Great Oaks Rehabilitation And Healthcare Center

Penalty

No penalty information released

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

Summary

The facility failed to implement a comprehensive, person-centered care plan for contracture management and splinting to prevent decline in range of motion for one resident. The facility’s policy on prevention of decline in range of motion required that, based on the comprehensive assessment, the facility provide interventions, exercises, and/or therapy to maintain or improve ROM. The resident’s care plan, initiated on 8/1/25, identified an ADL self-care performance deficit related to stroke, hemiplegia, and immobility, placing the resident at risk for functional decline. The care plan interventions directed staff to apply a splint to the right ankle after breakfast, provide passive stretch to the right ankle after applying the splint, remove the splint at lunchtime, reapply the splint after supper with passive stretch, and remove the splint at bedtime. On observation, the resident’s ankle splint was not in use and was found lying in a chair in the resident’s room, and the resident was unsure when the splint was last applied. The PTA reported that the resident had developed foot drop and that the ankle splint could no longer be placed without additional therapy, confirming this was related to the splint not being applied daily as ordered. The DON stated that the care plan was used to inform staff how to care for the resident and verified that staff failed to follow the care plan when they did not apply the ankle splint. Record review showed the resident was admitted with hemiplegia and hemiparesis following a cerebral infarction affecting the right dominant side, and an MDS assessment indicated a BIMS score of 5, reflecting cognitive impairment at the time of the deficiency.

Penalty

No penalty information released

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

Summary

The facility failed to provide ordered range of motion (ROM) and splinting interventions to prevent decline in ROM for a resident with hemiplegia and hemiparesis following a cerebral infarction affecting the right dominant side. The resident was admitted with these diagnoses and had physician orders and therapy recommendations for contracture management and splinting. An OT evaluation documented decreased ROM in the right upper extremity and recommended a resting hand splint and a restorative splint and brace program, with a subsequent OT evaluation recommending continuation of the contracture management and splinting program. A physician order directed staff to apply a right-hand splint after breakfast, provide passive stretch to the right elbow, wrist, and hand once daily, and remove the splint before dinner. Another physician order required application of a right ankle splint after breakfast and after supper with passive stretching following application. The facility’s own policy stated that residents without limited ROM should not experience a reduction in ROM unless clinically unavoidable. During observation, surveyors noted a foot splint lying unused in the resident’s chair and the resident’s right hand contracted into a fist without a hand roll in place. The resident reported not knowing when the foot splint was last applied and stated she had never had a hand roll. An LPN stated she did not know why the splint was in the room, believed the resident was not required to wear it, and confirmed the resident did not have a hand roll. Record review showed the right-hand splint order was discontinued at the responsible party’s request due to pain, but the OT reported she had not been notified of this discontinuation and stated a hand roll should have been initiated when the splint was stopped; she further stated the resident’s hand was now contracted into a fist. A PT discharge summary documented improved right ankle ROM with therapy and recommended a PODUS boot daily for up to five hours, while a PTA later reported the resident had developed foot drop and that the ankle splint could no longer be applied without additional therapy, confirming this was related to the splint not being applied daily as ordered. The DON verified that there were physician orders for daily ankle splinting and acknowledged that the right-hand splint was discontinued without alternative interventions to prevent contracture. The resident’s MDS showed a BIMS score of 5, indicating severe cognitive impairment.

Penalty

No penalty information released

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

Summary

The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to protect resident medications from misappropriation on one of four medication carts, resulting in missing controlled substances for four residents. The facility’s abuse, neglect, and exploitation policy defines misappropriation of resident property as the deliberate misplacement, exploitation, or wrongful use of a resident’s belongings or money without the resident’s consent. On a specific date, during the 7:00 PM shift change narcotic count, staff identified that multiple doses of Percocet and Norco (hydrocodone-acetaminophen) were missing from the narcotic box on a single medication cart. Prior to this discovery, the assigned LPN had confirmed that the narcotic count was correct earlier in the day. The events leading to the deficiency included the LPN giving her medication cart narcotic keys to an RN while she left the area to perform a urine specimen collection. The LPN did not complete a narcotic count before or after transferring the keys, which was not in accordance with facility expectations for key control and chain of custody. When the LPN returned, she observed the medication cart in the nurses’ station and unlocked. The RN later confirmed that she had moved the cart into the nurses’ station but denied administering any medications during the time she had possession of the keys. During the subsequent 7:00 PM narcotic count, discrepancies were identified, and a search of the cart and nurses’ station did not locate the missing medications. Record review showed that four residents’ controlled medication logs required corrections to reflect missing tablets. One resident with dementia had an order for oxycodone-acetaminophen 5-325 mg every 12 hours as needed for pain; the narcotic log initially showed a remaining balance of 20 tablets after a documented administration, but was later corrected to 16 tablets to account for four missing tablets. A second resident with COPD had an order for oxycodone-acetaminophen 10-325 mg every eight hours as needed; the log was corrected from a remaining balance of five tablets to four, indicating one missing tablet. A third resident with dysphagia had an order for hydrocodone-acetaminophen 5-325 mg every 24 hours as needed; the log showed two tablets on hand after the resident returned from pass with no administrations documented, and was later corrected to zero, indicating two missing tablets. A fourth resident with type 2 diabetes mellitus with diabetic neuropathy had an order for hydrocodone-acetaminophen 7.5-325 mg every six hours as needed; the log was corrected from a remaining balance of eight tablets to seven, indicating one missing tablet. These discrepancies, combined with the unsecured cart and improper key transfer without counts, led to the determination that resident medications were not protected from misappropriation.

Penalty

No penalty information released

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

Summary

The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to provide adequate supervision and prevent elopement for two residents with known wandering and elopement risk. Both residents were ambulatory, frequently walked throughout the facility together, and were known to staff as wanderers. Each resident had a diagnosis of dementia with severe cognitive deficits documented on their MDS assessments, and both had Wander/elopement alarms (wander guard bracelets) in place and used daily. The facility’s elopement/wandering policy stated that residents who are incapable of adequately protecting themselves and unable to determine when they are at risk for harm by wandering out of the facility should be placed on the resident security system to ensure safety. On the day of the incident, video surveillance later reviewed by the Administrator showed that a visitor entered an exit door on the B Unit at approximately 6:20 PM. The two residents at risk for elopement approached the door, and the visitor held the door open, allowing them to walk out of the building. The residents were wearing wander guard bracelets, and when they exited, the door alarm sounded. A nurse responded immediately to the alarm, exited the facility, and went down the walkway but did not see the residents. Staff were then alerted that the residents were missing, and a facility-wide search was initiated. Staff interviews and the facility’s documentation confirmed that the residents had previously been observed walking together throughout the facility and approaching doors, including the exit door involved in the incident. The Administrator reported that review of the video showed the two residents had approached the same door together two or three times prior to the elopement event. Despite their known patterns of wandering, severe cognitive impairment, and prior door-approach behavior, the residents were able to exit the facility unnoticed and unsupervised when the visitor held the door open. Staff ultimately located the residents across a four-lane high-capacity highway approximately 528 feet from the exit door and returned them to the facility, where body audits and assessments documented no injuries and intermittent confusion. The State Agency determined that the facility’s failure to provide adequate supervision to prevent the elopement of these residents, who had exhibited exit-seeking behaviors, placed them and other residents at risk for wandering and elopement in a situation likely to cause serious injury, harm, impairment, or death and cited the facility at F689 with Immediate Jeopardy and Substandard Quality of Care. The residents’ medical records and elopement reports documented that both were confused, had impaired memory, and were identified as wanderers. One resident had a BIMS score of 3 and the other a BIMS score of 0, both indicating severe cognitive deficits. Progress notes and elopement reports recorded that staff were notified when the residents were not on the unit and could not be located, that all staff were engaged in searching, and that the residents were ultimately found outside and assisted back into the building. Interviews with CNAs and an LPN described hearing a Code W called, running outside, and seeing the residents across the street after they had crossed the four-lane highway. The DON acknowledged that the residents were always walking in the facility, often together, and that they had wandered to doors and looked out, and agreed that increased monitoring and not allowing visitors to have door codes could have prevented the residents from leaving the building.

Removal Plan

• Conducted a facility search.
• Notified police of missing residents.
• Director of Nursing interviewed staff and residents.
• Notified the Medical Director and residents’ families.
• Administrator and Director of Nursing checked the wander guard system and facility doors to ensure proper functioning.
• Returned Resident #1 and Resident #2 to the facility.
• Completed an incident report.
• Completed an emergency Quality Assurance meeting.
• Initiated in-service training for all staff on the elopement policy, including a quiz to validate comprehension, and required staff (including contract staff) to complete the in-service before working their next scheduled shift, with Administrator monitoring compliance.
• Responded immediately to the door alarm by sending staff outside to locate residents and notifying additional staff to assist with the search.
• Reviewed video surveillance and confirmed a visitor held the door open allowing residents to exit.
• Held an emergency Quality Assurance meeting with the Medical Director, Director of Nursing, Administrator, Regional Director, involved staff, and Infection Preventionist.
• Changed the main entry door code.
• Verified entrance door signage was in place instructing not to allow residents to exit unaccompanied.
• Identified residents at risk for elopement and ensured elopement bracelets/transmitters were functional and doors were locking appropriately.
• Reviewed care plans for residents at risk for elopement.
• Completed body audits on Resident #1 and Resident #2.
• Conducted audits verifying resident location, elopement risk, and wander guard bracelet function.
• Medical Records updated care profiles of residents at risk for wandering.
• Assistant Administrator began audits of all doors for function and security.
• Provided in-services on elopement policy and procedure, Resident Rights, and incident and accident reporting.
• Conducted elopement drills on each shift.
• Implemented monitoring systems to sustain compliance.
• Director of Nursing to monitor wander guard system checks three times weekly for four weeks or until substantial compliance is attained.
• Director of Nursing to monitor resident behavior for elopement attempts via incident reports, observations, and communications weekly for four weeks or until substantial compliance is attained.
• Quality Assurance Committee to meet for four weeks to review compliance with the plan of action, then continue routine Quality Assurance monitoring if no further concerns are noted.
• Administrator to hold follow-up Quality Assurance meetings monthly for two months then quarterly thereafter to ensure sustained compliance.
• Updated entry screening kiosk to include an additional reminder and attestation to ensure resident safety, requiring visitors to agree that no resident comes in or out with them and triggering a staff alert if the visitor refuses.
• Administration spoke directly with the visitor to confirm visitor policies and procedures.

Penalty

No penalty information released

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

Summary

The facility failed to provide adequate supervision to prevent a cognitively impaired resident with a history of wandering from exiting the building unattended. The resident had diagnoses including dementia with agitation and a BIMS score of three, indicating severe cognitive impairment. The resident had been readmitted from a geriatric psychiatric hospitalization and was known by the DON to have a history of wandering. Despite this, the interdisciplinary team had previously determined that the resident was not at risk for elopement, and no elopement interventions such as a wander guard were in place at the time of the incident. On the day of the event, a visitor observed the resident standing near the front door and exited the facility without realizing the resident followed him outside. Staff later became aware that the resident was missing, and an LPN assisted in locating the resident. A CNA ultimately found the resident outside on the front porch and returned the resident to the facility, with the investigation determining the resident had been outside unattended for approximately five minutes. Staff interviews confirmed that the resident ambulated in the halls and had not previously attempted to exit the building, and that the resident was only reassessed and provided with a wander guard after the incident.

Penalty

No penalty information released

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

Summary

The facility failed to develop a comprehensive person-centered care plan for a resident with pressure injuries. The facility’s undated Care Plan Policy and Procedure stated that each resident’s care plan would remain current and inform staff of needs, strengths, goals, and approaches, and that a comprehensive person-centered care plan would be completed as needed. Record review showed that the resident was admitted with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus with ketoacidosis without coma and, per the Discharge MDS with an ARD of 1/19/26, had a BIMS score of 12 indicating moderately impaired cognition. Section M of the MDS documented two unstageable pressure injuries presenting as deep tissue injuries (DTIs). Physician orders dated 12/10/25 directed treatment to right and left DTI pressure ulcers. Despite these documented DTIs and treatment orders, review of the resident’s comprehensive care plan revealed no care plan addressing the DTIs on the left and right heels, which was inconsistent with the physician orders. During interviews, two LPNs responsible for MDS and care plan completion confirmed that the care plan did not include the DTIs and stated that care plans are developed based on the MDS and physician orders, and that audits comparing orders to care plans are done periodically but this had been missed. The DON stated her expectation that the wound care nurse update the care plan with new wound care treatment orders. An RN reported she could update care plan interventions but had not been trained to develop a new focused care plan and had not added the physician’s DTI treatment orders to the care plan, and she was not aware it was her responsibility to do so.

Penalty

No penalty information released

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

Summary

The facility failed to prevent misappropriation of resident property when a controlled substance prescribed for a resident was left unattended and subsequently went missing. Facility policies on abuse and neglect defined misappropriation of resident property to include missing prescription medications or diversion of resident medications, including controlled substances, and the Medication-Controlled Substances policy required that only authorized licensed nursing and pharmacy personnel have access to controlled medications, that all controlled substances be stored in a locked cabinet or compartment, and that accurate accountability of all controlled drugs be maintained. Despite these policies, a pharmacy courier delivered thirty Hydrocodone/Acetaminophen 10-325 mg tablets for a resident with a left femur fracture, and the medication was signed for by an LPN but was not signed onto the narcotic accountability record, was not documented on the narcotic box package count, and could not be located. The resident, who was cognitively intact with a BIMS score of 15 and had a physician’s order for Hydrocodone/Acetaminophen, was later informed that the tablets delivered had been lost. Interviews revealed that one LPN received the blister pack of thirty Hydrocodone/Acetaminophen tablets from another LPN and placed it on the nurses’ station before leaving the area, leaving the controlled medication unattended. Both LPNs reported being in the medication room while the medication remained unattended at the nurses’ station. The DON reported being notified that the medication was missing and that an investigation confirmed the medication could not be located and had been left unattended, and the Administrator confirmed staff failed to ensure controlled medications were secured and accessible only to authorized personnel and that the facility was unable to determine the location of the missing medication.

Penalty

No penalty information released

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

Summary

The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to store and secure medications, including controlled substances, in accordance with professional standards and manufacturer instructions. For Resident #1, who was admitted with a left femur fracture and was cognitively intact with a BIMS score of 15, the physician ordered Hydrocodone-Acetaminophen 10-325 mg tablets. A facility investigation documented that a pharmacy courier delivered 30 tablets of this controlled medication, which were received and signed for by an LPN but were never documented in the narcotic count system and were later unable to be located. One LPN reported that after receiving the Hydrocodone-Acetaminophen from another LPN, she left the medication unattended at the nurses’ station while she completed other tasks instead of immediately securing it in the locked medication cart. The LPN who initially received the medication from the courier confirmed that the controlled medication had not been immediately secured in the locked cart following delivery. For Resident #3, who was admitted with heart disease and had a BIMS score of 10 indicating moderately impaired cognition, the physician ordered Lorazepam (Ativan) oral concentrate. The narcotic record showed that two containers of Lorazepam were signed into the narcotic record on the date of admission. Manufacturer prescribing information for the Lorazepam oral concentrate specified that it must be protected from light and stored refrigerated at 36–46°F. During a controlled drug count, surveyors observed that two bottles of Lorazepam oral concentrate for this resident were stored in the locked medication cart rather than in a refrigerator, despite the label instructions requiring refrigeration. One LPN confirmed the manufacturer’s storage instructions on the label but was unsure why the medication had not been refrigerated, and another LPN acknowledged awareness that the medication required refrigeration but confirmed it had been stored in the medication cart instead of the designated medication refrigerator.

Penalty

No penalty information released

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

Summary

The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to provide required written notice of an involuntary discharge, including appeal rights, and to obtain a physician’s discharge order before refusing readmission of a resident following a hospital transfer. Facility policy titled “Transfer Form” stated that it is the policy of the facility to provide a completed and accurate transfer form to residents transferred or discharged from the facility, and the policy titled “Appealing a Transfer or Discharge Notice” stated that residents have the right to appeal transfer or discharge notices and, upon notice of transfer or discharge, will be provided with a statement of their right to appeal. Record review showed that the resident, admitted with hemiplegia and hemiparesis following cerebral infarction, left the facility by facility van to be admitted to a psychiatric hospital for evaluation. Progress notes dated several days after the transfer documented that the resident had been discharged from the facility due to aggressive behavior and that, per conversation with the psychiatric hospital, the Administrator and Social Services Director would assist in finding alternative placement and home health if needed. Documentation further indicated that, due to threats made, the facility stated it was unable to meet the resident’s needs and communicated with the resident’s family that the resident would not be allowed to return. During interview, the Administrator confirmed that neither the resident nor the family was provided a formal involuntary discharge notice or information on appeal rights and that no physician order for discharge could be located, acknowledging that the formal notice, appeal rights, and physician order should have been obtained prior to discharge.

Penalty

No penalty information released

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

Summary

The facility failed to ensure that grievances voiced through the Resident Council regarding food quality and temperature were thoroughly investigated, addressed, and resolved. Resident Council minutes over multiple months documented repeated complaints that weekend food was "bad," tasted sweet, and that food was cold by the time it reached residents. Additional concerns included insufficient ice in water and tea, hard breakfast biscuits and toast, and cold grits. Although the facility’s grievance policy stated that residents and families could voice grievances without reprisal and that the facility would make prompt efforts to resolve grievances, there was no documentation that the initial complaint about weekend food quality was addressed, and subsequent complaints continued without evidence of thorough investigation or resolution. Resident Council Department Response Forms showed limited actions, such as placing food in containers to maintain temperature, conducting an in‑service for dietary staff, sending food out faster, and instructing staff to pass trays promptly, but there was no documentation of monitoring, follow‑up, or evaluation of whether these measures were effective. Residents interviewed, all cognitively intact per their MDS BIMS scores, consistently reported that the food remained cold and did not taste good, with one resident noting that staff would reheat food only if requested. The Dietary Manager acknowledged awareness of the complaints and stated he had spoken with weekend staff and made changes like replacing tray carts and providing guidance on food preparation, but confirmed there was no documentation of ongoing monitoring or additional interventions. Social Services and the Administrator both acknowledged awareness of the complaints and that additional follow‑up and resolution efforts should have occurred, yet no evidence of such follow‑up was present in the records.