Crestview Health & Rehabilitation
Inspection history, citations, penalties and survey trends for this long-term care facility in Mooresville, North Carolina.
- Location
- 752 E Center Avenue, Mooresville, North Carolina 28115
- CMS Provider Number
- 345179
- Inspections on file
- 28
- Latest survey
- September 11, 2025
- Citations (last 12 mo.)
- 8
Citation history
Health deficiencies cited at Crestview Health & Rehabilitation during CMS and state inspections, most recent first.
The facility did not ensure that advance directive documentation was accurate and complete for several residents. In multiple cases, code status information was inconsistent between paper and electronic records, and MOST forms were missing required signatures or lacked proper documentation of verbal consent. These deficiencies were identified through record review and staff interviews, involving residents with varying cognitive abilities and complex medical histories.
Four residents with respiratory conditions were observed receiving supplemental oxygen therapy without required cautionary signage posted outside their rooms. Multiple staff interviews revealed confusion about responsibility for posting the signs, and the DON confirmed that the facility had run out of oxygen signs, resulting in the deficiency.
Expired milk was found in both the walk-in and reach-in refrigerators, including opened and unopened gallons and an individual carton, all past their expiration dates and available for use. Dietary staff were responsible for daily checks, but the expired items were overlooked by both aides and the Dietary Manager, contrary to facility expectations for food safety.
A resident with multiple diagnoses had side rails installed on their bed without completion of the required initial side rail assessment. Documentation and staff interviews confirmed that the assessment was not performed prior to installation, and there was confusion among staff regarding responsibility for ensuring the assessment was completed.
A Wound Nurse failed to follow Enhanced Barrier Precautions and hand hygiene protocols during wound care for a resident with chronic wounds. The nurse did not don a gown as required, and did not consistently change gloves or perform hand hygiene between wound sites, despite facility policy and posted instructions. The DON confirmed that these protocols were expected for residents requiring EBP.
Two residents experienced accidents due to failures in following care plans and safe transfer protocols. One resident, dependent on staff for bed mobility, fell from an elevated bed during incontinent care provided by a single CNA, resulting in a femur fracture. Another resident suffered a skin tear above the eye when two CNAs attempted to reposition him in a chair while still attached to a mechanical lift, causing the lift to tip and graze his face.
A resident sustained a skin tear above the eye from a mechanical lift handle during a transfer performed by two nurse aides. Although the injury was promptly treated by a nurse, there was no documentation or evidence that the resident's representative was notified of the incident, as required. The incident report sections for family notification were left blank, and staff interviews confirmed that notification did not occur.
A resident with a history of falls and multiple diagnoses, including Parkinson’s disease and dementia, did not have a fall mat placed at the bedside as required by the care plan. Observations confirmed the absence of the fall mat, and staff interviews revealed gaps in communication and awareness of the intervention among nursing staff, despite established protocols for sharing care information.
A resident with physical limitations was subjected to abuse by another resident, who covered her mouth and pinched her nose, causing distress. The incident was witnessed by nurses during a shift change, who intervened to stop the behavior. Despite the residents being in a relationship, the facility failed to provide adequate supervision, leading to a deficiency in protecting the resident from abuse.
A facility failed to implement its abuse policy when an incident involving two residents was not reported or investigated as required. During a shift change, a nurse observed one resident covering the mouth and pinching the nose of another, causing distress. The incident was reported internally, but the Administrator did not perceive it as abuse and failed to notify the State Agency, APS, or law enforcement, as mandated by the facility's policy.
A resident experienced sudden cardiac arrest, and the facility's staff, including two nurse aides, were found to be inadequately trained in CPR and emergency response. The nurse aides lacked proper certification and orientation, leading to ineffective CPR administration without a backboard. The facility's training program was insufficient, contributing to the deficiency.
A resident in a LTC facility experienced sudden cardiac arrest, and CPR was initiated by three nurse aides without a backboard, compromising the effectiveness of chest compressions. Two aides were not CPR certified, and compressions were inadequate. EMS questioned the absence of a backboard, which was only placed after their arrival. Staff interviews revealed gaps in training and awareness of equipment location.
A resident experienced severe pain after a fall, resulting in a fracture, but was not immediately transferred to the hospital due to an advanced directive. The facility failed to manage the resident's pain effectively, as staff did not adequately assess or document the pain levels, nor did they communicate the severity to the on-call provider. This led to a delay in hospital transfer and highlighted deficiencies in the facility's care practices.
A resident experienced neglect and inadequate pain management after a fall in an LTC facility. The resident was not comprehensively assessed before being moved, and EMS was canceled due to an advance directive. Despite severe pain, the resident received insufficient pain relief, and an x-ray later revealed a femur fracture, leading to hospital transfer.
The facility failed to properly assess and respond to two residents' conditions, leading to delays in medical care. One resident was moved after a fall without a proper assessment, despite signs of injury, and EMS was canceled based on an advance directive. Another resident with respiratory failure was not promptly evaluated after an abnormal chest x-ray, leading to a delayed hospital transfer. These incidents highlight inadequate assessment and communication protocols.
A resident with a history of aggression and psychiatric issues was not readmitted to the facility after hospitalization, despite being cleared by psychiatric services. The facility failed to follow the bed-hold policy, resulting in the resident remaining in the ED for an extended period before being discharged to an unsafe environment with elderly parents unable to care for him.
The facility's Medical Director was not familiar with the CPR and Emergency Response protocols, despite being responsible for implementing resident care policies. The MD instructed the facility to call EMS before contacting her, but was not informed of these critical protocols, potentially affecting all residents.
The facility failed to ensure accurate documentation and communication of advance directives for several residents, leading to discrepancies in their code status records. Issues included missing paperwork, conflicting care plan information, and incomplete documentation due to communication barriers with residents' families or guardians.
The facility failed to provide proper respiratory care for three residents, including not administering oxygen as ordered, not cleaning oxygen concentrators, and not posting necessary oxygen signage. One resident with COPD was found without oxygen multiple times, and their concentrator was dusty. Another resident had no signage indicating oxygen use, and a third resident's concentrator filters were not cleaned, with no signage posted. Staff interviews revealed a lack of awareness and adherence to protocols.
The facility failed to secure medications properly, with insulin pens left unattended on medication carts and expired medications found in storage. Nurses admitted to oversights, including leaving controlled substances unlocked and being unaware of procedures for expired items. The DON confirmed that medications should be double-locked and regularly checked.
The facility failed to maintain an effective pest control program, resulting in a fly infestation in resident rooms. Observations showed flies landing on beds and residents, with open food containers and bodily fluids attracting them. Staff were aware of the issue, and the Maintenance Director attempted to address it with an air curtain and chemical sprays. However, the problem persisted, and the pest control technician recommended additional measures. The DON and Administrator were aware of the issue, but the facility had not fully identified its extent.
A resident was found to have multiple medications in her room without a proper assessment or physician order to self-administer them. Despite being cognitively intact, the facility failed to evaluate her ability to manage her medications, as required by policy. Staff interviews revealed a misunderstanding of the policy, and the medications were removed from the resident's room before her discharge.
The facility failed to accurately code the MDS for anticoagulants and PASRR information for three residents. One resident with mental health diagnoses was not coded for a Level II PASRR, another resident prescribed apixaban was not coded for anticoagulant use, and a third resident was incorrectly coded for a Level I PASRR. The MDS Nurse confirmed these errors, and the DON and Administrator acknowledged a lack of familiarity with MDS coding requirements.
A facility failed to update a care plan for a resident with cerebral vascular accident and dementia, resulting in conflicting information about smoking supervision. The resident's care plan indicated both supervised and unsupervised smoking, despite a screening showing they could smoke independently. The social worker responsible admitted to the error, and the DON expected accurate reflection of the resident's smoking ability.
A resident with multiple psychiatric diagnoses was prescribed a PRN psychotropic medication without a required stop date or indication for use beyond 14 days. The facility also failed to monitor for side effects of psychotropic medications, despite the resident being on several such medications. Staff interviews revealed challenges in managing the resident's behaviors, but documentation and monitoring practices were insufficient.
A resident with respiratory failure and severe cognitive impairment did not have ordered lab tests collected due to a failure in communication and documentation by nursing staff. The tests were ordered due to increased confusion, but the provider was not informed of the inability to obtain the results. The DON confirmed the oversight and the need for provider notification.
The facility failed to implement its abuse policy when two residents were involved in an incident where one resident covered the other's mouth and pinched her nose, causing distress. Despite the severity, the Administrator did not report the incident as abuse, nor were the required notifications made to the State Agency, APS, or law enforcement. This oversight resulted in a deficiency in compliance with the facility's abuse policy.
A resident's bank card was reported missing and used without consent. The DON completed the initial report and notified the police, but failed to submit the 5-day Investigation Report to the State Agency. The Administrator, new to the position, was aware of the requirement but not involved at the time.
A resident with a history of suicidal ideation was admitted with multiple mental health diagnoses but was not care planned for suicidal ideation. Despite being cognitively intact and exhibiting depressive symptoms, the care plan did not address these risks. The resident later self-harmed and was hospitalized, revealing a lack of awareness and oversight among facility staff.
The facility failed to provide adequate nail care for a dependent resident with severe cognitive impairment, resulting in long, dirty fingernails. Additionally, another resident, who required assistance with personal hygiene, did not receive a haircut since December 2023 due to the absence of a beautician and lack of a clear plan to address grooming needs. Staff interviews revealed a lack of awareness and protocol for addressing these deficiencies.
A resident fell during a transfer due to inadequate training on slide board use, and another resident did not receive required quarterly smoking assessments. The facility failed to ensure staff were trained on specific transfer techniques for a resident with behavioral issues, leading to a fall. Additionally, a resident with a history of CVA and dementia did not receive timely smoking assessments, despite being deemed a safe smoker previously.
A resident with urinary retention had an unsecured indwelling catheter, observed multiple times without being anchored, causing discomfort. Staff interviews revealed a lack of communication and responsibility for securing the catheter, despite care plan requirements. The DON stated catheters should be anchored to prevent tension and displacement.
The facility reported a medication error rate of 11.11%, exceeding the acceptable threshold of 5%. Two residents were affected: one with COPD did not receive the correct dosage of Prednisone and missed a dose of Tiotropium bromide, while another with GERD received an incorrect dosage of famotidine. Errors were due to misinterpretation of medication orders by staff.
A facility failed to maintain accurate medical records when a nurse incorrectly documented the collection of lab tests for a resident. Despite a physician's order for a CBC and BMP due to the resident's increased confusion, the nurse did not draw blood and could not recall documenting the collection. The DON confirmed the documentation but was unaware that the labs were not obtained.
Failure to Maintain Accurate and Complete Advance Directive Documentation
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to maintain accurate and consistent advance directive information for several residents, as evidenced by discrepancies and incomplete documentation in both paper and electronic medical records. For one resident, the paper record contained a signed Medical Orders for Scope of Treatment (MOST) form indicating a Do Not Resuscitate (DNR) status, but the electronic health record and physician orders listed conflicting code statuses, including both DNR and Full Code. Interviews with nursing staff and management confirmed that the process for updating code status was not followed correctly, resulting in outdated and conflicting information remaining in the resident's records. Additionally, three other residents had MOST forms in the advance directive binders that were not properly signed by the resident or their representative. In one case, the form indicated verbal consent from a representative but lacked documentation of the date, time, or the identity of the person who obtained the consent. The social worker responsible for advance directives stated that she believed signatures were optional based on the form's language, and when verbal consent was obtained, she did not consistently document the required details. The DON and Administrator both confirmed that signatures and complete documentation are required for these forms. The affected residents included individuals who were both cognitively intact and severely cognitively impaired, with diagnoses such as paraplegia, chronic pain, Parkinson’s disease, chronic kidney disease, end-stage renal disease, and diabetes mellitus. The deficiencies were identified through record reviews and staff interviews, revealing a pattern of incomplete or inconsistent documentation of advance directives and code status across multiple residents.
Failure to Post Oxygen in Use Signage for Residents Receiving Supplemental Oxygen
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to post cautionary signage indicating oxygen use outside the rooms of four residents who were receiving supplemental oxygen therapy. Multiple observations over several days confirmed that oxygen concentrators were in use via nasal cannula for these residents, but no warning signs were present on their doors. This deficiency was noted for residents with significant respiratory diagnoses, including heart failure, asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), pneumonia, and acute respiratory failure with hypoxia. Staff interviews revealed a lack of clarity and consistency regarding responsibility for placing oxygen in use signs. Agency nursing staff were unaware of who was responsible for posting the signs, and some had not noticed the absence of signage. Unit Managers and nurses described a process in which the nurse on the hall was supposed to place the sign when a resident was admitted with an oxygen order, with Unit Managers attempting to double-check compliance. However, the absence of signs persisted during the survey period. The Director of Nursing (DON) and the Administrator both acknowledged that oxygen in use signage should be posted for all residents using oxygen, whether continuously or as needed. The DON stated that the facility had run out of oxygen signs and had to order more, which contributed to the deficiency. The lack of signage was observed repeatedly for each affected resident, despite ongoing oxygen therapy and clear physician orders for its use.
Expired Milk Not Removed from Kitchen Refrigerators
Penalty
Summary
Surveyors observed that expired milk was present in both the walk-in and reach-in refrigerators in the facility's kitchen. Specifically, one opened gallon of whole milk with a use by date that had already passed was found in the reach-in refrigerator, and in the walk-in refrigerator, one unopened gallon, one opened gallon of whole milk, and one individual carton of 2% milk were all found with expiration dates that had already passed. These expired items were available for use in food preparation and as fluid milk for residents. Interviews with the Dietary Manager revealed that dietary aides were responsible for daily checks of expired food, with the manager also conducting follow-up checks. The Dietary Manager acknowledged that he had overlooked the expired milk during his last inspection. The Administrator confirmed that the expectation was for daily checks and for food to be used on a first-in, first-out basis, and stated that the expired milk should have been removed on its expiration date.
Failure to Complete Initial Side Rail Assessment Prior to Installation
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to assess a resident for the use of side rails prior to their installation. A resident with diagnoses including dementia with behaviors, bipolar disorder, polyneuropathy, and anxiety disorder was readmitted to the facility and had a physician's order for 1/4 side rails to promote independence. Documentation showed that side rails were installed and in use, and the treatment administration record was signed off by a nurse. However, review of the resident's electronic medical record revealed that the required initial side rail assessment was not completed prior to the installation of the side rails. The only assessment found was a quarterly assessment marked as 'in progress' and dated after the installation. Interviews with facility staff, including the Maintenance Director, Unit Manager, and Director of Nursing, confirmed that there was no documented initial side rail assessment before the side rails were installed. Staff interviews revealed confusion regarding responsibility for ensuring the assessment was completed, with the Maintenance Director stating he did not verify assessments and the Unit Manager and Director of Nursing acknowledging the assessment was not done. The Administrator, who was new to the facility, was not familiar with the side rail policy but expected the assessment to be completed prior to installation.
Failure to Follow Enhanced Barrier Precautions and Hand Hygiene During Wound Care
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to implement its infection control policy for Enhanced Barrier Precautions (EBP) during wound care for a resident with chronic wounds. During an observed wound care procedure, the Wound Nurse did not don a gown as required by the facility's EBP policy, despite signage and available personal protective equipment indicating the need for both gloves and a gown for high-contact care activities. The nurse performed hand hygiene and donned gloves but omitted the gown, then proceeded with wound care on multiple sites. Additionally, the Wound Nurse did not consistently change gloves or perform hand hygiene between wound sites, contrary to the facility's infection prevention and control policy. Specifically, after cleaning one wound, the nurse removed only one glove, performed hand hygiene on one hand, and then continued care on another wound without changing both gloves or performing full hand hygiene. The nurse also reapplied gloves without hand hygiene at certain points during the procedure. The nurse later acknowledged awareness of the EBP requirements and attributed the lapses to nervousness. The Director of Nursing confirmed that EBP and hand hygiene protocols were expected to be followed for residents with chronic wounds.
Failure to Prevent Accidents During Bed Mobility and Mechanical Lift Transfers
Penalty
Summary
A deficiency occurred when a resident with a history of stroke, left-sided hemiparesis and hemiplegia, left above-knee amputation, and other comorbidities fell from her bed during incontinent care. The resident was dependent on staff for bed mobility and toileting, requiring assistance from one to two staff members as indicated in her care plan. On the day of the incident, a single nurse aide provided a bed bath with the bed elevated to waist height. During the process, the resident, who typically held onto the privacy curtain for support, became startled, let go, and rolled off the bed, hitting her head and reporting immediate pain in her right leg. The incident resulted in a right femur fracture, and the resident was transported to the hospital for evaluation and treatment. Interviews with staff and the resident confirmed that only one staff member was present during the bed bath, despite the care plan indicating the need for assistance from two staff members. The nurse aide involved stated that she was familiar with the resident's routine and typically performed care alone, while the Director of Nursing and other staff confirmed that the standard of care required two-person assistance for such tasks. The care plan and Kardex did not consistently reflect the required level of assistance, contributing to the failure to provide adequate supervision and safe care during the incident. A second deficiency involved another resident who was dependent on others for transfers and required a mechanical lift with two staff for safe transfers. During a transfer, two nurse aides attempted to adjust the resident in his chair while he was still attached to the mechanical lift. The lift tipped to the side, and the handle grazed the resident above his left eye, causing a skin tear. Both aides reported that the incident occurred while trying to reposition the resident, and the mechanical lift immediately settled back into position. The incident was reported, and the resident received treatment for the skin tear. The root cause was identified as a failure to remove the sling from the lift prior to repositioning, resulting in the injury.
Failure to Notify Resident Representative After Injury
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to notify the family member or resident representative of an accident involving a resident who was struck in the eye area by a mechanical lift handle, resulting in a skin tear with minor bleeding that required a wound covering. The incident occurred during a transfer performed by two nurse aides, who immediately notified the hall nurse. The nurse assessed and treated the wound, but did not document any notification to the resident's family or representative. The incident report included designated sections for recording family notification, but these were left blank by the nurse who completed the report. The resident, who was cognitively intact and had multiple medical diagnoses including epilepsy, diabetes, heart disease, and hypertension, was unaware if his family had been informed of the incident. Interviews with the nurse aides involved confirmed that they believed it was the nurse's responsibility to notify the family and that they did not make any such notification themselves. Attempts to interview the nurse responsible and the family member were unsuccessful. The former Director of Nursing recalled the incident and stated that staff were expected to complete the incident report fully, including family notification, but acknowledged that the lack of documentation indicated the family was likely not notified. The deficiency centers on the facility's failure to ensure timely notification to the resident's representative following an accident resulting in injury.
Failure to Implement Care Planned Fall Prevention Intervention
Penalty
Summary
A deficiency occurred when the facility failed to implement a care planned intervention for a resident with a history of falls. The resident, who had diagnoses including Parkinson’s disease, epilepsy, and dementia, was identified as being at risk for falls due to cognitive impairment and impulsive attempts to get up without assistance. The care plan, revised on 5/7/25, specified that a fall mat should be placed at the right side of the resident’s bed. However, during two separate observations on 6/26/25, the fall mat was not present at the designated location while the resident was asleep in bed. The bed was in the lowest position with the left side against the wall, and the head of the bed elevated, but no fall mat was observed on the right side as required by the care plan. Staff interviews revealed that a nurse aide, who was new to the facility, was unaware of the fall mat intervention and had not seen the directive in the care guide. The nurse aide stated that information about fall precautions was typically obtained from the care guide and shift change reports. The nurse on duty could not recall if the fall mat was present earlier that morning and suggested it may have been moved after the resident experienced a seizure the previous night. Both the DON and the Administrator confirmed that all nursing staff are responsible for ensuring fall mats are in place for residents with a history of falls, and that information about such interventions is communicated through care plans, care guides, and shift reports.
Failure to Protect Resident from Abuse
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to protect a resident's right to be free from abuse, as evidenced by an incident involving two residents. Resident #1, who has a history of traumatic spinal cord dysfunction, anoxic brain injury, and paraplegia, was observed being physically restrained by Resident #2. Resident #2 covered Resident #1's mouth and pinched her nose, causing her distress and difficulty breathing. This incident was witnessed by two nurses during a shift change, who intervened to stop the behavior. Resident #1 was cognitively intact and required assistance with activities of daily living due to her physical limitations. Despite this, she was left vulnerable to abuse by Resident #2, who was also cognitively intact but had no documented history of such behavior. The incident occurred in a public area of the facility, suggesting a lack of adequate supervision and monitoring of residents' interactions, particularly those in close relationships. The nurses involved in the incident reported the event to the Director of Nursing and the Administrator, who instructed them to separate the residents and place Resident #2 under one-on-one observation. However, the Administrator did not initially consider the incident as abuse, indicating a potential gap in recognizing and addressing abusive behavior. The facility's response to the incident highlights a deficiency in ensuring the safety and protection of residents from abuse by others within the facility.
Failure to Implement Abuse Reporting and Investigation Policy
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to implement its abuse policy in the areas of reporting and investigating an incident involving two residents. The policy requires immediate investigation and reporting of any allegations of abuse, neglect, or exploitation to the Administrator, State Agency, Adult Protective Services, and law enforcement within specified timeframes. However, in this case, the facility did not submit an initial report or a 5-day investigation report to the State Agency, nor did it notify law enforcement and Adult Protective Services. The incident involved two residents who were often seen together and were in a relationship. During a shift change, a nurse observed one resident covering the mouth and pinching the nose of the other resident, causing distress and a frightened expression. The nurse intervened, separated the residents, and reported the incident to the Director of Nursing, the Administrator, and the resident's representative. Despite the apparent distress of the resident involved, the Administrator did not initially perceive the situation as abuse and failed to follow the facility's abuse policy. Interviews with the staff revealed that the incident was not reported as required by the facility's policy. The Administrator acknowledged that, in retrospect, the incident should have been perceived as abuse, and the appropriate procedures should have been followed. This failure to report and investigate the incident as per the facility's policy constitutes a deficiency in the facility's compliance with its abuse prevention and reporting obligations.
Inadequate Emergency Response Training Leads to Resident's Death
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure that Nurse Aides (NAs) #3 and #4 were adequately trained and certified in cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) for Healthcare Providers, which led to an ineffective response during a medical emergency involving Resident #70. On the day of the incident, Resident #70 experienced sudden cardiac arrest, and NAs #3, #4, and #5 initiated CPR without using a backboard, which is necessary for effective chest compressions. Observations by Nurse #4 and the Staff Development Coordinator revealed that NA #3's compressions were not deep enough to allow for adequate chest recoil, prompting intervention and a switch in personnel. Further investigation revealed that neither NA #3 nor NA #4 had received proper orientation or skills competencies related to emergency situations, including CPR certification. Their training files lacked documentation of orientation or job descriptions, and NA #3 admitted to having an expired CPR certification and no training in emergency response since joining the facility. Similarly, Nurse #4 and the Staff Development Coordinator had not received orientation on responding to medical emergencies, although they possessed valid CPR certifications. The facility's orientation program was found to be inadequate, as it did not ensure that staff were trained in emergency preparedness or the location of emergency equipment. The Director of Nursing (DON) acknowledged the lack of consistent staff and oversight in the training program, which contributed to the deficiency. The absence of a comprehensive training and competency assessment system for emergency response placed all residents at risk, as staff were not adequately prepared to handle medical emergencies effectively.
Removal Plan
- The Staff Development Coordinator, Director of Nursing and Unit Manager will ensure that all staff to include nursing staff, administrative staff, dietary staff, laundry/housekeeping staff, and maintenance staff complete competency checklists based on their job descriptions for medical and clinical emergencies, medical and clinical codes and location of medical and clinical emergency equipment to ensure staff is aware of how to respond in clinical and medical emergencies. Staff will not be allowed to participate in medical and clinical emergencies without completing the competency.
- The Staff Development Coordinator will ensure all staff to include the certified nursing assistants (CNA), certified medication assistants (CMA), licensed nurses, therapists, housekeeping/laundry staff, dietary staff, social services, administrative staff, weekend staff, agency and prn staff complete competency checklists to include medical and clinical emergencies, medical and clinical facility codes and the location of medical and clinical emergency equipment.
- The Director of Nursing and Staff Development Coordinator (SDC) will educate the facility staff to include the certified nursing assistants (CNA), certified medication assistants (CMA), licensed nurses, therapists, housekeeping/laundry staff, dietary staff, social services staff, administrative staff, weekend staff, agency and prn staff on emergency responses to include how to respond, when to respond, and their role during medical and clinical emergency situations in the facility and where to find the medical and clinical emergency equipment located at the nursing stations.
- The night shift licensed nurses will complete the medical and clinical emergency equipment check list daily.
- The DON will check the medical and clinical emergency equipment and the completed medical and clinical check list weekly to ensure compliance.
- The Staff Development Coordinator (SDC) and the Director of Nursing will be responsible for ensuring licensed nurses, weekend staff, CNAs, therapists, housekeeping/laundry staff, dietary staff, social services staff, administrative staff and CMAs including new hires and prn staff will not be allowed to work without completing this education. The education will be ongoing to include new hires and prn staff. The SDC will be responsible for ensuring the education is completed.
- The Administrator will be responsible for ensuring implementation of this immediate jeopardy removal for this alleged non-compliance.
Ineffective CPR Administration Due to Lack of Training and Equipment
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure effective administration of Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (CPR) when a resident went into sudden cardiac arrest. CPR was initiated by three nurse aides without the use of a backboard, which is essential for effective chest compressions. Two of the nurse aides involved were not certified in CPR for Healthcare Providers. Observations revealed that the compressions performed by one of the aides were not deep enough to create the necessary chest recoil, and the staff had to instruct and eventually replace him with another member. The resident involved was admitted with diagnoses including Parkinson's disease, chronic respiratory failure, and a history of pulmonary embolism. At the time of the incident, the resident was found unresponsive in his room, and CPR was initiated by the staff. However, the absence of a backboard and ineffective compressions compromised the CPR efforts. Emergency Medical Services (EMS) arrived and questioned the lack of a backboard, which was only placed under the resident after their arrival. Interviews with staff revealed a lack of awareness regarding the location of the crash cart and the necessary equipment for CPR. The Director of Nursing (DON) and other staff members acknowledged that the facility's training program had gaps, and the staff involved in the CPR were not adequately trained or certified. The facility's CPR policy required properly certified staff to be available at all times, but this was not adhered to during the incident.
Removal Plan
- The Staff Development Coordinator (SDC) will complete an audit of the current CPR status of the nursing staff to include licensed nurses, certified nursing assistants, certified medication aides and agency nursing staff.
- The SDC will provide a CPR list of the nursing staff with current CPR certifications at each nursing station.
- Only certified CPR staff that are listed on the CPR list will be allowed to perform CPR.
- The Director of Nursing (DON), SDC, and nursing supervisor will be responsible for reviewing the daily staffing to ensure a CPR certified staff is working each shift.
- The facility CPR carts were checked by the Staff Development Coordinator to ensure missing supplies were replaced on the carts and both carts have back boards.
- The DON will place the crash cart checklist on nursing station #1's crash cart and ensure that the crash cart checklist is in place on nursing station #2's crash cart.
- The SDC will educate the night shift licensed nurses on completing the crash cart checklist sheet on nursing station #1 and nursing station #2.
- The night shift licensed nurses will be responsible for completing the crash cart checklists each night and ensuring the carts are stocked, and the back boards are in place.
- The Director of Nursing and the Staff Development Coordinator (SDC) will educate the nursing staff to include the licensed nurses, certified medication aides, and the certified nursing assistants on the CPR policy to include ensuring only nursing staff certified to perform CPR with current CPR certification status will be allowed to perform CPR, and making sure the back board is in place before initiating CPR to ensure that chest compressions are effective and allow for chest recoil.
- A list of the nursing staff with current CPR certifications will be placed at each nursing station.
- Nursing staff will not be allowed to perform CPR without their name listed on the CPR list and without a current CPR certification.
- The CPR list will be updated weekly by the SDC, to include newly hired and/or agency staff's CPR expiration and renewal dates.
- The Director of Nursing/Staff Development Nurse will conduct a mock Code Blue drill for training purposes on the 7am -7pm shift and 7pm- 7am shift.
- The Director of Nursing/Staff Development Nurse will conduct a mock Code Blue drill monthly thereafter.
- The Staff Development Coordinator (also a Certified CPR instructor) will begin teaching the American Heart Association CPR class and certifying staff pending their post class passing test scores.
- The class will be provided for staff whose CPR certifications are expired or staff without CPR certification.
- The Director of Nursing and the SDC will educate the licensed nurses on ensuring that the CPR crash carts are being checked daily, after use and the back board is in place.
- The night shift licensed nurses will be responsible for completing the crash cart checklist sheet each night and ensuring that the CPR crash carts are stocked, and the back boards are in place.
- The DON will be responsible for checking the CPR crash carts and reviewing the daily CPR crash cart checklist for completion weekly to ensure continual compliance.
- The Staff Development Coordinator (SDC) and the Director of Nursing will be responsible for ensuring all nursing staff to include licensed nurses, certified nursing assistants (CNA), certified medication aides (CMA), weekend, agency and prn staff receive the CPR education.
- Staff including new hires and prn staff will not be allowed to work without completing this education.
- The education will be ongoing to include new hires and prn staff.
- The Administrator will be responsible for ensuring implementation of this immediate jeopardy removal for this alleged non-compliance.
Failure in Pain Management After Resident Fall
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to provide effective pain management for a resident after a fall, which resulted in an acute fracture of the proximal left femur. The resident, who was deaf and mute, was found face down on the floor with an obvious deformity in the left hip and leg. Despite the resident's advanced directive indicating that he should not be hospitalized unless his comfort needs could not be met at the facility, the staff did not transfer him to the hospital immediately. Instead, they administered a one-time dose of Ibuprofen and continued with the scheduled oxycodone-acetaminophen, but the resident continued to exhibit signs of severe pain. The nursing staff, including Nurse #3, failed to adequately assess and document the resident's pain levels or the effectiveness of the pain management interventions. The resident was noted to be in significant pain, with grimacing and moaning, yet the on-call provider was not informed of the ongoing pain throughout the night. The resident's pain was only reassessed and documented as severe the following day, leading to a delayed transfer to the hospital for further evaluation and pain management. Interviews with staff revealed a lack of communication and failure to follow up on the resident's pain management needs. The Director of Nursing and other staff members were not aware of the resident's increased pain, and the on-call provider was not notified of the severity of the situation. This lack of communication and inadequate pain management resulted in immediate jeopardy for the resident, highlighting a significant deficiency in the facility's care practices.
Removal Plan
- The Director of Nursing and the licensed nurses will complete new pain assessments of the current residents to include review of progress notes, care plans and resident pain regiments to ensure resident pain is being managed and/or prevented. Interviewable residents will also be interviewed by the licensed nurse to ensure that their current pain regime is adequate.
- The Chief Nursing Officer reviewed the Maple Health Pain Management Prevention Plan with the Director of Nursing.
- Director of Nursing and the Staff Development Coordinator will educate the licensed nurses, certified nursing assistants (CNA), and the certified medication aides (CMA) on identifying signs and symptoms of pain, and pain management and prevention to include follow up with the provider if pain management interventions are not effective. Pain will be assessed every shift, after a fall, with changes in condition and before and after pain medication administration and documented in the medication administration record or the progress notes.
- The Staff Development Coordinator (SDC) and the Director of Nursing will be responsible for ensuring licensed nurses, weekend nursing staff, CNAs, and CMAs receive the education to include identifying sign and symptoms of pain, and pain management and prevention to include follow up with the provider if pain management interventions are not effective. Staff including new hires and prn staff and agency staff will not be allowed to work without completing this education. The education will be ongoing to include new hires and prn staff. The SDC will be responsible for ensuring the education is completed.
- The Administrator will be responsible for ensuring implementation of this immediate jeopardy removal for this alleged non-compliance.
Neglect and Inadequate Pain Management After Resident Fall
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to protect a resident from neglect by not conducting a comprehensive assessment after the resident sustained a fall with injury. The resident, identified as Resident #40, fell on 5/27/2024 and was found face down on the floor. Despite the obvious signs of injury, including the resident's left leg being internally rotated and shorter than the right leg, the staff did not perform a thorough assessment before moving the resident back to bed. Nurse #3 initially summoned Emergency Medical Services (EMS) but was instructed to cancel the call by the Director of Nursing (DON) due to the resident's advance directive, which stated not to hospitalize unless comfort needs could not be met at the facility. The facility also failed to provide effective pain management for the resident following the fall. Despite administering a one-time dose of Ibuprofen and the resident's routine oxycodone-acetaminophen, the resident continued to experience severe pain, as evidenced by a pain scale rating of 8 out of 10 and non-verbal signs such as crying, moaning, and grimacing. An x-ray performed the following day revealed an acute fracture of the proximal left femur, necessitating the resident's transfer to the hospital for further evaluation and pain management. This incident was identified as a deficient practice for one of the three residents reviewed for neglect and pain management. The failure to provide necessary care and services, including immediate medical treatment and effective pain management, constituted immediate jeopardy, which began on the date of the fall. The facility's actions, or lack thereof, resulted in the resident suffering from unmanaged pain and delayed medical intervention.
Removal Plan
- Identify those recipients who have suffered, or are likely to suffer, a serious adverse outcome as a result of the noncompliance.
- Ensure Resident #40 receives the necessary care and services from a higher level of care after sustaining an obvious injury, effective pain management strategies identified through his assessment, and implement identified services according to Resident #40's MOST form.
- Review Resident #40's medical records documentation to ensure he's receiving all necessary care and services.
- Review risk management events of falls with obvious injuries, as well as alert and oriented interviews with pain issues.
- Educate the Director of Nursing on the process at the time of an event ensuring residents receive a higher level of care for obvious injuries, effective pain management strategies implemented, and understanding MOST forms in relation to residents' immediate needs after an event.
- Review all falls/incidents in the clinical meeting to determine if the event required residents to receive a higher level of care and/or the need for additional care and services.
- Review the pain assessment conducted with each event during the clinical meeting for immediate interventions implemented and real-time effectiveness.
- Review the MOST forms to ensure facility's compliance with resident/responsible party's wishes.
- Notify clinicians of ineffectiveness of pain interventions and implement additional and/or alternative measures as indicated.
- In-service all facility staff (including contracted agency staff) on Neglect, including failing to provide the necessary care and services from a higher level of care and effective pain management strategies following an event with obvious injuries.
- Educate all new hires during orientation and scheduled contracted agency nurses prior to working their shift.
- Ensure all facility staff (including contracted agency staff) are educated.
- Administrator will be responsible for ensuring implementation of this immediate jeopardy removal for this alleged non-compliance.
Failure to Assess and Respond to Resident Falls and Changes in Condition
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to perform a comprehensive assessment and seek immediate medical treatment for Resident #40 after a fall with injury. On the night of the incident, multiple staff members responded to the resident's room after hearing a call for help. The resident was found face down on the floor, and despite signs of injury, such as an internally rotated and shortened left leg, the staff moved the resident back to bed without conducting a proper assessment or obtaining vital signs. Emergency Medical Services (EMS) was initially summoned but later canceled based on the resident's advance directive, which led to a delay in appropriate medical intervention. An x-ray the following day confirmed an acute fracture of the proximal left femur, and the resident was eventually transferred to the hospital for further evaluation and pain management. In another incident, the facility failed to follow up on an abnormal radiology report and obtain necessary laboratory testing for Resident #196, who was admitted with respiratory failure. The resident's condition worsened, showing signs of confusion and respiratory distress, but the staff did not notify the on-call provider of the abnormal chest x-ray results or the inability to obtain lab results. The resident was only transferred to the hospital after becoming unresponsive to anything but painful stimuli, where they were diagnosed with pneumonia and acute hypoxemic respiratory failure. These deficiencies highlight the facility's failure to adequately assess and respond to changes in residents' conditions, leading to delays in necessary medical care. The lack of timely communication with medical providers and failure to adhere to protocols for assessing residents after falls or changes in condition contributed to the harm experienced by the residents involved.
Removal Plan
- The Director of Nursing will review falls to ensure residents were assessed by licensed nurses identifying obvious injuries prior to being moved to determine if the resident required a higher level of care.
- The Chief Nursing Officer will educate the DON on directing the staff that call regarding falls with injury to the MOST forms and when to notify family and/or EMS.
- The Director of Nursing will educate licensed nurses on assessing resident status post falls, to include vital signs, neuro checks, range of motion, skin assessment and pain assessment, prior to being moved.
- Residents assessed with obvious injuries will be transferred to a higher level of care warranted by their MOST form.
- The Director of Nursing and clinical team will review falls in clinical meetings to ensure assessments were completed and if indicated, resident receive a higher level of care.
- The MOST forms will be reviewed/updated by the Social Workers and kept in a binder at both nursing stations.
- Staff will notify Resident/Resident's responsible party, along with the provider, on assessment findings and guidance to determine if a higher level of care and services are warranted.
- The Director of Nursing and the SDC will educate the licensed nurses to review resident MOST forms before calling Emergency Medical Services and if obvious deformity to include indications of fracture are observed residents should be immediately transferred to a higher level of care because resident's comfort needs cannot be met at the facility.
- The Director of Nursing and the Staff Development Coordinator will educate all staff to include the certified nursing assistants (CNA), certified medication assistants (CMA), licensed nurses, therapy staff, housekeeping/laundry staff, dietary staff, social services, administrative staff, weekend staff, agency and prn staff on ensuring that residents that experience falls are not moved prior to an assessment by a licensed nurse and reporting any changes from baseline immediately to the nurse.
- The Staff Development Coordinator and the Director of Nursing will be responsible for ensuring all staff to include licensed nurses, certified nursing assistants (CNA), certified medication aides (CMA), dietary staff, social services, housekeeping/laundry staff, therapy staff, maintenance staff, administrative staff, weekend staff, agency staff and prn staff receive the education.
- Staff including new hires and prn staff will not be allowed to work without completing this education.
- The education will be ongoing to include new hires and prn staff.
- The SDC will be responsible for ensuring the education is completed.
- The Administrator will be responsible for ensuring implementation of this immediate jeopardy removal for this alleged non-compliance.
Facility Fails to Readmit Resident After Hospitalization
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to permit a resident to return after hospitalization, violating the bed-hold policy. Resident #346, who required skilled nursing services, was sent to the Emergency Department (ED) for evaluation after self-harming with a soda can. Despite being cleared by in-house psychiatric services and no longer requiring acute care, the facility refused to readmit him. The hospital attempted to place the resident in 50 other skilled nursing facilities without success, resulting in the resident remaining in the ED for an extended period before being discharged home to elderly parents unable to care for him. Resident #346 had a history of aggression, depression, and suicidal ideation, and was admitted to the facility with multiple psychiatric diagnoses. The resident required maximum assistance for daily activities and had a deep tissue injury requiring wound care. The facility's care plan noted aggressive behaviors but did not address the resident's suicidal ideation. The Director of Nursing (DON) and staff documented incidents of aggression and self-harm, leading to the decision to send the resident to the ED. However, the facility did not follow up with the hospital or provide necessary discharge documentation, resulting in the resident's prolonged stay in the ED. Interviews with facility staff and the resident's responsible party revealed a lack of communication and coordination regarding the resident's return. The Admissions Coordinator and DON decided not to readmit the resident due to concerns about managing his behaviors, despite the hospital's clearance. The facility's actions and inactions led to the resident being discharged to an unsafe environment, highlighting a deficiency in adhering to the bed-hold policy and ensuring appropriate care transitions.
Medical Director Unaware of CPR and Emergency Response Protocols
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure that the Medical Director (MD) was aware of resident care policies related to Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (CPR) and Emergency Response. During an interview, the MD admitted to not being familiar with the CPR or Emergency Response protocols in the building, although she instructed the facility to call EMS before contacting her. The MD's service agreement outlined her responsibilities, including the implementation of resident care policies and coordination of medical care. Despite the MD's involvement in major medical decisions and attendance at Quality Assurance meetings, she was not informed of these critical protocols, which had the potential to affect all current residents in the facility.
Failure to Document and Communicate Advance Directives
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to provide written advance directive information and ensure accurate documentation of residents' code status in their medical records. This deficiency was identified for six residents, all of whom had discrepancies or missing documentation regarding their advance directives. For instance, Resident #81, who was severely cognitively impaired, had an advanced directive order for Full Code, but the paperwork was not completed or placed in the code status notebook due to the inability to connect with the resident's family. Similarly, Resident #83, who was cognitively intact, had conflicting information in their care plan and electronic health record regarding their code status. The care plan indicated Full Code, while the electronic health record showed a Do Not Resuscitate (DNR) order. The social worker responsible for updating the care plans admitted to missing the update, and the Physician Assistant (PA) was unsure why the paperwork was not in the code status notebook, suggesting it might not have returned from the hospital with the resident. Other residents, such as Resident #86 and Resident #72, also had incomplete or missing advance directive paperwork due to issues like impaired cognition and difficulties in contacting family members or guardians. The Director of Nursing (DON) and the PA were unaware of these discrepancies, indicating a lack of communication and follow-up in ensuring that residents' advance directives were accurately documented and accessible in the facility's code status notebook.
Deficiencies in Respiratory Care and Signage
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to provide safe and appropriate respiratory care for three residents, as observed by surveyors. Resident #40, diagnosed with chronic obstructive pulmonary disorder (COPD), was ordered to receive continuous oxygen at 2 liters per minute. However, multiple observations revealed that the resident was not wearing oxygen, and the nasal cannula was out of reach. Additionally, the oxygen concentrator was found to be dusty, indicating a lack of regular cleaning. Interviews with nursing staff confirmed the oversight, and it was noted that the resident's oxygen saturation levels were not consistently monitored, with a recorded level of 89% when checked by a nurse. Resident #45, who also required continuous oxygen therapy due to chronic respiratory failure and COPD, was observed to be wearing oxygen as ordered. However, there was a failure to post cautionary signage outside the resident's room to indicate oxygen was in use. This oversight was acknowledged by the nursing staff and the Director of Nursing, who stated that signage should have been placed upon the resident's admission. Resident #34, with a diagnosis of chronic respiratory failure, was observed using oxygen therapy, but the oxygen concentrator filters were found to be dusty and not cleaned as required. Furthermore, there was no cautionary signage on the resident's door to indicate oxygen use. Interviews with nursing staff revealed a lack of awareness regarding the policy for cleaning oxygen filters and posting signage, contributing to the deficiency. The Director of Nursing confirmed that the filters should be cleaned weekly and that the signage should have been moved when the resident changed rooms.
Medication Storage and Security Deficiencies
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to properly manage and secure medications in several instances, leading to deficiencies in medication storage and labeling. Observations revealed that insulin pens were left unattended and unsecured on top of medication carts in the 500/700 halls, with multiple staff and a visitor walking past the unlocked cart. Nurses acknowledged the oversight, admitting that the insulin pens should have been secured and locked. Additionally, an open and undated foil pouch of duoneb vials was found on the 300 hall medication cart, with the nurse unaware of the appropriate duration for keeping the vials in an open pouch. Further deficiencies were noted in the medication rooms, where expired medications were found on the shelves and in the refrigerator, including bisacodyl, melatonin, omeprazole, tuberculin protein derivative, and cephalexin. A nurse, new to the facility, was unsure of the procedure for handling expired items. In the back medication room, a controlled substance box was found unlocked, containing lorazepam gel packs, and an open vial of tuberculin solution was past its discard date. The nurse responsible for the oversight admitted to forgetting to lock the controlled substance box after counting the medication. The Director of Nursing confirmed that controlled substances should always be double-locked and that expired medications should have been disposed of during weekly checks by day shift nurses.
Pest Control Deficiency Due to Fly Infestation
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to maintain an effective pest control program, as evidenced by the presence of flies in one of the seven hallways affecting resident rooms. Observations revealed flies in multiple resident rooms, landing on beds, residents, and wheelchairs. The pest control logs from April to June 2024 indicated regular inspections and treatments, but the presence of flies persisted, particularly in rooms with open food containers and other attractants. The pest control technician noted that food and bodily fluids in rooms were likely attracting flies, and recommended thorough cleaning and possibly replacing contaminated mattresses and pillows. Interviews with staff, including a nurse aide and housekeeper, revealed awareness of the fly issue, with the housekeeper attributing the problem to open food and body odor, as well as the proximity to a smoking exit door. The Maintenance Director had attempted to address the issue by installing an air curtain at the smoking exit door and using a chemical spray provided by the pest control company. However, the air curtain was ineffective, and the door remained propped open, allowing flies to enter. The pest control technician confirmed the presence of flies and suggested additional measures, such as external fly bait stations. The Director of Nursing and the Administrator were aware of the fly problem, with the DON noting flies in her office and the Administrator acknowledging the issue after discussions with residents. Despite efforts to address the problem, such as replacing window screens and offering to deep clean affected rooms, the facility had not identified the extent of the issue as noted by the surveyor. The deficiency highlights a need for more effective pest control measures and better housekeeping practices to prevent fly infestations.
Failure to Assess Resident for Self-Administration of Medications
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to assess a resident for the ability to self-administer medications, which is a requirement for residents who wish to manage their own medication. The resident, who was cognitively intact, had several medications in her room, including an Albuterol inhaler, Fluticasone nasal spray, fiber tablets, and antacid tablets. These medications were brought to her by her sister shortly after her admission. Despite the resident's self-administration of these medications, there was no physician order or assessment conducted to determine her capability to self-medicate safely. Interviews with facility staff, including a Medication Aide and the Director of Nursing, revealed a lack of awareness and adherence to the facility's policy that requires an assessment for self-medication. The Medication Aide incorrectly believed the resident had an order to self-medicate, while the Director of Nursing confirmed that no residents, including this one, had been assessed or approved to self-administer medications. The medications were eventually removed from the resident's room, and she declined an assessment since she was scheduled for discharge soon.
Inaccurate MDS Coding for Anticoagulants and PASRR
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to accurately code the Minimum Data Set (MDS) for anticoagulants and Pre-Admission Screening and Resident Review (PASRR) information for three residents. Resident #68, who was admitted with serious mental health diagnoses, was not coded as having a Level II PASRR on the annual MDS, despite having a care plan indicating such a determination. The MDS Nurse confirmed the error, stating that someone else completed the assessment inaccurately. Similarly, Resident #196, who was prescribed apixaban for anticoagulation, was not coded for anticoagulant use on the discharge MDS, even though the medication was administered as per the physician's orders. The MDS Nurse acknowledged the oversight, noting that she did not complete the discharge assessment. Resident #346, admitted with mental health diagnoses, was also inaccurately coded on the admission MDS as having a Level I PASRR, despite documentation confirming a Level II PASRR. The MDS Nurse attributed this error to reliance on demographic information rather than the PASRR documentation. Interviews with the Director of Nursing (DON) and the Administrator revealed a lack of familiarity with MDS coding requirements, with the DON deferring to the MDS Nurse for accuracy. The Administrator expressed an expectation for correct MDS coding.
Care Plan Discrepancy in Smoking Supervision
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to update a care plan regarding smoking for a resident with a history of cerebral vascular accident and dementia. The resident was admitted with these diagnoses and had a safe smoking screening indicating they could smoke independently. However, the care plan, revised later, contained conflicting information stating the resident required supervision while smoking and could also smoke unsupervised. This discrepancy was acknowledged by the social worker responsible for the care plan, who admitted to making a mistake. The Director of Nursing expected the care plan to accurately reflect the resident's ability to smoke unsupervised.
Deficiency in Psychotropic Medication Management
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to adhere to regulations regarding the use of psychotropic medications for a resident, specifically concerning the lack of a stop date or indication for extending a PRN order beyond 14 days. Resident #32, who was admitted with diagnoses including antianxiety disorder, bipolar disorder, depression, and schizoaffective disorder, was prescribed a compound lorazepam gel to be applied topically every 4 hours as needed for agitation. However, the order did not include a stop date or an indication for use beyond 14 days, which is a requirement for PRN psychotropic medications. This oversight was acknowledged by the Consultant Pharmacist, Physician Assistant, and Director of Nursing during interviews. Additionally, the facility did not implement monitoring tools for side effects of psychotropic medications for Resident #32, despite the resident being on multiple psychotropic medications since admission. The resident's care plan included interventions for monitoring adverse reactions, but the Medication Administration Records (MAR) from November 2023 through June 2024 showed no documentation of such monitoring. The Director of Nursing confirmed the absence of monitoring tools on the MARs, and the Consultant Pharmacist admitted to not using specific monitoring tools, instead relying on psychiatry and PA notes during monthly reviews. Interviews with staff revealed that Resident #32 exhibited verbal and physical behaviors, and there were challenges in managing her medications due to her fluctuating moods and behaviors. The Medical Director and Social Worker described the resident's behaviors and the facility's attempts to manage them, including psychiatry referrals and talk therapy. However, the lack of proper documentation and monitoring of psychotropic medication side effects indicates a deficiency in the facility's medication management practices.
Failure to Notify Provider of Unobtained Lab Tests
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to notify the medical provider that the ordered laboratory tests were not obtained for a resident who was admitted with a diagnosis of respiratory failure and was severely cognitively impaired. The physician had ordered a Complete Blood Count (CBC) and Basic Metabolic Panel (BMP) due to increased confusion observed by the resident's family. However, there was no documentation in the progress notes indicating that the medical provider was informed of the laboratory results or the inability to obtain them. Nurse #6, who was on duty during the night shift, did not collect the laboratory samples as she was not accustomed to drawing blood at night and did not document the failure to collect the samples. Nurse #5, who worked the following day shift, assumed the labs had been completed since Nurse #6 had checked them off on the Medication Administration Record (MAR). The Physician Assistant (PA) who ordered the tests was not informed of the results or the failure to obtain them. The Director of Nursing (DON) confirmed that the laboratory tests were never collected and that the on-call provider should have been notified of the situation.
Failure to Implement Abuse Reporting and Investigation Policy
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to implement its abuse policy in the areas of reporting and investigating an incident involving two residents. The policy requires immediate investigation and reporting of any allegations of abuse, neglect, or exploitation to the Administrator, State Agency, Adult Protective Services, and law enforcement within specified timeframes. However, in this case, the facility did not submit an initial report or a 5-day investigation report to the State Agency, nor did it notify law enforcement and Adult Protective Services regarding the incident involving Resident #1 and Resident #2. The incident occurred when Nurse #1 observed Resident #2 covering Resident #1's mouth and pinching her nose, causing Resident #1's face to turn red and her head to fall backward. Nurse #2 intervened and separated the residents, noting that Resident #1 appeared frightened and in shock. Despite the severity of the situation, the facility's Administrator did not perceive the incident as abuse and failed to follow the established procedures for reporting and investigating the allegation. Interviews with the staff revealed that Resident #1 and Resident #2 were in a relationship and often seen together, which may have influenced the initial perception of the incident. However, the failure to recognize and report the incident as potential abuse led to a deficiency in the facility's compliance with its abuse policy, leaving the residents without the necessary protections and oversight required by the policy.
Failure to Submit 5-Day Investigation Report for Misappropriation of Property
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to submit a 5-Day Investigation Report within the required timeframe to the State Agency for a resident who experienced misappropriation of property. The facility's Abuse Policy mandates that all alleged violations involving misappropriation of resident property be reported immediately to the Administrator, who is responsible for ensuring that both the initial report and the 5-day investigation report are submitted to the state agency. In this case, the Director of Nursing (DON) completed the Initial Allegation Report after being informed by the Social Services Director that a resident's personal bank card was missing and had been used without consent. This initial report was faxed to the State Agency on the same day. However, the 5-day Investigation Report was not received by the State Agency as required. The DON stated that she completed the 5-day report but could not locate the fax confirmation to verify its submission. Despite being aware of the requirement, the report was not sent, leading to a deficiency. The Administrator, who assumed his position after the incident, confirmed his awareness of the requirement but was not involved at the time of the event.
Failure to Implement Care Plan for Suicidal Ideation
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to develop and implement a person-centered care plan for a resident with a history of suicidal ideation. The resident, identified as Resident #346, was admitted with diagnoses including bipolar disorder, anxiety, post-traumatic stress disorder, and major depressive disorder. Upon admission, the resident was noted to have cognitive intactness but exhibited symptoms of depression and suicidal thoughts. Despite these indicators, the care plan dated shortly after admission did not address the resident's history of suicidal ideation. The deficiency was further highlighted when the resident engaged in self-harm by cutting himself with a soda can and expressed suicidal thoughts, leading to hospitalization. Interviews with facility staff, including the MDS Nurse, Social Worker, Director of Nursing, and Administrator, revealed a consensus that the resident should have been care planned for suicidal ideation. However, there was a lack of awareness and oversight, resulting in the omission of this critical aspect of the care plan.
Deficiencies in Resident Nail and Hair Care
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to provide adequate nail care for a dependent resident, identified as Resident #40, who was admitted with severe cognitive impairment and required assistance with personal hygiene. Observations over several days revealed that Resident #40 had long, dirty fingernails with a brown substance underneath, despite being dependent on staff for hygiene care. Interviews with nursing aides and the unit manager indicated that nail care was supposed to be performed on shower days and as needed, but it was not consistently done for Resident #40. The Director of Nursing and the Administrator were unaware of the issue, highlighting a lack of communication and monitoring. Another deficiency was noted in the facility's failure to provide a haircut for Resident #78, who was cognitively intact but required assistance with personal hygiene due to decreased mobility and other health conditions. Despite expressing the need for a haircut to various staff members, including the Nurse Supervisor and the Administrator, Resident #78 had not received a haircut since December 2023. The facility had not had a beautician since August 2023, and there was no clear plan in place to address residents' grooming needs, leading to Resident #78's hair becoming long and falling into her eyes, causing discomfort. Interviews with staff, including social workers, medication aides, and nurses, revealed a lack of awareness and a clear protocol for addressing residents' grooming needs, such as haircuts. The Director of Nursing acknowledged the absence of a beautician and the difficulty in hiring one due to financial constraints. The Administrator was attempting to address the issue by reaching out to the corporation for support, but no immediate solution was in place, leaving residents like Resident #78 without necessary grooming services.
Deficiencies in Resident Transfer and Smoking Assessments
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure a safe transfer method for a resident, leading to a fall incident. Resident #346, who was admitted with diagnoses including anxiety, PTSD, and major depressive disorder, was dependent on assistance for transfers. A physical therapy evaluation indicated the resident required maximum assistance for transfers using a slide board. However, the resident's care plan did not include the use of a slide board, and nursing staff had not been trained on its use with this resident. On 7/6/2023, the resident fell off the slide board during a transfer, as the nursing assistant was not aware of the proper technique and the resident's feet were not positioned correctly. The PT Director confirmed that nursing staff had not been educated on using the slide board with this resident due to concerns about the resident's impulsive behavior. Additionally, the facility failed to complete quarterly safe smoking assessments for another resident, Resident #62, who had a history of cerebral vascular accident, hemiplegia, and dementia. The last safe smoking screening was conducted on 03/31/23, and the resident was deemed able to smoke independently. Despite the requirement for quarterly assessments, no further screenings were completed. The social worker responsible for the assessments acknowledged the oversight but could not explain why the screenings were not conducted as required. Interviews with facility staff, including the Director of Nursing and the Administrator, revealed a lack of awareness and training regarding the use of the slide board for Resident #346 and the missed smoking assessments for Resident #62. The Director of Nursing confirmed that therapy was responsible for educating nursing staff on transfer techniques, and the Administrator expressed surprise that a slide board was left in the resident's room without proper clearance for use by nursing staff.
Failure to Secure Indwelling Catheter
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to secure an indwelling catheter for a resident, leading to potential discomfort and risk of displacement. The resident, who was cognitively intact and had a diagnosis of urinary retention, was observed multiple times with an unsecured catheter. The catheter tubing was noted to rest on the resident's leg without being anchored, which the resident reported caused discomfort due to pulling and tugging. Despite the care plan indicating the need for catheter care every shift, the catheter was not secured during several observations. Interviews with staff revealed a lack of communication and responsibility regarding the anchoring of the catheter. A nurse aide confirmed that she had not provided care to the resident and stated that nurses were responsible for securing the catheter. However, she would inform the nurse if she noticed it was not anchored. The nurse and medication aide both indicated that they had not been informed about the unsecured catheter, and the Director of Nursing stated that the catheter should be anchored to prevent tension and displacement, with checks every shift.
Medication Error Rate Exceeds Acceptable Threshold
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to maintain a medication error rate of less than 5%, resulting in an 11.11% error rate. This deficiency was identified through observations, record reviews, and staff interviews, affecting two residents. Resident #99, who was admitted with diagnoses including exacerbation of COPD and allergies, was supposed to receive Prednisone and Tiotropium bromide. However, on the observed date, the medication aide administered only one Prednisone tablet instead of three and failed to provide the Tiotropium bromide inhaler, mistakenly believing the resident had it at their bedside. Resident #51, admitted with a diagnosis of GERD, was prescribed famotidine 20 mg twice daily. During the medication pass, the aide administered only one 10 mg tablet instead of the required dosage. Upon review, the aide confirmed the error, acknowledging a need to pay closer attention to medication labels. These errors contributed to the facility's medication error rate exceeding the acceptable threshold.
Inaccurate Documentation of Lab Collection
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure accurate medical records for a resident when laboratory tests were incorrectly documented as collected. A physician order dated December 25, 2023, required a Complete Blood Count (CBC) and Basic Metabolic Panel (BMP) due to the resident's increased confusion as observed by family members. The Medication Administration Record (MAR) indicated that Nurse #6 collected the CBC and BMP on December 25, 2023, at 1:24 am. However, during an interview, Nurse #6 stated that she did not draw blood that night and was unable to recall documenting the collection of the labs. The Director of Nursing (DON) confirmed that Nurse #6 had documented the collection of the labs, but was unaware that the labs were never actually obtained.
Latest citations in North Carolina
A cognitively impaired, exit-seeking resident with dementia, insomnia, gait abnormalities, orthostatic hypotension, and high fall risk repeatedly wandered at night and was known by staff to push on an emergency exit door. On two consecutive nights, the resident left the building unsupervised through a west hall emergency exit that had been manually left unlocked and with its door alarm turned off, so no alarm sounded when it was used. After the first elopement, the nurse and NA did not verify that the door’s lock and alarm were re-engaged, and no new monitoring was implemented, allowing the resident to exit again a few hours later. Maintenance later confirmed the door hardware and alarm were functioning properly and could only be disabled manually, meaning staff actions and inactions in securing and monitoring the door directly enabled both elopements.
Surveyors identified multiple failures in food labeling, storage, and sanitation, including dirty water spigots above the cooking range, a scoop stored with its handle in direct contact with rice, and unsealed croissants without open or use-by dates in a walk-in cooler. In three nourishment rooms, open food items such as a half-eaten creme pie with used forks, a reusable container of dressing, a pudding cup, a fast-food sandwich, and a milkshake were found without required open and/or use-by dates. The Dietary Manager reported that all nourishment room food must be labeled with both an open date and a 7-day use-by date and noted that new staff and nursing staff were not consistently labeling items as required.
A resident with severe cognitive impairment who used a wheelchair for mobility was observed being quickly pulled backward down a hallway while reclined in a geriatric chair, instead of being pushed forward in a dignified manner. The NA reported he pulled the chair backward because he felt it was harder to push forward, and he was unaware of any equipment problems. A SW later tested the same geriatric chair and found it functioned properly. Facility leadership, including the Staff Development Director, DON, and Administrator, stated that staff are educated on residents’ rights, dignity, and wheelchair use, and confirmed the expectation that residents be pushed forward in wheelchairs and geriatric chairs at a normal, dignified pace.
A resident with severe cognitive impairment and ADL deficits, including dependence on staff for bathing and grooming, was observed multiple times with long, stringy, visibly greasy and dirty hair despite being scheduled for twice-weekly showers. Nursing staff reported providing bed baths instead of full showers and only wetting the resident’s hair, while hospice staff provided intermittent bed baths with no-rinse shampoo and were unsure of the facility’s regular shower routine. The resident had not been to the beauty shop for hair care in over two months due to being mistakenly left off the beauty shop list. Facility leadership expected that the resident’s hair would be properly washed on scheduled shower days but could not identify when the hair was last washed, resulting in a failure to provide appropriate hair washing services.
Staff failed to follow Enhanced Barrier Precautions (EBP) by not wearing gowns during high-contact care activities for two residents on EBP. In one case, a nurse provided catheter care to a resident with an EBP sign and available PPE but wore only gloves, later stating she believed gowns were needed only when changing the catheter. In another case, two NAs used a mechanical lift to transfer a resident with a gastrostomy tube, again with EBP signage and PPE present, but wore only gloves; one NA stated he did not view transferring as high-contact care, and the other reported she did not always use gowns for transfers. These actions conflicted with the facility’s EBP policy and posted instructions requiring both gown and gloves for high-contact activities such as catheter care and transfers.
The facility failed to obtain and document informed consent for psychotropic medications for three residents. One resident with dementia and behavioral symptoms received quetiapine and divalproex, including a dose increase, without documented evidence that the responsible party was informed of risks and benefits or consented. Another resident with anxiety and depression, severe cognitive impairment, and disruptive behaviors was started on duloxetine and given multiple doses of PRN lorazepam, again without documentation that the responsible party was informed or consent obtained. A third cognitively intact resident with depression and anxiety received escitalopram 20 mg daily with no record that she was informed of the medication’s risks and benefits or that she consented. The Nurse Team Lead, identified as responsible for obtaining psychotropic consents, and the DON both confirmed that the expected notifications and consent documentation were not present in the medical records.
A resident with intact cognition was discharged to the community without a complete discharge summary that recapitulated the course of treatment. The electronic Transfer/Discharge Report contained basic demographic and clinical data but left key sections blank, including advanced directives, diet type/texture/fluid consistency, and resident-specific information on behaviors, ambulation, bladder/bowel status, feeding, and usual level of functioning, and lacked a signed acknowledgment that a copy was provided to the resident or representative. The SW reported she arranged post-discharge services, provided a medication list and satisfaction survey, and documented discharge arrangements, but was unaware that a comprehensive discharge summary with a recapitulation of the stay was required, and the Administrator confirmed the form used did not include this required summary with interdisciplinary input.
A resident admitted with bipolar disorder and receiving routine antipsychotic and antidepressant medications had only a prior Level I PASRR on file, with no Level II PASRR request submitted despite ongoing documentation of an active psychiatric diagnosis and psychotropic treatment in MDS assessments, NP notes, and the care plan. The SW confirmed she verified the existence of a PASRR before admission but did not request a Level II evaluation, believing it was only necessary if the resident exhibited behaviors, and the administrator acknowledged that no Level II PASRR request was made for this resident with a mental health diagnosis.
A resident with severe cognitive impairment and multiple comorbidities, including Alzheimer's disease, diabetes, severe protein-calorie malnutrition, chronic kidney disease, and hypertension, was not seen face-to-face by a physician within 30 days of admission as required. The resident was evaluated by a PA and later by an NP, but the Nurse Team Lead relied on a tracking report that combined all provider visits (NP, PA, and physician) without distinguishing physician-required visits. As a result, the resident did not appear on the physician-visit list when the physician was on-site and was inadvertently overlooked, a fact confirmed by both the Nurse Team Lead and the Administrator.
A resident with dementia, osteoporosis, and prior femur fracture experienced an unwitnessed fall and subsequently developed severe hip pain and decreased ability to ambulate and transfer. Nursing staff failed to document the fall on the day it occurred, did not complete comprehensive lower‑extremity or mobility assessments, and repeatedly charted pain scores of 0 despite the resident’s complaints and nurse aide reports of significant pain with movement and increased assistance needs. An NP evaluated the resident for hip pain but was not informed of the fall, did not assess the hips or legs, and treated the pain as baseline neuropathic discomfort. Over several days, PRN acetaminophen was given intermittently without consistent pain scoring, multiple shifts lacked progress notes or assessments, and aides assumed nurses were aware of the resident’s worsening pain and functional decline. Bilateral hip x‑rays were eventually ordered after internal communication about hip pain, and the report later showed an acute displaced femoral neck fracture, after which the resident was sent to the hospital and underwent a left hip hemiarthroplasty.
Unsecured Emergency Exit Allows Repeated Elopement of High-Risk Resident
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to keep an emergency exit door secured and alarmed, which allowed a cognitively impaired, exit-seeking resident at high fall risk to leave the building unsupervised on two consecutive nights. The resident had dementia with psychotic disturbance, severe cognitive impairment, a history of wandering and exit-seeking, orthostatic hypotension, gait abnormalities, and muscle weakness. Care plans and assessments identified wandering, exit seeking, fall risk, and insomnia, and interventions included a wander guard bracelet, frequent safety checks, environmental monitoring, and redirection from exits. Despite this, the resident routinely wandered at night, roamed the halls, entered other residents’ rooms, and was known by staff to push on the emergency exit door in attempts to leave. On the first night, in the early morning hours while it was still dark, the nurse noticed the resident was no longer in the hallway or in his room. The assigned NA, positioned near the west hall emergency exit, reported hearing a door slam but assumed it was a nearby resident’s room door because the emergency door alarm had not sounded. When the nurse checked the emergency exit, he found it unlocked and non-alarming, exited through it, and after walking several minutes from the back of the building to the front, located the resident standing at the main entrance. The resident’s wander bracelet triggered the main entrance door alarm when they re-entered, confirming the bracelet was in place. The nurse believed the emergency door locked and re-armed automatically and did not verify the lock or alarm status of the door after the incident or before the end of his shift, and no additional monitoring or new interventions were implemented at that time. On the second night, the same nurse observed the resident in bed at approximately 1:30 AM, but by about 2:00 AM the resident was again missing from his room. The nurse immediately went to the same west hall emergency exit and saw the resident outside through the door’s glass, walking away from the building. The door was again unlocked and did not alarm when opened. The nurse brought the resident back inside through that door and assessed him with no injuries noted. Staff interviews and maintenance inspection confirmed that the emergency exit door’s magnetic lock was controlled by a wall switch and the red alarm box on the door could only be turned on or off with a key; the system did not malfunction and could not be defeated by holding the push bar. This meant the door’s lock and alarm had been manually disabled by staff on at least one prior shift, and staff on subsequent shifts, including nurses and NAs who were aware of the resident’s exit-seeking behavior and the first elopement, did not verify that the door was secured and alarmed, allowing the resident to exit a second time without staff knowledge.
Removal Plan
- Identify recipients who have suffered, or are likely to suffer, a serious adverse outcome as a result of the noncompliance
- Ensure Resident #89 has a wander bracelet in place
- Pursue or redirect Resident #89 back into the facility if he exits
- Assess Resident #89 for acute distress or injury after an elopement event
- Administer scheduled bedtime medications for insomnia (melatonin 3 mg and trazodone 50 mg) as ordered
- Initiate an order for checks of Resident #89’s whereabouts
- Document completion of checks on the Medication Administration Record
Improper Food Labeling, Storage, and Sanitation in Kitchen and Nourishment Rooms
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to properly label, date, and store food items and to maintain cleanliness in food preparation and nourishment areas. During an initial kitchen tour with the Dietary Manager, surveyors observed visible dirt and grime buildup on three water spigots above the cooking range and found a plastic scoop left in a rice bin with the handle and bottom in direct contact with the rice. In walk-in cooler #2, a cardboard flat of croissants had been cut open, with seven croissants already used, and the remaining croissants were not resealed or labeled with an open or use-by date. The Dietary Manager acknowledged that the open croissants had been missed by kitchen staff and that the rice scoop should have been stored in its designated holder on the bin. In three nourishment rooms, surveyors found multiple food items that were open but not properly labeled with open and/or use-by dates. In one nourishment room refrigerator, there was a half-eaten creme pie with three used plastic forks left in the pan and a small reusable container of ranch dressing, both open and unlabeled. In another nourishment room refrigerator, a vanilla pudding cup and a wrapped fast-food sandwich were open and labeled only with open dates, but no use-by dates. In a third nourishment room refrigerator, a fast-food milkshake was open with no open or use-by date. The Dietary Manager stated that all nourishment room food items were required to be labeled with both an open date and a use-by date set seven days after opening, and reported that some new staff were not labeling items correctly and that nursing staff often left items in nourishment refrigerators without appropriate labeling.
Resident Dignity Compromised During Transport in Geriatric Chair
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves a failure to maintain a resident’s dignity and right to a dignified existence and self-determination when a nurse aide transported the resident in a manner inconsistent with facility expectations. The resident, who had clear speech but severe cognitive impairment and required a wheelchair for mobility, was observed during a continuous observation being quickly pulled backward approximately 30 feet down the South Hall from the day room to her room while reclined in a geriatric chair. A reasonable person would have expected to be treated with dignity and to be wheeled forward in the chair. During interviews, the nurse aide stated he chose to pull the resident backward because he felt it was harder to push the reclined geriatric chair forward and reported no awareness of problems with the chair. The social worker later pushed the same geriatric chair forward and backward in the hallway and noted no functional concerns, stating the chair worked fine and needed no repairs. The Staff Development Director reported that staff receive education on residents’ rights, dignity, and wheelchair use, including speed and footrest use, and acknowledged the resident should not have been pulled backward in the geriatric chair. The DON and Administrator both stated they expected staff to push residents in wheelchairs and geriatric chairs forward, at a normal pace, and in a dignified manner.
Failure to Provide Adequate Hair Washing for Dependent Resident
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to provide adequate hair washing services for a dependent resident with ADL deficits. The resident was admitted with senile degeneration of the brain, COPD, and heart failure, and had a care plan identifying ADL deficits due to generalized weakness, with interventions including setup for hair and oral hygiene daily and assistance with bathing and dressing. An annual MDS showed the resident was severely cognitively impaired and required extensive staff assistance for ADLs, with no behaviors or rejection of care documented. The shower schedule indicated the resident was to receive showers twice weekly on specific mornings. However, multiple observations over several days showed the resident in bed with long, stringy, visibly greasy and dirty hair that was stuck flat against her head, including on a scheduled shower day. Record review showed documentation that the resident received a shower on one of the observed days, but the NA assigned that day reported she actually provided a bed bath rather than a full shower and typically only wet the resident’s hair, noting it was becoming tangled, especially in the back. The NA stated a hospice bathing team visited a couple of times a week and used a no-rinse shampoo, but she was unsure of their specific care for this resident. The hospice nurse confirmed providing bed baths with no-rinse shampoo a couple of times a week and was unsure of the facility’s regular shower routine for the resident. The beauty shop operator and unit secretary both indicated it had been longer than two months since the resident’s last beauty shop visit, and the unit secretary acknowledged the resident’s name had been left off the beauty shop list by mistake. The DON stated NAs were expected to bathe the resident twice weekly and was unaware of when the resident’s hair was last washed, while the administrator stated his expectation that the resident’s hair would be properly washed on scheduled shower days.
Failure to Use Required Gowns Under Enhanced Barrier Precautions During High-Contact Care
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to follow its own Enhanced Barrier Precautions (EBP) policy requiring the use of gowns and gloves during high-contact resident care activities for residents on EBP. The written policy, revised on 7/26/2022, defined EBP as an infection control intervention to reduce transmission of multidrug-resistant organisms (MDRO) by using gowns and gloves during high-contact activities such as dressing, bathing, transferring, providing hygiene, changing linens or briefs, assisting with toileting, and device care or use, including urinary catheters and feeding tubes. Facility signage for EBP instructed staff to don a gown and gloves for high-contact resident care activities, and personal protective equipment (PPE), including gowns, was made available in holders at resident room doors. During an observation of catheter care for Resident #132, who was on EBP and had an EBP sign and PPE bin with gowns posted outside the room, Nurse #5 entered the room without wearing a gown. She washed her hands, donned gloves, removed the resident’s brief, and provided catheter care, then discarded supplies and gloves and washed her hands. In a subsequent interview, Nurse #5 acknowledged awareness that the resident was on EBP but stated she believed a gown was only required when changing the catheter, not when providing catheter care, and indicated she must have misunderstood the EBP instructions despite having received infection control training. In a separate observation, Resident #161’s room also had an EBP sign and PPE holder on the door, and the resident had a gastrostomy tube with tube feeding formula hanging at the bedside. When the resident returned from an outside appointment in a wheelchair, two nurse aides entered the room with a mechanical lift to transfer the resident to bed. Both aides wore gloves but did not wear gowns while completing the mechanical lift transfer. One aide stated he knew the resident was on EBP due to the gastrostomy tube but believed a gown was only required when performing “some type of care” and did not consider transferring to be a high-contact activity, even when shown the sign indicating gowns and gloves were required for transfers. The other aide, who usually worked on a different unit, stated she followed EBP signage but sometimes used a gown for transfers and not all the time, and both aides had previously received EBP and PPE training. The Infection Preventionist, DON, and Administrator each stated that staff should have worn gowns in these situations according to the posted EBP signage and facility expectations.
Failure to Obtain and Document Informed Consent for Psychotropic Medications
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to obtain and document informed consent for psychotropic medications prior to initiation or dose changes for multiple residents. For one resident with unspecified dementia, anxiety disorder, depression, and delusional disorder, the physician ordered quetiapine for anxiety and agitation and later ordered divalproex for dementia with aggression and agitation, with a subsequent dose increase. The resident’s MDS showed moderate cognitive impairment, use of antipsychotic, antidepressant, and anticonvulsant medications, and behavioral symptoms including rejection of care. Record review showed these medications were administered as ordered, but there was no documentation that the responsible party was informed in advance of the risks and benefits of starting or increasing these psychotropic medications or that consent was obtained. Another resident with anxiety disorder and depression was started on duloxetine for depression and later had PRN lorazepam ordered for daytime and bedtime anxiety with agitation. The MDS indicated severe cognitive impairment, behavioral symptoms that interfered with social interactions and disrupted care, and use of anti-anxiety and antidepressant medications. The MAR confirmed that duloxetine was given as ordered and lorazepam was administered on multiple days. However, the electronic medical record contained no documentation that the responsible party was informed in advance of the risks and benefits of initiating duloxetine or lorazepam or that consent was obtained. The Nurse Team Lead, who was responsible for obtaining psychotropic consents, could not locate any consent forms for this resident and could not recall whether the responsible party had been called. A third resident with major depressive disorder and generalized anxiety disorder, and intact cognition per the MDS, had an active order for escitalopram 20 mg daily for depression and anxiety. The MDS showed no behavioral symptoms and receipt of antidepressant medication. Review of the medical record revealed no documentation that this resident was informed in advance of the risks and benefits of initiating escitalopram and consented to the treatment. In interviews, the Nurse Team Lead consistently stated she was responsible for obtaining psychotropic consents when new orders were received from providers, but she was unable to find consent forms for the involved residents or explain what had occurred. The DON described a process in which providers communicated new or changed psychotropic orders to the Nurse Team Lead, who was expected to notify residents or responsible parties and document the notification, but acknowledged that for these residents the required documentation and consent forms were missing.
Failure to Complete Required Discharge Summary With Recapitulation of Stay
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to complete a required discharge summary that included a recapitulation of the resident's stay for one resident who was discharged to the community. The resident was admitted to the facility and had a 5-Day MDS showing intact cognition and active discharge planning. A subsequent discharge-return not anticipated MDS documented that the resident was discharged to the community. Review of the electronic medical record showed an undated Transfer/Discharge Report containing demographic and clinical information such as date of birth, admission date, age, insurance, allergies, primary contact and physician information, diagnoses, most recent vital signs, and immunization history, with a notation to refer to the MAR for current medications. However, several sections of this report were left blank, including advanced directives, diet type/texture/fluid consistency, and resident-specific information on behaviors, ambulation, bladder/bowel status, feeding, and usual level of functioning. There was also no signature or date indicating the resident or representative received a copy of the Transfer/Discharge Report. In interviews, the SW reported she was responsible for long-term resident discharges while a Discharge Planner/Case Manager handled short-term discharges. The SW described her discharge process as arranging post-discharge needs such as follow-up appointments, home health, or equipment, providing a satisfaction survey and a list of medications with administration times, and documenting a progress note outlining discharge arrangements. She stated that when follow-up appointments were arranged, records including provider notes, therapy notes, and medication lists were faxed to the receiving provider. The SW also indicated she was not aware that a discharge summary including a recapitulation of the resident's course of treatment in the facility was required. The Administrator acknowledged that the Transfer/Discharge Report in use contained some required components but did not summarize the resident's course of treatment and that a discharge summary with input from all disciplines should have been completed per regulatory guidelines.
Failure to Request Level II PASRR for Resident With Bipolar Disorder
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to submit a request for a Level II PASRR evaluation for a resident with a serious mental health diagnosis. The resident was admitted with a diagnosis that included bipolar disorder and had only a Level I PASRR documented from an evaluation completed in 2022. The admission MDS indicated the resident was not considered by the state Level II PASRR process to have serious mental illness or intellectual disability, despite documenting an active bipolar disorder diagnosis and routine antipsychotic use. Subsequent psychiatric NP progress notes in 2024 and 2026 confirmed an active bipolar disorder diagnosis and ongoing treatment with aripiprazole and bupropion. The annual MDS again indicated the resident was not considered by the Level II PASRR process to have serious mental illness or intellectual disability, while also documenting routine antipsychotic and antidepressant use and a care plan addressing psychotropic medications related to bipolar disorder. The social worker, who had been in the role for five years and was responsible for ensuring newly admitted residents had a PASRR prior to admission, verified that she checked the state PASRR system before admission and confirmed the presence of a PASRR, but did not request a Level II evaluation at or after admission. She stated she was aware of the resident’s bipolar diagnosis and psychiatric referral but believed a Level II PASRR was only needed if the resident demonstrated behaviors, and she was not aware that a Level II evaluation was required when a resident was admitted with a mental health diagnosis and had only a Level I PASRR. The administrator also confirmed that no Level II PASRR request was made when the resident was admitted with a mental health diagnosis.
Failure to Ensure Timely Physician Visit After Admission
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure that a resident was seen face-to-face by a physician within 30 days of admission, as required. The resident was admitted with multiple significant diagnoses, including Alzheimer's disease, dementia with agitation, diabetes, severe protein-calorie malnutrition, chronic kidney disease, and hypertension, and had severe cognitive impairment per a quarterly MDS assessment. Review of the electronic medical record showed no evidence that the resident had been seen by a physician within the required timeframe. Instead of a physician visit, the resident was seen by a PA and later by an NP shortly after admission. The Nurse Team Lead, who was responsible for tracking when physician regulatory visits were due, used a report from the computer system that listed the last date residents were seen by any provider (NP, PA, or physician). She manually marked which provider conducted the visit and used this list to inform providers which residents needed to be seen. Because the system did not distinguish physician visits from NP/PA visits on the tracking report, the resident did not appear on the physician-visit list when the physician was in the facility, and therefore was not scheduled for a physician visit. Both the Nurse Team Lead and the Administrator confirmed that the resident had not been seen by the physician and that this was an oversight.
Failure to Assess and Respond to Post‑Fall Hip Pain and Mobility Decline
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to comprehensively assess, recognize, and respond to a resident’s severe hip pain and functional decline following a reported unwitnessed fall. The resident had dementia, osteoporosis, and a history of femur fracture, and was previously able to transfer and ambulate with limited assistance. On the date of the unwitnessed fall, there was no nursing progress note, no documentation of a fall, no pain complaint, and no assessment of the lower extremities or of transfers, ambulation, or mobility. Nursing documentation on that date reflected a pain score of 0, and the nurse assigned to the resident did not recall any fall, pain, or assessment. The quarterly MDS showed severe cognitive impairment and a prior fall, but no pain assessment. On the following night, a nurse documented that the resident was having “a lot of pain” in her hip and placed a note in the doctor’s book, but did not call the on‑call provider, did not document administration of any pain medication, and did not record a pain score with the complaint. The nurse aide on that shift did not recall changes, but the nurse later reported that the aide had told her the resident was unable to ambulate, which was a change from baseline. The next day, another nurse documented in a late entry that the resident reported she had fallen the previous day, pulled herself up, and had not told anyone, and that the resident screamed in pain when moved. This nurse contacted the NP, who, according to the note, stated the resident complained of pain all the time; the nurse informed him that this pain was not typical. The progress note did not include a pain level, a lower extremity assessment, or documentation that the unwitnessed fall was communicated to the NP. The NP’s own note documented nonspecific hip pain, a sleepy and groggy presentation, and neuropathic/hip pain, but did not include an assessment of the legs or hips. The NP later stated he was unaware of the fall, did not assess the hips or legs, and did not inquire about changes in condition such as pain with movement or ambulation. Over the next several days, multiple nurses documented pain scores of 0 on the MAR despite intermittent administration of PRN acetaminophen and reports from nurse aides that the resident had significant pain with transfers, ambulation, and repositioning. Nurse aides reported that the resident, who had previously been able to get up and ambulate, now required increased assistance, had difficulty transferring and ambulating, and grimaced and winced in pain during movement. One aide kept the resident in bed and provided all care in bed due to pain with movement, while another aide did not report the pain to the nurse, assuming the nurse was already aware. There were no nursing progress notes on some days documenting any assessment of the lower extremities or of the resident’s ability to transfer, ambulate, or move, and some assigned nurses did not enter any assessment notes at all. A nursing supervisor received a Stop and Watch communication about hip pain, obtained an order for bilateral hip x‑rays, but did not complete a comprehensive assessment and did not document a pain level or lower extremity assessment. The x‑ray order was entered, and bilateral hip x‑rays were completed, but pain scores of 0 continued to be documented on the MAR by nursing staff, and the unit manager assigned for part of one day did not assess the resident. A nurse aide who assisted with the x‑ray reported that repositioning the resident in bed was difficult due to pain and observed grimacing and wincing. The x‑ray report later showed an acute left femoral neck fracture with displacement. The nurse who came on duty the next day found the x‑ray report on the fax machine, noted the fracture, and contacted the provider, after which the resident was sent to the emergency department. The hospital history and physical documented that the resident endorsed hip pain on arrival and was treated with analgesics and later underwent a left hip hemiarthroplasty. The NP and Medical Director both acknowledged that there was potential for complications when a fracture remained undiagnosed for several days while the resident continued to be moved, transferred, and assisted with ambulation. The DON confirmed that the facility’s investigation determined that a nurse had been informed of an unwitnessed fall and failed to report the incident, resulting in a delay in treatment, and emphasized the importance of thorough assessment and documentation.
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.



