interventions to ensure the safety of the resident and others. The DON acknowledged that if staff believed a resident was unsafe in a wheelchair, appropriate interventions should be included in the care plan. Additional deficiencies included a resident whose care plan did not reflect a change in advanced directive status from full code to DNR, despite documentation in nursing notes and family confirmation. Another resident with severe allergies to food, environmental factors, and medications had no care plan focus area or interventions addressing these allergies, nor documentation of a self-medication assessment or the location of their EpiPen, despite orders allowing self-administration. These omissions were contrary to facility policy and best practices for comprehensive, individualized care planning.
Failure to Provide Adequate Bathing Assistance for Dependent Residents
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to provide an adequate number of baths for two residents who were dependent on staff for bathing assistance. One resident, with diagnoses including heart failure, depression, and obesity, was cognitively intact and had a care plan specifying showers on Tuesdays and bed baths on Fridays. Documentation showed missed baths, with gaps of up to ten days between bathing, and instances where refusals were recorded without the resident actually refusing. There was also a lack of follow-up documentation or staff response to missed or allegedly refused baths, despite facility policy requiring notification and follow-up by nursing staff. Another resident, with moderate cognitive impairment, diabetes, recent UTI, Parkinson's disease, dementia, and pressure ulcers, was also dependent on staff for bathing and required two-person assistance. The care plan addressed resistance to care and outlined steps for staff to follow if the resident refused. However, documentation revealed a seven-day gap between showers, coinciding with the scheduled bath aide's vacation, and staff interviews confirmed the resident had not refused showers. Facility policy required regular bathing to maintain hygiene and prevent skin issues, but this was not consistently followed.
Failure to Assess and Intervene for High Blood Sugar Episodes
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to assess and intervene appropriately for two residents with diabetes who experienced multiple episodes of high blood sugar (hyperglycemia). For one resident with a history of diabetes, hemiplegia, and seizure disorder, the care plan directed staff to observe for signs of hyperglycemia, and the medication order required staff to administer insulin and notify the provider for blood sugars over 399 mg/dl. However, the electronic health record showed several blood sugar readings above this threshold without documentation of provider notification or follow-up interventions. Similarly, another resident with diabetes, heart failure, and anxiety had care plan instructions for monitoring medication effectiveness and orders for insulin administration. Despite blood sugar readings above 400 mg/dl, there were no documented provider notifications or follow-up actions. Staff interviews revealed inconsistent understanding of when to notify providers about high blood sugar levels, and the Director of Nursing acknowledged poor documentation practices and agreed that staff should have contacted the provider for abnormal blood sugars.
Failure to Follow Infection Control and Catheter Care Protocols
Penalty
Summary
Staff failed to follow proper infection control and catheter care procedures for a resident with an indwelling urinary catheter. During observed catheter and perineal care, a CNA used the same side of a washcloth multiple times to clean different areas, did not rinse or dry the resident’s skin after cleaning, and did not perform hand hygiene between glove changes. The CNA also did not consistently use the required Enhanced Barrier Precautions (EBP), such as wearing a gown, during high-contact care activities. Interviews with staff confirmed a lack of adherence to hand hygiene protocols and proper use of personal protective equipment as outlined in facility policy. The resident involved had a history of multiple sclerosis, neurogenic bladder, and a recent urinary tract infection, and was dependent on staff for toileting. The care plan specified the need for EBP due to the presence of an indwelling catheter and a history of multidrug-resistant organism colonization. Despite these documented needs, staff did not consistently implement the required precautions or follow the facility’s catheter care policy, which included specific steps for cleaning, drying, and securing the catheter and surrounding area. Additionally, the resident reported being without an anchoring strap for the catheter tubing, resulting in the tubing being taped to the thigh, which caused irritation and pulling. Observations revealed the catheter bag was leaking and covered with a stained pillowcase, and the bag was not promptly changed after the leak was reported. Staff interviews confirmed that the expected practice was to use proper anchoring devices and to change leaking catheter bags immediately, but these actions were not taken in a timely manner.
Failure to Notify Physician and Intervene After Significant Weight Loss
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to notify the physician and implement timely interventions following a significant weight loss in a resident with multiple medical conditions, including hemiplegia, dysphagia, and chronic pain syndrome. The resident was dependent on staff for eating assistance and had a feeding tube, with severely impaired cognition. Despite care plan directives and physician orders to monitor weights and notify the provider of significant changes, the facility did not clarify discrepancies in recorded weights, did not document a weight during a required week, and did not notify the physician of a substantial weight loss from 166 lbs to 150 lbs over eight days. There was also no documentation of interventions to address the weight loss prior to eventual physician notification. Staff interviews revealed a lack of clarity regarding which weight measurements were accurate and inconsistent monitoring and follow-up on significant weight changes. The Registered Dietician was on leave during the period in question, and the substitute RD did not monitor or document weight changes as required. The facility's policy required physician notification and individualized care plan interventions for significant weight changes, but these actions were not documented or carried out in a timely manner for the resident.
Failure to Provide Requested Therapy Services
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to provide specialized rehabilitative therapy services for a resident who expressed a desire to become more mobile. The resident, who had diagnoses including heart failure, diabetes, and anxiety disorder, was found to have intact cognition. Documentation showed that the resident requested physical therapy, but there was no evidence in the clinical record of follow-up or provision of therapy services after the initial request. Staff interviews confirmed that the resident's changing payor source was cited as a challenge, but there was no documentation of further efforts to address the resident's request for therapy. Facility policy required the provision of specialized rehabilitative services to meet residents' needs, but this was not followed in this case.
Failure to Post Daily Nurse Staffing and Census Information
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to post the daily census and nurse staffing information in a visible location as required by facility policy. Multiple observations conducted on several dates revealed that the required information was not posted in the lobby area, where it was supposed to be accessible to residents, staff, and visitors. The absence of this posting was confirmed during interviews with the Administrator and the Staffing Coordinator. The Administrator acknowledged that the information should have been posted above the sign in/out table and confirmed it was not present during the surveyors' visits. The Staffing Coordinator stated she was not aware that posting the daily census and nurse staffing information was her responsibility prior to the day of the interview. Review of the facility's policy indicated that the nurse staffing sheet should be posted daily at the beginning of each shift and be readily available for review.
Failure to Follow Physician Orders for Warfarin Administration
Penalty
Summary
A deficiency occurred when staff failed to follow physician orders for warfarin (Coumadin) administration for a resident with a history of atrial fibrillation, dementia, and a prosthetic heart valve. The resident had a prescribed warfarin dose of 5.5 mg daily, with a therapeutic INR goal of 2.5 to 3.5. Despite an elevated INR result of 6.7, a physician order was given to hold the warfarin dose and decrease the daily dose to 5.0 mg starting the following day. However, the Medication Administration Record (MAR) documented that the resident continued to receive 5.5 mg of warfarin on the day of the elevated INR and for the next three days. The resident's INR continued to rise, reaching 12.4 on a subsequent test. The resident was then admitted to the hospital with pneumonia, urinary tract infection, and a critically high INR of 13, requiring treatment with Vitamin K. Interviews with staff revealed confusion and lack of clarity regarding the process for holding medications, transcribing physician orders, and updating the MAR. Staff members were unsure about how to properly document and communicate hold orders, and there was inconsistency in the understanding of who was responsible for entering and confirming medication changes in the electronic health record system. The facility's policy required clear documentation and adherence to physician orders for anticoagulant use, including holding medications when lab values were outside the therapeutic range. Despite this, the resident received unnecessary doses of warfarin after orders to hold the medication, resulting in a significant medication error and an Immediate Jeopardy situation for the resident's health and safety.
Removal Plan
- Policy/procedure review/revision by the DON/designee.
- Licensed nurse education on facility policies regarding high-risk medication, anticoagulants, transcribing physician's orders, and notifying the physician when lab values not in the therapeutic range, and re-education on putting in appropriate hold orders.
- Licensed nurse education on appropriate transcription of putting medication on hold.
- Corrective action/one to one education with licensed nurse/Certified Medication Aide identified in deficient practice.
Facility Fails to Maintain Clean and Sanitary Environment
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to maintain a clean and sanitary environment for its residents, as evidenced by observations and interviews with residents and staff. Resident #5, who has an intact cognitive status and requires maximal assistance for daily activities, reported that her room was filthy and not cleaned properly. Observations confirmed that the floor in her room was gritty, the bathroom floor was wet with pooled dark water, and debris was present on the toilet seat and along the backside of the toilet. Staff B, a housekeeper, was observed leaving Resident #5's room without adequately cleaning these areas. Similarly, Resident #3, who has a moderately impaired cognitive status and requires maximal assistance, was found to have a dirty room and unswept, unmopped bathroom floors. Despite Staff B's efforts to clean the room, toilet tissue remained on the floor, indicating incomplete cleaning. Interviews with Staff B and Staff A, the Housekeeper Director, revealed inconsistencies in cleaning practices and a lack of documentation for monthly deep cleaning. Staff A mentioned that each resident's room should be cleaned daily, with beds stripped and sanitized weekly, and deep cleaning performed monthly, but was unable to provide records of these activities.
Failure to Conduct Proper Narcotic Counts and Secure Medication Keys
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to adhere to its policy requiring two licensed nurses to conduct shift change controlled substance counts, leading to discrepancies in narcotic counts. On one occasion, a Certified Medication Aide, Staff C, completed the narcotic count alone at the end of her shift after being unable to contact the overnight nurse. She then left the medication cart keys in an unlocked drawer at the nurse's station, a practice she stated was common. This lack of adherence to protocol was further evidenced when Staff B, a Certified Nurse Aide, observed another aide, Staff A, with the medication keys and rummaging through the medication cart. Additionally, Staff D, a Registered Nurse, also failed to follow the facility's policy by counting narcotics alone on multiple occasions and passing the medication cart keys without conducting the required count with another nurse. This resulted in missing narcotics, including Hydrocodone/APAP and Morphine sulfate, as discovered by Staff E, a Certified Medication Aide, during her shift. The discrepancies were reported to the Administrator and Director of Nursing, highlighting the facility's failure to maintain accurate narcotic counts and secure medication cart keys as per their policy.
Unauthorized Access to Medication Cart Keys and Missing Narcotics
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure that medication cart keys were only accessible to authorized personnel, leading to a breach in the security of controlled substances. On the evening of 7/9/24, Staff C, a Certified Medication Aide, was responsible for passing medications and completed the narcotic count with a Registered Nurse, Staff G. However, at the end of her shift, Staff C was unable to find the overnight nurse to complete the narcotic count and instead counted the narcotics on her own, which was a common practice at the facility. She then placed the medication cart keys in an unlocked drawer at the nurse's station, in the presence of two aides, before leaving. This practice was corroborated by Staff B, a Certified Nurse Aide, who witnessed Staff A, another aide, accessing the medication cart with the keys left unsecured. The following morning, Staff E, a Certified Medication Aide, discovered missing narcotics during her shift. She found that two tablets of Hydrocodone/APAP and a dose of Morphine sulfate were missing from the supplies of two residents. Staff E reported these findings to Staff D, the overnight charge nurse, and subsequently to the Administrator and Director of Nursing. Later, during a shift change, Staff E and Staff F, an LPN, discovered an entire bubble pack of 30 doses of Oxycodone was missing from another resident's supply. The report highlights the facility's failure to adhere to its policy requiring two licensed nurses to account for all controlled substances and access keys at the end of each shift, resulting in unauthorized access to medication cart keys and missing narcotics.
Inaccurate MDS Coding for Medications and Services
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to accurately code medications and services in the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessments for four residents. Resident #34's MDS inaccurately coded insulin use, as the resident's insulin orders were discontinued, yet the MDS reflected insulin administration. Resident #22's MDS failed to indicate hospice services, despite the resident receiving hospice care and having hospice as the primary payer. The facility's policy on maintaining MDS assessments lacked documentation on ensuring the accuracy of the MDS. Resident #21's MDS inaccurately indicated the use of anticoagulant medication instead of antiplatelet medication, despite physician orders for clopidogrel, an antiplatelet medication. Similarly, Resident #25's MDS incorrectly listed anticoagulant medication use, while the resident was prescribed and administered antiplatelet medications, including clopidogrel and aspirin. These discrepancies highlight the facility's failure to ensure accurate MDS coding, impacting the care and services provided to the residents.
Deficiencies in Comprehensive Care Plans for Residents
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure that each resident had a comprehensive individualized care plan that accurately reflected their plan of care. This deficiency was identified for four residents. One resident, with a diagnosis of type 2 diabetes mellitus, had a care plan that lacked specific interventions or a focus area for diabetes management, despite having physician orders for insulin. The Corporate Nurse acknowledged the absence of a diabetes focus in the care plan, which was expected to include monitoring of blood sugars. Another resident, who used oxygen therapy, had a care plan that did not address the use of oxygen, even though physician orders specified oxygen administration to maintain adequate oxygen saturation levels. The facility's Director of Nursing and Corporate Nurse were initially unaware of the omission, attributing it to the resident's hospice services, but later acknowledged the oversight. A third resident, with a diabetic foot ulcer and other wounds, had a care plan that failed to document current wounds or interventions for wound care and monitoring. The care plan also lacked documentation for the monitoring and care of the resident's PICC line and antibiotic administration. The Director of Nursing confirmed the care plan's deficiencies. Additionally, a fourth resident's care plan inaccurately reflected hospice services, lacking a specific focus and interventions related to hospice care, despite the resident's enrollment in hospice services.
Inadequate Staffing Leads to Resident Care Deficiencies
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to provide adequate staffing in the dining room during lunch, resulting in insufficient assistance for residents with eating and toileting needs. This deficiency was observed when a Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) was the only staff member present in the dining room, assisting multiple residents simultaneously. Resident #17, who had severe cognitive impairment and required assistance with toileting, experienced an incontinent episode in the dining room due to the lack of timely help. The LPN attempted to instruct the resident to propel himself to the bathroom, but he was unable to make it in time, leading to the incident. Other residents also reported issues related to insufficient staffing. Resident #33, with moderately impaired cognition, expressed frustration over long wait times for assistance with changing, attributing the delays to a lack of staff. Similarly, Resident #45, who required assistance with various activities, reported receiving incorrect medication and delayed administration of her evening medication, again pointing to inadequate staffing levels. Resident #41, with moderately impaired cognition, noted that it often took a long time for staff to respond to call lights, further highlighting the staffing issues. Interviews with staff members revealed that the facility typically scheduled three Certified Nurse Aides (CNAs) for the hall, but on the day of the incident, only two were available due to one CNA attending an appointment with a resident. Staff members acknowledged that with only two CNAs, they struggled to provide timely care, and residents did not receive the attention they deserved. The Director of Nursing (DON) and the Administrator both commented on the situation, with the DON noting that the facility usually had sufficient staffing and the Administrator attributing the incident to a lack of communication rather than staffing shortages.
Failure to Follow Pureed Diet Menu
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to adhere to the prescribed dietary menu for residents on a pureed diet. During an observation on June 26, 2026, Staff H, a cook, prepared a meal that omitted pureed cornbread, which was specified in the Week 4 Wednesday Diet Spreadsheet. The menu for the pureed diet included pureed barbecue pork, potato salad, creamy coleslaw, cornbread with margarine, cinnamon applesauce, coffee or hot tea, and milk. However, the cornbread was not pureed as required. The facility had a census of 61 residents, with five residents on a pureed diet and one additional resident who requested it. The Dietary Manager acknowledged the oversight, admitting that the cornbread might have been missed. The facility's Food Preparation Guidelines, revised in January 2023, instructed staff to follow written menus and standardized recipes, which were not followed in this instance.
Sanitation and Food Safety Deficiencies in Kitchen and Food Transport
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to maintain the kitchen in a sanitary manner, as observed during an inspection. Several issues were noted, including bins of cornstarch and sugar with scoops stored inside the product, which is not a sanitary practice. The chest freezer contained two bags of hamburger with openings, exposing the contents to air, and loose tater tots were found in one of the storage compartments. Additionally, loose debris was observed inside the bread refrigerator, and an open, undated container of cultured sour cream was found in Refrigerator 5. The Dietary Manager acknowledged the oversight regarding the sour cream's date and the lack of testing for the dishwasher's temperature and chemical levels, which are essential for ensuring proper sanitation. Furthermore, the facility did not adequately cover food during transportation to residents' rooms. Dietary staff were observed carrying uncovered plates through the hallway to different resident rooms, as the facility lacked lids for the plates. The Dietary Manager admitted that they recommended using foil to cover the food during transportation, but this practice was not consistently followed. These deficiencies highlight lapses in food safety and sanitation practices within the facility, which could potentially impact the quality of care provided to the residents.
Failure to Provide Meal Choices to Resident
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to provide meal choices to a resident, identified as Resident #58, who had intact cognition and a diagnosis of Stage 4 chronic kidney disease. The resident reported that meals were brought to her without being given a choice, and she was not provided with a menu. Observations confirmed that meals were delivered without prior consultation, and the resident expressed dissatisfaction with the food quality and quantity. Interviews with staff revealed inconsistencies in the process of offering meal choices, with some staff unsure if the resident was asked about her preferences consistently. The Dietary Manager and other staff members acknowledged that while there was an 'always available' menu, the process of collecting meal preferences was not documented, and some residents, including Resident #58, were sometimes missed. The Dietary Manager admitted that the kitchen staff did not always manage to ask all residents about their meal choices, especially if they were not in their rooms. The facility's policy required offering appropriate alternatives, but this was not consistently implemented for Resident #58, leading to the deficiency in honoring the resident's right to self-determination regarding meal choices.
Failure to Notify Ombudsman of Resident Hospitalization
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to notify the Ombudsman of a resident's hospitalization, which is a requirement for transfers or discharges. The incident involved a resident with moderately impaired cognition, as indicated by a BIMS score of 11. The resident was transferred to the hospital following a provider's new orders and returned to the facility the next day. However, the Notice of Transfer Form to the Long Term Care Ombudsman did not include this hospitalization. The Social Worker explained that she was trained to notify the Ombudsman only if a resident stayed out of the facility overnight, not for shorter durations. The facility's policy required the Social Services Director or designee to provide copies of emergency transfer notices to the Ombudsman, which could be sent on a monthly basis if they met all content requirements.
Failure to Adhere to PASRR Recommendations and Timely Submissions
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to adhere to the Preadmission Assessment Screening and Resident Review (PASRR) Level II recommendations for two residents, resulting in deficiencies. For Resident #34, the facility did not follow the special recommendation to designate a Power of Attorney (POA) for healthcare and financial matters, as directed by the PASRR Level II outcome. The resident's electronic medical record lacked documentation of a designated POA, despite the PASRR's directive. Interviews with the facility's staff, including the Administrator and the Director of Nursing (DON), revealed a misunderstanding of the PASRR requirements, with the Administrator believing that a POA was only necessary in case of incapacity, despite the resident's intact cognition. Additionally, the facility failed to submit the PASRR Level II in a timely manner for both Resident #2 and Resident #34. Resident #2's PASRR Level I screen was submitted almost a year after the expiration of the prior PASRR approval, which constituted a federal compliance issue. The resident had a history of mental health diagnoses, including anxiety, depression, and PTSD, and required specialized services as identified by the PASRR. The Director of Nursing and the Administrator both acknowledged that the PASRR should not have lapsed, indicating a lapse in the facility's compliance with federal regulations.
Medication Administration Errors in LTC Facility
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure proper medication administration for two residents, leading to deficiencies in professional standards of care. For Resident #33, the facility did not document the administration of medications by the Certified Medication Aide (CMA), Staff I, on the Medication Administration Record (MAR). Instead, the MAR inaccurately reflected that a Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN), Staff K, administered the medications. Observations revealed that Staff I carried the medication cup in her pocket before administering it to Resident #33, which is against the facility's policy. Staff I, who was new to the position, admitted to using another staff member's login to administer medications due to not having her own access yet. For Resident #45, the facility failed to prevent the administration of incorrect medications on multiple occasions. Resident #45 reported receiving the wrong pills four times, and on one occasion, she received medications intended for another resident, Resident #58. The incident was documented in the facility's records, and the nurse involved, Staff N, admitted to leaving the wrong medications in Resident #45's room, which the resident subsequently took. The Director of Nursing (DON) acknowledged the error and stated that the nurse did not follow the medication rights, which include verifying the right resident, medication, time, dose, and route. The facility's Medication Administration Policy, dated September 2023, directs staff to avoid touching medications with bare hands and to sign the MAR after administering medications. The policy also requires verification of the resident's name, medication name, form, dose, route, and time against the MAR. These deficiencies highlight lapses in adherence to the facility's medication administration protocols, resulting in medication errors for the residents involved.
Failure to Follow Bowel Management and Wound Care Protocols
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to follow up on a resident's bowel movement status and did not administer prescribed medications for constipation. Resident #3, who had moderately impaired cognition and frequent bowel incontinence, did not have a bowel movement from 6/17/24 to 6/23/24. Despite having physician orders for Dulcolax suppository and Milk of Magnesia to be administered as needed for constipation, there was no documentation of these medications being given during this period. The facility's electronic health record system was supposed to alert staff if a resident did not have a bowel movement for three days, prompting the administration of Milk of Magnesia and notifying the doctor if there were no results. However, these steps were not followed, and the facility's bowel management policy was not adhered to. Additionally, the facility failed to adequately assess and document a non-pressure wound for Resident #51, who had a diabetic foot ulcer. The treatment administration record showed orders for wound care on the left heel, but observations and interviews revealed that the wound was actually on the right heel. The Director of Nursing and a Registered Nurse confirmed that Resident #51 never had a wound on the left heel, indicating a discrepancy in the treatment orders and documentation. The facility's wound treatment management policy did not address this issue, leading to inadequate assessment and intervention for the resident's wound care needs.
Resident Injury During Repositioning
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to prevent an accident involving a resident during repositioning in bed, resulting in the resident's head hitting the bed rail and causing a bruise. The resident, who had Alzheimer's disease with late onset and fragile skin, was being repositioned by a CNA when the incident occurred. The care plan for the resident included instructions to use caution during transfers and bed mobility to prevent injury. Despite these instructions, the resident's head hit the grab bar during repositioning, leading to a bruise on the forehead. Interviews with staff revealed that the resident often resisted repositioning and could be difficult to move, sometimes pushing against the bed or grabbing at staff. On the day of the incident, multiple CNAs were present, and the resident's head hit the grab bar as they were rolled to the side. Staff noted that the resident was positioned too close to the side of the bed, contributing to the accident. The facility's policy on safe resident handling and transfer emphasized the need for safe handling to prevent injury, but this was not effectively implemented in this case.
Failure to Administer Continuous Oxygen Therapy
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to adhere to the physician's order for continuous oxygen administration for a resident with severe cognitive impairment and multiple health conditions, including ventricular tachycardia, atrial fibrillation, heart failure, cerebrovascular accident, and non-Alzheimer's dementia. The resident was observed multiple times without the prescribed oxygen therapy, despite having an order for continuous administration at 3 liters per minute via nasal cannula. Observations revealed that the resident was in the dining room without oxygen, with the oxygen tank attached to the wheelchair but not connected, and the oxygen concentrator in the room set to a lower level than prescribed. Staff interviews indicated that the resident often did not comply with keeping the oxygen tubing in place, and the Director of Nursing acknowledged the continuous oxygen order due to the resident's congestive heart failure. However, the staff's approach was to ask the resident if they wanted to wear oxygen while eating, rather than ensuring compliance with the physician's order. The facility's policy required licensed nurses and nurse aides to have the necessary competencies and skills to care for residents' needs as identified in their care plans, which was not demonstrated in this case.
Repeat Deficiencies in QAPI Process
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure an effective Quality Assurance and Performance Improvement (QAPI) process to address previously identified quality deficiencies, resulting in multiple repeat deficiencies. These deficiencies were identified during the facility's current recertification and complaint survey, as well as in surveys completed over the last fifteen months. The deficiencies included issues with Minimum Data Set (MDS) accuracy, care plan timing and revision, professional standards, respiratory care, and being free from accident hazards. Additionally, there were citations for assessment and intervention, insufficient staffing, and food procurement and sanitation. The facility's QAPI policy, dated April 2022, outlined a process for developing and implementing plans of action to correct identified quality deficiencies. However, the facility continued to receive citations for similar issues across multiple surveys. Interviews with the Administrator and Corporate Nurse revealed that the facility kept processes in Quality Assurance until they met substantial compliance, typically between 3 to 6 months, and updated processes when they did not work. Despite these efforts, the facility continued to receive repeat citations, indicating a failure to effectively address and correct the underlying causes of the deficiencies.
Food Temperature and Hygiene Deficiencies
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to serve mandarin oranges at the appropriate temperature, serve room trays at the appropriate temperature, and maintain proper hygiene practices during food handling. During an observation, the cook checked the temperatures of the lunch food prior to service and found that the mandarin oranges were at 42 degrees Fahrenheit, which is above the required temperature of 41 degrees Fahrenheit or lower for cold foods. Additionally, the post-meal service temperatures showed that the mandarin oranges had risen to 51 degrees Fahrenheit. The test tray temperatures at the end of the hall also revealed that the mandarin oranges were at 50 degrees Fahrenheit, and the hot foods were below the required 135 degrees Fahrenheit for hot foods, with the pork loin at 127.4 degrees Fahrenheit, broccoli at 125.3 degrees Fahrenheit, and potatoes at 107.4 degrees Fahrenheit. During the lunch meal service, the cook, identified as Staff A, was observed using her gloved hand to move food items on the plates without changing gloves or washing hands afterward. Specifically, Staff A used her gloved hand to move broccoli, potatoes, and pork loin on the plates and did not remove the gloves or wash her hands after handling the food. This practice was acknowledged by Staff A, who stated that she should have used tongs and should have removed her gloves and washed her hands after touching the food on the plate. Interviews with the Dietary Manager and the Dietician revealed concerns about the food temperatures and hygiene practices. The Dietary Manager acknowledged the issue with the temperatures at the end of the hall and stated that Staff A should have used a spatula or changed her gloves and washed her hands. The Dietician emphasized the need for education and review of the temperatures and proper food handling practices to avoid the risk of foodborne illness. The facility's guidelines and procedures for proper hand washing, glove use, and monitoring food temperatures were not followed, leading to the identified deficiencies.
Failure to Notify Physician of Elevated Blood Glucose Levels
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to notify the physician when a resident's blood glucose levels exceeded 450 mg/dl for one of the three residents reviewed. Resident #4, who has a diagnosis of Type II diabetes mellitus and receives insulin daily, had multiple instances of elevated blood glucose levels recorded in the Electronic Medical Record (EMR) without corresponding documentation that the physician was notified. Specific instances included blood glucose readings of 458 mg/dl, 544 mg/dl, 463 mg/dl, 512 mg/dl, and 558 mg/dl on various dates. Despite the facility's policy requiring notification of the physician for blood glucose levels over 450 mg/dl, there was no documentation in the Progress Notes indicating that the physician was informed of these elevated readings. Interviews with staff, including a Registered Nurse (RN), the Director of Nursing (DON), and the Administrator, confirmed that the protocol was to notify the physician of elevated blood glucose levels. However, it was revealed that the staff often got busy and did not always document the notifications. The DON and Administrator acknowledged that while the Certified Medication Aides (CMAs) reported the blood glucose levels to the nurses, the nurses did not consistently chart the notifications to the physician. The facility's policy on Blood Glucose Monitoring emphasized the importance of timely reporting and documentation of critical test results, which was not adhered to in this case.
Failure to Timely Respond to Call Light
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to answer a call light in less than 15 minutes for a resident with cerebral palsy who required partial/moderate assistance with toileting hygiene and toilet transferring. The resident, who had an intact cognition as indicated by a BIMS score of 13 out of 15, was observed with her call light on for an extended period. Despite the facility's policy requiring prompt response to call lights, the resident waited for approximately 48 minutes before staff responded. During this time, the resident had to clean herself up and resorted to banging a potty chair on the floor to get attention. Interviews with staff revealed inconsistencies in their understanding of the required response time for call lights, with responses ranging from 5 to 15 minutes. The Director of Nursing acknowledged that call lights should be answered within 15 minutes but noted exceptions when multiple lights were on. The facility's policy stated that all staff members who see or hear an activated call light are responsible for responding, and if unable to provide the required assistance, they should notify the appropriate personnel. However, this policy was not adhered to in the case of the resident, leading to a significant delay in providing necessary assistance.
Latest citations in Iowa
A resident with severe cognitive impairment, multiple comorbidities (including Parkinson’s disease and CVA), high fall risk, and frequent incontinence experienced numerous unwitnessed falls over several months despite documented needs for substantial/maximal assistance and supervision. The care plan and facility policy called for individualized fall interventions and visual supervision, yet the resident repeatedly self-transferred in the room, common areas, and between the dining room and therapy gym, often being found on the floor after staff heard yelling or noticed the resident missing. Staff interviews confirmed that the resident was typically placed near the nurses’ station or in common areas for increased or visual supervision, but staff were not consistently present or able to intervene before the resident attempted unsafe transfers or tried to assist other residents, leading to repeated injuries such as abrasions and skin tears.
Two residents with cognitive impairment were not adequately protected from sexual abuse by another resident. One resident reported that a male resident in a wheelchair entered her room, moved her bedside table, touched her leg, and placed his hand under her blanket until she screamed and used her call light, after which he left. Shortly afterward, staff found the same male resident in bed with another resident, whose pants and brief were partially down, with his hand inside her pants on her buttocks; she was half asleep and unable to describe what happened. Staff interviews indicated delays and hesitancy in documenting and reporting the incidents to law enforcement and families, with nursing staff stating they were initially told by the DON not to document or report because penetration was not observed or the events were not physically witnessed. The affected resident later became more withdrawn and uncomfortable in common areas when the alleged perpetrator was present, while the facility’s own abuse policy defined sexual abuse as non-consensual sexual contact of any type and guaranteed residents’ right to be free from abuse.
A resident with moderate cognitive impairment, multiple chronic conditions, and chronic pain ordered Oxycodone HCl 15 mg every six hours received incorrect doses after the pharmacy changed the tablet strength from 5 mg to 15 mg. Staff had previously administered three 5 mg tablets to equal the ordered 15 mg, but when new 15 mg tablets arrived, a CMA first gave a total of 25 mg by combining remaining 5 mg tablets with a 15 mg tablet, then an LPN and the same CMA each later administered three 15 mg tablets (45 mg) while documenting the doses as if they matched the order. Progress notes described the resident as pale, confused, with garbled speech, hallucination-like behavior, pinpoint pupils, and intermittent drowsiness. Interviews showed staff did not re-check the tablet strength or compare the new medication card to the MAR and reported there was no formal process to alert staff to dose changes with new medication cards.
The facility failed to maintain a clean, comfortable, homelike environment when multiple residents’ beds remained stripped or unmade well into the morning and one room was observed with dried fluid on the floor and debris along the baseboard heater and wall. A cognitively intact resident reported wanting the bed made by the end of breakfast, but surveyors twice observed linens rolled at the foot of the bed with the bed unmade. Another resident with moderate cognitive impairment and physical care needs was found lying in bed with only a small lap blanket while all bedding was bunched at the bottom of the bed, and the resident stated staff had not returned to make the bed. CNAs and an LPN described busy workloads, stripped beds, and delays in bed-making, while leadership acknowledged expectations that beds be made by mid-morning and that rooms be clean, consistent with the facility’s homelike environment policy.
The facility failed to maintain kitchen sanitation and follow food safety practices, as shown by incomplete monthly cleaning checklists, unlabeled and undated food items, improper storage of raw meat above ready-to-eat foods, and dried food and debris on floors and equipment. During meal service, dessert plates were transported uncovered on hallway carts, random rags were left on the kitchen floor, and dietary staff used gloves improperly, touched non-food surfaces, wiped their nose, drank from a personal mug, and resumed food service without proper hand hygiene. Another staff member briefly rinsed hands after handling dirty dishes and then passed resident trays without appropriate handwashing, contrary to the facility’s own food safety and employee hygiene policies.
A resident-to-resident altercation occurred, and although the residents were immediately separated, the event was not reported to the state survey agency within the required timeframe. The incident was documented as having occurred weeks before it was recognized and reported as an allegation of abuse. Interviews with the Systems Process and Policy Specialist and the Administrator confirmed that the event met criteria for abuse reporting and should have been reported within 24 hours without serious injury or within 2 hours with serious injury, consistent with the facility’s abuse reporting policy and state requirements. Former administration did not complete this required timely reporting.
The facility failed to maintain comprehensive, person-centered care plans for three residents with significant clinical needs. One resident was on ongoing Duloxetine therapy, another was receiving Trazodone and Apixaban with diagnoses of Alzheimer’s disease, depression, and bipolar disorder, and a third had Parkinson’s disease, benign prostatic hyperplasia, and a newly placed Foley catheter for urinary retention. Despite MDS assessments and active physician orders for antidepressants, anticoagulants, and catheter care (including output monitoring, leg bag use when out of bed, and routine catheter changes), the residents’ care plans lacked corresponding problems, goals, and measurable interventions. The DON and Administrator acknowledged that dementia, anticoagulant use, Alzheimer’s disease, antidepressant use, and catheter use had not been incorporated into the individualized care plans as required by facility policy.
A resident with morbid obesity, heart failure, and intact cognition reported daily use of a female urinal that surveyors observed to be soiled with feces on the outside and urine scale in the bottom, with a bent top that the resident said reduced its effectiveness. The resident stated the urinal had not been changed for about three months and was not cleaned weekly. The facility lacked a urinal care policy, and the DON reported not knowing how staff managed this resident’s urinal, while noting that male urinals are changed monthly and expressing uncertainty about the availability of a replacement urinal.
A resident with moderate cognitive impairment was sent to the ED via ambulance for evaluation and oxygen after an on-call provider’s order, but the resident’s daughter, listed as emergency contact and POA, was not notified at the time of transfer. The LPN who arranged the transfer informed only the resident, considering him his own POA, and did not contact the daughter, later acknowledging this omission. A subsequent LPN learned from ED staff that the resident had been transferred to another hospital for urosepsis and kidney failure and then called the daughter, who reported she first learned of the situation only after the resident had been life flighted and was already at the second hospital. The DON confirmed the daughter should have been notified of the emergency transfer in accordance with the facility’s change-of-condition reporting policy, which requires notifying and documenting contact with the family/responsible party.
Staff were informed that a male resident had entered one resident’s room and attempted to get into bed with her, and shortly thereafter found him in bed with another resident whose pants and brief were partially down while his hand was on her buttocks. One resident was cognitively intact with CAD and diabetes, and the other had severe cognitive impairment and required assistance with personal care. Although facility policy required immediate reporting of abuse allegations to the Administrator and state agencies, the Administrator and DON were not fully informed at the time of the incidents, and the allegation was not reported to state authorities within the required 2-hour timeframe.
Failure to Provide Effective Supervision and Fall-Prevention for High-Risk Resident
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to maintain an environment free from accident hazards and to provide adequate supervision and effective fall-prevention interventions for a resident with severe cognitive impairment and a significant fall history. The resident had a BIMS score of 2, indicating severely impaired cognition, was oriented to self only, and exhibited dementia progression, short recall, impulsiveness, and frequent self-transfers. The MDS documented substantial/maximal assistance needs for bed mobility and transfers, supervision for toileting and transfers, and frequent urinary incontinence. Diagnoses included Parkinson’s disease, cerebrovascular accident, diabetes mellitus, and renal insufficiency, all contributing to a high fall risk. The facility’s own fall management policy required individualized care plans, IDT review of fall patterns, and interventions based on causal factors, but the resident experienced thirteen falls over approximately three months. Incident reports show repeated unwitnessed falls in both the resident’s room and common areas despite the resident being identified as high risk for falls and placed near the nurses’ station or in common areas for “increased” or “visual” supervision. On one occasion, staff heard yelling and found the resident picking himself up from the bathroom floor after self-transferring to the toilet without a walker or assistance and without using the call light. Another incident in a common area involved the resident being found on the floor with abrasions after staff only heard yelling and then discovered him lying on his side. In another fall, the resident attempted to assist another resident in the common area, stood up from a recliner, lost balance, and sustained a skin tear, indicating that staff were not sufficiently monitoring his movements or preventing unsafe attempts to help others. Additional falls occurred while the resident was supposed to be under observation near the nurses’ station or in the dining/common areas. In one event, an LPN sitting at the nurses’ station on the phone turned her head and saw the resident in mid-fall out of his recliner, demonstrating that the resident was able to initiate transfers and fall without timely staff intervention despite the expectation of visual supervision. In another event, the resident was last known to be seated in his wheelchair at a dining room table, but when the nurse returned from another resident’s room, the resident was missing and was later found on his knees in the therapy gym, which was connected to the dining room by several short hallways. Interviews with LPNs and the DON confirmed that the expectation was for visual supervision and that the resident was frequently placed in the living room/common area or near the nurses’ station, but staff could not account for where other staff were at the time of some falls. The pattern of repeated unwitnessed falls, self-transfers, and inadequate monitoring despite known high fall risk and cognitive impairment demonstrates the facility’s failure to implement and maintain effective, consistent supervision and fall-prevention interventions as required by its fall management policy and the resident’s care plan.
Failure to Protect Residents From Sexual Abuse and to Report and Document Incidents
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to protect residents from sexual abuse and to implement appropriate protective interventions after serious allegations involving one male resident and two female residents. Resident #3, who had a history of muscle weakness, stroke, diabetes mellitus, and a BIMS score of 12 indicating moderate cognitive impairment, reported that while she was in bed with her door partially closed, a male resident in a wheelchair (Resident #2) entered her room, moved her bedside table, touched her leg, and placed his hand under her blanket attempting to touch her. She stated she pushed her call light and screamed twice, after which he left the room. Resident #3 later described ongoing distress when seeing Resident #2 in common areas, reported difficulty sleeping when she saw him, and expressed that she had told others she would kill him if he touched her again. She also stated that it bothered her that he had violated another person and that she did not understand why he was allowed to sit at a table with residents who could not defend themselves. The same day, Resident #50, who had diagnoses including need for assistance with personal care, hypertension, and unspecified cognitive symptoms with a BIMS score of 6 indicating severe cognitive impairment, was found in a more advanced incident with Resident #2. According to the incident report and progress notes, staff discovered Resident #2 in bed with Resident #50, with her pants and brief halfway down and his left hand inside her pants on her buttocks. Her wheelchair was parked in front of the bed and the door was locked. Resident #50 was lying on her side, half asleep, and was unable to state or describe what had happened. Both residents were separated, and Resident #2 was later placed under 1:1 monitoring at the nursing station, but the documentation shows that the discovery of this incident occurred only after staff had been alerted that Resident #2 had already attempted to get into bed with Resident #3. Multiple staff and family interviews revealed failures in timely reporting, documentation, and implementation of protective interventions consistent with the facility’s abuse-prevention policy. Resident #3’s daughter stated her mother called her about the incident in the afternoon, but the facility did not notify her until several hours later, and that police were not called until the evening. Staff I, the RN on duty, reported that the DON told her that because there was no vaginal penetration, she should call the police later and that the police would probably only take a report over the phone. Staff N, an LPN, stated she was told that Staff I had initially been instructed not to document the incident because they did not know exactly what Resident #2 was doing, and that she insisted the incident needed to be reported. Staff J, an LPN, similarly stated that the DON told Staff I not to make a note of the incident because it was not physically witnessed, despite Staff I stating she had witnessed it. Staff interviews also documented that Resident #3 became more self-isolating and uncomfortable participating in activities or remaining in the dining room when Resident #2 was present, while Resident #2 remained in the facility. The facility’s written policy defined abuse, including sexual abuse as non-consensual sexual contact of any type with a resident, and stated that each resident has the right to be free from abuse, neglect, misappropriation, and exploitation, but the actions and inactions described did not align with these stated protections for Residents #3 and #50.
Significant Oxycodone Dosing Error Due to Failure to Verify Tablet Strength and Orders
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to prevent a significant medication error for a resident receiving opioid therapy for chronic pain. The resident had moderate cognitive impairment and multiple diagnoses including anxiety, COPD, depression, heart failure, and respiratory failure, and was care planned for chronic pain with interventions to monitor for opiate side effects. The physician’s order, in place since early March, specified Oxycodone HCl 15 mg every six hours. Initially, the pharmacy dispensed 5 mg tablets with instructions on the medication card and controlled drug record to administer three tablets every six hours to equal the ordered 15 mg dose, and staff followed this regimen. On a later date, the pharmacy delivered a new supply of Oxycodone HCl as 15 mg tablets, with the new controlled drug record and medication card directing staff to administer one tablet every six hours. However, on the afternoon when the new card arrived, a CMA completed the remaining 5 mg tablets from the old card (two tablets) and then took one 15 mg tablet from the new card, resulting in a 25 mg dose instead of the ordered 15 mg. The following morning, an LPN documented administering three 15 mg tablets (45 mg total) and signed the controlled drug record and MAR as if the ordered dose had been given. Later that same day at midday, the CMA again documented administering three 15 mg tablets (another 45 mg total) and signed the MAR as if the ordered dose had been provided. Progress notes later that day documented the resident appearing pale, with garbled speech, confusion, and pinpoint pupils, and then later reaching out to grab at the air, laughing about it, with pupils measured at 1 mm and intermittent drowsiness, though easily arousable. An RN associated with the resident’s primary care provider assessed the resident that afternoon and found the resident drowsy but responsive, with a contracted arm, shakiness, and pinpoint pupils, and reported that the primary care provider considered possible opioid overdose among other differential diagnoses. Facility staff interviews revealed that the CMA and LPN continued to give three tablets because that had been the prior practice with the 5 mg tablets, did not verify the tablet strength or compare the new medication card to the MAR, and that there was no formal process in place to notify staff of dose changes when new medication cards with different tablet strengths were received.
Unmade Beds and Poor Room Cleanliness Undermine Homelike Environment
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to provide a safe, clean, comfortable, and homelike environment by not making beds in a timely manner and not maintaining room cleanliness for several residents. For one cognitively intact resident (BIMS 14), surveyors observed on multiple occasions the bed linens rolled up at the foot of the bed and the bed unmade well into the morning, despite the resident’s stated preference that the bed be made by the end of breakfast and certainly before lunch. Another resident with moderate cognitive impairment (BIMS 9) and diagnoses including unspecified intellectual disabilities, muscle weakness, and need for assistance with personal care was observed lying in bed with only a small lap blanket while all bedding was wrapped at the bottom of the bed; the resident reported that a staff member had placed the bedding there earlier that morning and had not returned to make the bed. Additional observations on the same hall showed other beds without bedding at all. Staff interviews revealed that CNAs typically make beds when residents are gotten up in the morning, but one CNA reported it was his first day working at the facility, that the morning was very busy, and that he was unable to get beds made before being pulled away from the hall. Another CNA who started at 10:00 a.m. stated that when he arrived, beds on the hall had been stripped, linens not changed, and beds not made, and that he could not make the beds until after completing resident care. An LPN reported noticing frequently that resident beds were not made until after 11:00 a.m. and sometimes instructing staff or making beds herself. The DON and Administrator both stated they expected beds to be made by mid-morning and acknowledged that the day in question was not scheduled for housekeeping to strip and remake beds on that hall. In a separate room, surveyors observed a bed pulled away from the wall, streaks of dried fluid on the floor, brown debris along the baseboard heater and on the wall above it, and a white object in the baseboard; the resident confirmed these areas had been present for some time. The facility’s homelike environment policy stated that rooms should be homelike and, per the Administrator, rooms should be clean.
Failure to Maintain Kitchen Sanitation and Food Safety Practices
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to maintain appropriate kitchen sanitation and food safety practices as required by its food safety policy. Monthly cleaning checklists posted on the reach-in cooler door for AM/PM aides and cooks showed that most daily cleaning assignments had only been completed once during the month, with several tasks not initialed at all, indicating they were not done. During a kitchen tour, surveyors observed multiple sanitation and storage issues, including unlabeled drink pitchers, dried liquid and food debris on the bottom of the reach-in cooler, and raw ground hamburger stored above ready-to-eat cold cuts with incomplete labels lacking open dates. Additional unlabeled or undated food items included a plastic bag of what appeared to be hard-boiled eggs, a covered green resident bowl, a small plastic storage container, a container labeled cream of chicken soup dated 3/12/26, a container of what appeared to be pickles, and multiple cereal containers without identifying information, including one covered with torn plastic wrap. The kitchen floor had dried liquid and food debris unrelated to the current day's menu, and debris such as dried food splatter, plastic lids, condiment packets, a used rag, wrappers, dust, and food buildup was noted under and around equipment including the dish machine, prep tables, ice machine, and steam tables, as well as dried food splatter on the Kitchen Aid mixer, Robot Coupe, and an outlet box and utility pole. During meal service observations, surveyors noted additional failures to follow food safety and hygiene practices. Two carts with resident room trays left the kitchen with uncovered dessert plates while being transported down hallways. Random white rags were observed on the floor under the ice machine, handwashing sink, reach-in cooler, and the back side of the oven. A dietary aide (Staff I) donned gloves and then touched service cart handles, wiped gloved hands on their clothing, adjusted eyeglasses, and proceeded to portion brownies with the same gloves. Later, the same staff member removed gloves, wiped their nose, drank from a personal mug, then put on new gloves and resumed service without any hand hygiene. Another staff member (Staff J) placed dirty dishes in the dish machine, briefly rinsed hands under water at the handwashing sink, and then resumed passing resident trays without performing proper hand hygiene. In an interview, the Dietary Director and Registered Dietitian acknowledged the poor cleanliness of the kitchen and the improper glove use and inadequate hand hygiene, despite the facility’s written policy requiring proper food storage, covering food during transport, handwashing before distributing trays and between resident contact, and appropriate cleaning of equipment and use of gloves or utensils to avoid bare-hand contact with food.
Failure to Timely Report Resident-to-Resident Altercation as Alleged Abuse
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to timely report an allegation of abuse involving a resident-to-resident altercation to the state survey agency (SSA) in accordance with federal, state, and facility policy requirements. A facility investigation titled "Resident to Resident Altercation" documented that an incident occurred between two residents on 02/07/2026 at approximately 5:00 PM, during which the residents were immediately separated. The investigation record further documented that the incident was not reported until 03/09/2026, indicating a significant delay between the occurrence of the event and the reporting of the allegation. During an interview on 03/24/2026, the Systems Process and Policy Specialist stated she assumed responsibilities from the previous administrator in early March and, on 03/10/2026, identified that the resident-to-resident interaction had not been reported to the SSA as required. She then reported the allegation of abuse to the SSA on 03/10/2026 and confirmed it should have been reported within 24 hours. In a separate interview on the same date, the Administrator agreed that allegations meeting the criteria for abuse must be reported within 24 hours if there is no injury and within 2 hours if there is injury. Review of the facility’s Abuse Prevention, Identification, Investigation and Reporting Policy, last revised 12/2025, showed that all allegations of neglect, exploitation, mistreatment, injuries of unknown origin, and misappropriation must be reported to the Iowa Department of Inspections and Appeals within 2 hours if serious bodily injury occurred, or within 24 hours if serious bodily injury did not occur. Former administration failed to notify the SSA within these required time frames for this incident.
Failure to Update Comprehensive Care Plans for Psychotropic, Anticoagulant, and Catheter Management
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to develop and implement comprehensive, person-centered care plans with problems, goals, and measurable interventions for multiple residents with identified clinical needs. For one resident admitted from a short-term hospital stay, the MDS showed antidepressant use, and the EHR contained ongoing physician orders for Duloxetine beginning at admission and later revised in dose and formulation. Despite this, the resident’s care plan, last revised in early March, did not include any problem, goal, or intervention related to antidepressant medication usage. Another resident’s MDS documented use of both anticoagulant and antidepressant medications and diagnoses including Alzheimer’s disease, depression, and bipolar disorder. The EHR showed active orders for Trazodone as an antidepressant and Apixaban as an anticoagulant. However, the resident’s care plan, revised in late December, did not contain problems, goals, or interventions addressing antidepressant use, and the DON later acknowledged that dementia, anticoagulant use, and Alzheimer’s disease should also have been included on this resident’s care plan with appropriate goals and interventions. A third resident’s quarterly MDS indicated intact cognition, an indwelling catheter, a primary diagnosis of Parkinson’s disease with dyskinesia and fluctuations, and additional diagnoses including benign prostatic hyperplasia with lower urinary tract symptoms, depression, and cognitive communication deficit. Progress notes documented a new Foley catheter placed for urinary retention due to neurogenic bladder, and subsequent physician orders directed shift catheter output monitoring, use of a leg drainage bag when out of bed, and routine catheter changes every four weeks. The care plan, last revised in late December, had not been updated by the interdisciplinary team after the March quarterly assessment to include a focus or problem, goals, and interventions for catheter use. During interview and observation, the resident reported that Parkinson’s disease was slowing him down and that staff had not changed his catheter to a leg bag; he was observed using a bed bag under his wheelchair seat. The DON and Administrator both confirmed that the care plan had not been revised to address the catheter with measurable goals and individualized interventions, despite facility policy requiring review and revision of comprehensive care plans after each assessment and with new diagnoses, changes in condition, or new devices.
Failure to Provide Clean, Functional Urinal Supplies for a Resident
Penalty
Summary
Surveyors identified a deficiency in the facility’s failure to reasonably accommodate a resident’s needs and preferences for urinary independence by not providing proper urinal supplies and care. The resident, who had morbid obesity, heart failure, and a BIMS score of 15 indicating no cognitive impairment, reported using a female urinal daily. On observation, the urinal had brown areas on the outside, which the resident identified as feces that had been present for some time, and a urine scale in the bottom. The resident stated the facility had not changed the urinal for approximately three months and did not clean it weekly, and the urinal top was bent, which she said made it work less effectively. The facility did not have a policy on urinal care, and the DON stated she did not know what staff did with this resident’s urinal, acknowledged that male urinals are changed monthly and that this resident’s should be as well, and was unsure if there were any new urinals available for the resident.
Failure to Notify Resident’s POA of Emergency Hospital Transfer
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to notify a resident’s representative of a significant change in condition that resulted in transfer to the emergency department. The resident had a BIMS score of 9, indicating moderate cognitive impairment, and was documented as his own POA, with his daughter listed in the EHR profile as emergency contact #1, POA, and care conference person. On the morning of 1/7/26, an on-call provider ordered the resident sent to the ED via ambulance with oxygen, and the LPN (Staff E) documented updating the resident on the orders but did not notify the daughter/POA of the transfer. Staff E later acknowledged she did not notify the daughter at the time of transfer, stating she considered the resident his own POA and that she sent a text to another LPN (Staff D) to let the daughter know the resident had been transferred. Later that morning, Staff D documented speaking with an ED nurse and learning the resident had been transferred to another hospital due to urosepsis and kidney failure, and then documented calling and notifying the resident’s daughter. The daughter/POA reported she was not notified when the resident was first sent to the ED and only learned of the situation after he had been life flighted to a second hospital, stating the nursing home called her about 30 minutes before the second hospital notified her. Staff D confirmed that when she arrived for her shift, the previous nurse (Staff E) had not notified the daughter, and that the daughter was upset. The DON stated the resident was his own POA but confirmed the daughter, listed as emergency contact #1, should have been notified of the emergency transfer and was not. Facility policy on Change of Condition Reporting required licensed nurses to inform the family/responsible party of a change of condition and document all notification attempts, including time and response, which was not followed in this case.
Failure to Timely Report Resident-on-Resident Abuse Allegations to State Authorities
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to timely report allegations of abuse to the Iowa Department of Inspections & Appeals and Licensing (DIAL) within 2 hours for two residents. Resident #3, who had coronary artery disease, diabetes mellitus, muscle weakness, and a BIMS score of 12 indicating no cognitive impairment, reported that while she was in bed with her door partially closed, a male resident in a wheelchair entered her room, approached her bed, touched her leg, moved her bedside table, and placed his hand under her blanket attempting to touch her. She stated she pushed her call light, screamed twice, and that a neighboring resident also activated a call light. Staff documentation reflected that a caregiver informed the RN at the nurses’ station that Resident #2 had been in Resident #3’s room attempting to get into bed with her, prompting the RN to immediately go down the hall to check on the situation. Resident #50, who had diagnoses including need for assistance with personal care, lack of coordination, hypertension, and a BIMS score of 6 indicating severe cognitive impairment, was subsequently found by staff in bed with the same male resident. At approximately 3:22 p.m., the RN and caregivers located Resident #2 in bed with Resident #50, with Resident #50’s pants and brief halfway down and Resident #2’s hand in her pants on her buttocks, and his wheelchair parked in front of her bed with the door locked. Resident #50 was lying on her side, half asleep, and was unable to describe what had occurred. Facility policy required that all allegations of abuse, neglect, misappropriation, or exploitation be reported immediately to the Administrator and to appropriate state or federal agencies within applicable timeframes. Interviews with the Administrator and DON revealed that the Administrator did not learn of the incident until later that evening, at which time she reported it to the state, and the DON stated she had been called around 3:00 p.m. but was not informed about the touching or that a resident had been in bed with another resident, resulting in the allegation not being reported to DIAL within the required 2-hour timeframe.
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.



