Smithfield Manor Rehabilitation And Healthcare Cen

Penalty

Fine: $59,580

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

Summary

The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to 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

Penalty

Fine: $59,580

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

Summary

The facility failed to 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.

Penalty

Fine: $59,580

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

Summary

The deficiency involves 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.

Penalty

Fine: $59,580

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

Summary

The facility failed to provide adequate 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.

Penalty

Fine: $59,580

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

Summary

The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to 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.

Penalty

No penalty information released

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

Summary

The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to 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.

Penalty

No penalty information released

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

Summary

The facility failed to 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.

Penalty

No penalty information released

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

Summary

The facility failed to 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.

Penalty

No penalty information released

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

Summary

The facility failed to ensure that 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.

Penalty

No penalty information released

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

Summary

The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to 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.