Bishop Rehabilitation And Nursing Center
Inspection history, citations, penalties and survey trends for this long-term care facility in Syracuse, New York.
- Location
- 918 James Street, Syracuse, New York 13203
- CMS Provider Number
- 335338
- Inspections on file
- 43
- Latest survey
- May 16, 2025
- Citations (last 12 mo.)
- 0
Citation history
Health deficiencies cited at Bishop Rehabilitation And Nursing Center during CMS and state inspections, most recent first.
A resident with severe cognitive and physical impairments, fully dependent on staff for activities of daily living, was repeatedly observed with long, untrimmed fingernails containing debris. Despite facility policy and care plans requiring regular nail and hygiene care, staff did not consistently provide this care or notice the issue, resulting in a deficiency related to personal hygiene and infection control.
An LPN administered medications, including insulin and psychotropics, intended for one resident to another with dementia and heart failure, after failing to properly identify the patient. The error resulted in the resident experiencing hypoglycemia and hypotension, requiring close monitoring and medical intervention.
The facility failed to promptly resolve grievances for residents, including one with dementia and aphasia. Eleven residents reported untimely grievance responses, and a resident's family member experienced delays in resolution communication for three grievances. Despite timely investigations, the facility did not adhere to its policy of providing resolution within 7 business days, as acknowledged by the Director of Social Work and the Administrator.
A facility failed to maintain the confidentiality of 14 residents' medical records when an LPN left a Narcotics Logbook unsecured in a resident's room. The logbook, containing sensitive information, was left on a dresser for several hours. Staff interviews confirmed that the logbook should be locked in the medication cart or room to ensure confidentiality.
Two residents requiring dialysis did not receive consistent pre- and post-dialysis assessments, and there was a lack of communication with the dialysis center. The facility failed to document vital signs and treatment responses, and communication logs were often incomplete or missing. Staff interviews revealed a lack of awareness and adherence to the facility's dialysis management policy.
The facility failed to maintain food service standards, with two walk-in coolers out of service and unclean surfaces in the main kitchen. The issues were not documented or reported to maintenance, despite staff training to do so. This deficiency highlights a failure in maintaining a clean and functional kitchen environment.
The facility was operating an unapproved dialysis den with seven stations set up in a space not aligned with approved plans. The Administrator was unaware of the construction requirements and the approved plans until informed by the Department of Health. A resident was observed receiving dialysis treatment in this unapproved space, and the Administrator stated that the dialysis vendor was responsible for the operations and construction.
A resident with dementia and other conditions was observed to be unshaven, with visible chin and lip hair, despite expressing a desire to be shaved. The facility's policy required grooming according to resident preferences, but the resident was not shaved due to poor lighting during their shower. Staff interviews confirmed that not shaving a resident who wished to be shaved could impact their dignity and emotional well-being.
A resident's room was found to have black and gray buildup on the floor near the base of the wall, indicating a failure to maintain a clean and homelike environment. Despite daily cleaning protocols, the buildup was not addressed, and the resident expressed dissatisfaction with the cleanliness. The facility's Acting Director of Environmental Services acknowledged the oversight, noting that the buildup should have been cleaned during regular cleaning routines.
A resident with dementia and dysphagia did not have their Scopolamine patch monitored for placement as ordered, leading to increased secretions and coughing. The patch, crucial for managing oral secretions, was inconsistently checked, and there was no evidence of provider notification when it was not in place. Interviews revealed a lack of routine checks and communication among staff regarding the patch's status.
The facility failed to post daily nurse staffing information in a location that was prominent and accessible to residents and visitors. The information was placed in an enclosed glass bulletin board across from the elevators in the 918 building, approximately five feet from the ground, making it difficult for residents and visitors to access. Staff interviews revealed a lack of awareness regarding the proper posting requirements.
The facility failed to provide adequate pain management for three residents, leading to unresolved pain and diminished quality of life. One resident did not receive their prescribed diclofenac gel consistently, despite it being documented as administered. Another resident missed doses of Lyrica for neuropathy over three days due to a lack of communication and follow-up with the pharmacy. A third resident was not informed of their as-needed pain medication orders and was not offered these medications when in pain. These failures resulted in unmanaged pain and compromised well-being.
The facility failed to provide adequate social services for residents with mental health issues, as evidenced by deficiencies in care plans and interventions. A resident with schizoaffective disorder did not have person-centered interventions, and recommendations from a psychologist were not implemented. Another resident with a traumatic brain injury lacked follow-up on a recommended program, and a resident with dementia exhibited aggressive behavior without appropriate interventions. These failures placed residents at risk for harm, constituting Immediate Jeopardy and Substandard Quality of Care.
The facility failed to promptly notify physicians of critical lab results for three residents, leading to serious health risks. One resident was hospitalized with pneumonia and dehydration after abnormal lab results were not reviewed timely. Another resident with diabetes had a critically low blood glucose level, but no provider was notified or assessment conducted. A third resident on anticoagulant therapy had a high INR, but there was no documentation of physician orders to hold medication, and results were not reviewed until the next day.
The facility failed to ensure residents' ability to self-administer medications was clinically appropriate, affecting five residents. Medications were left in rooms without proper assessment or physician orders, placing all residents at risk. A resident with a history of substance abuse was not monitored for Suboxone administration, leading to potential misuse. Another resident had pills left at their bedside, and a visually impaired resident had eye drops left without an order for self-administration. These actions resulted in Immediate Jeopardy to resident health and safety.
The facility failed to notify physicians and resident representatives of significant changes in four residents' conditions, including medication refusals and critical health changes, leading to uncontrolled pain and hospitalization. Staff interviews revealed lapses in communication and adherence to facility policies.
The facility failed to meet professional standards in medication administration, pressure ulcer prevention, and physician notification for changes in condition. Residents were found with medications without proper assessments or orders, and some did not receive prescribed medications due to unavailability, risking serious harm. Additionally, residents with pressure ulcers were not assessed or treated timely, and assistance with daily activities was inadequate. Pain management and respiratory care were also deficient, with unresolved pain and improperly maintained equipment. Laboratory results were not reviewed or communicated promptly, leading to serious health issues.
The facility failed to provide adequate care for residents with pressure ulcers, resulting in harm. A resident with severe cognitive impairment was not properly assessed or treated for pressure injuries, leading to hospitalization with chronic sacral osteomyelitis. Another resident developed a deep tissue injury due to the facility's failure to follow orders for pressure relief boots. A third resident did not receive daily pressure ulcer care as ordered, leading to further deterioration. The report highlights systemic issues in wound care management, including inadequate documentation and poor communication among staff.
The Medical Director failed to coordinate medical care and implement resident care policies, leading to deficiencies in medication self-administration, pain management, lab services, and social services. Residents were at risk due to unresolved pain, lack of medication assessments, and delayed lab result notifications. The Medical Director had limited input in policy development, which was controlled by corporate policies.
The facility failed to provide food and drink at palatable and safe temperatures, with residents reporting dissatisfaction with the taste and temperature of meals. Observations showed significant temperature discrepancies, with hot foods not hot enough and cold foods too warm. The Food Service Director acknowledged the issues, noting that cold food was placed on trays with hot food, leading to temperature problems.
A survey found that several nurses in the facility lacked necessary competencies in medication administration, wound care, and documentation. The Facility Educator's responsibilities were not fully executed, leading to gaps in staff education and competency verification. Interviews revealed inconsistencies in training, with some nurses not receiving necessary education or observation in critical areas.
A resident with diabetes and end-stage renal disease consistently refused heparin and insulin, but these refusals were not addressed in the monthly drug regimen reviews by the pharmacists. The pharmacists conducted reviews remotely and did not check medication administration records for refusals unless it involved as-needed medications. The nursing staff did not notify medical providers of the refusals, leading to a deficiency in care.
The facility failed to maintain food storage and preparation standards, with food items in the walk-in coolers not kept at safe temperatures, leading to the disposal of perishable items. The turkey salad was improperly stored, and the main kitchen cooler was not functioning correctly, with temperatures exceeding safe limits. Additionally, uncleanable surfaces and equipment in disrepair were noted, including a rough kitchen floor and a cooler door that did not close properly.
The facility failed to manage resources effectively, impacting resident care. Residents were not assessed for self-medication, unresolved pain issues were not addressed, and mental health services were inadequate. Critical lab results were not promptly communicated to physicians, and staff training was insufficient. The administration and medical staff were not involved in policy development, leading to these deficiencies.
The facility failed to maintain an effective training program for staff, with 33 out of 36 staff files lacking documented training in key areas such as communication with non-verbal residents, resident rights, and infection control. Interviews revealed inconsistencies in training, with some staff relying on previous experience to fill gaps. The administration acknowledged the need for improved record-keeping and training beyond dementia care.
The facility failed to maintain a safe and homelike environment, with issues such as damaged and unclean surfaces, water leaks, and rodent droppings observed across multiple units. Despite having a maintenance policy, the facility could not provide work orders for these issues, indicating a breakdown in the reporting and maintenance process. Staff interviews revealed a lack of communication and follow-through in addressing these deficiencies.
The facility failed to conduct required Level II PASARR evaluations for residents with significant mental health changes. A resident with schizoaffective disorder exhibited severe behavioral symptoms without a new Screen Level I or Level II referral. Another resident with aggressive behavior and psychiatric hospitalization lacked a new Screen Level I and Level II referral. A third resident with schizophrenia had no evidence of a completed Level II evaluation despite a care plan indicating one was needed. Staff interviews revealed a lack of awareness and implementation of the PASARR process.
The facility failed to properly label and store medications, with issues found in two medication carts and three medication rooms. Insulin pens were not labeled with open dates, and refrigerators were outside acceptable temperature ranges, potentially compromising medication efficacy. Staff acknowledged the importance of proper labeling and temperature maintenance.
Two residents in an LTC facility did not receive necessary assistance with activities of daily living. One resident, with a history of stroke and dysphagia, did not receive ordered oral care, as evidenced by unbrushed teeth and an empty suction canister. Another resident, with Alzheimer's and weight loss, was left unattended during meals despite needing substantial assistance. Staff interviews confirmed these deficiencies, citing workload and staffing challenges.
Two residents at a facility were not adequately supervised or provided with effective assistive devices to prevent elopement. One resident, with a history of exit-seeking behavior, was mistakenly allowed to leave by a security guard who thought they were a visitor. Another resident, identified as high risk for elopement, had inconsistent documentation regarding their wander alert device. Staff interviews revealed insufficient training and communication about managing residents at risk for elopement.
A resident experienced severe weight loss due to the facility's failure to notify the medical provider in a timely manner and discuss potential interventions like an appetite stimulant. Despite policies requiring regular weight monitoring and prompt action, the resident's weight dropped significantly over several months without adequate intervention. Observations showed inconsistent meal intake, and communication breakdowns among staff delayed necessary actions to address the resident's nutritional needs.
A resident with chronic respiratory conditions did not consistently receive prescribed BiPAP treatment due to staff's lack of training and understanding of the equipment. The resident's care plan required BiPAP use at bedtime, but observations showed inconsistent application and improper mask use, compromising the treatment's effectiveness.
A resident with multiple diagnoses was transferred to a hospital without the required documentation and communication from the LTC facility. The facility failed to provide necessary medical records and information, including practitioner contact details and care instructions, during the transfer process. Despite the LPN Supervisor's efforts to gather paperwork, the hospital did not receive the transfer packet.
A resident with chronic pain did not have a comprehensive care plan for pain management, despite receiving various pain medications. The facility's care plan lacked documentation of pain management interventions, including non-pharmacological methods. Staff interviews confirmed the oversight, and the resident expressed concerns about not receiving pain medication due to Suboxone treatment.
A resident with hand contractures did not receive the ordered bilateral hand splints to prevent worsening of their condition. Despite care plans and physician orders specifying the application of splints on alternating nights, observations and interviews revealed that the splints were not consistently applied. Staff acknowledged the importance of splints in preventing contractures but failed to adhere to the care plan, resulting in a documentation error and improper management of the resident's condition.
Failure to Provide Adequate Nail and Hygiene Care for Dependent Resident
Penalty
Summary
Resident #145, who had diagnoses including cerebral palsy, major depressive disorder, and dementia, was observed on multiple occasions with long, untrimmed fingernails containing brown and black debris underneath. The resident was assessed as having severe cognitive impairment and was dependent on staff for most activities of daily living, including personal hygiene. Facility documentation, including the care plan and Kardex, indicated that the resident required maximum assistance with all hygiene needs and did not refuse care. Despite these documented needs, staff interviews revealed that nail care was expected to be provided on shower days and as needed, but was not consistently performed. Certified nurse aides responsible for the resident's care did not notice or address the unclean and long fingernails, even though they acknowledged the importance of nail care for hygiene and infection control. The facility's policy required nail care to be provided as needed, but this was not followed for the resident, resulting in the observed deficiency.
Significant Medication Error Due to Resident Misidentification
Penalty
Summary
A significant medication error occurred when a Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) administered medications intended for one resident to another. The LPN, who was new to the unit and working as agency staff, parked the medication cart between two residents' rooms, prepared medications for a resident with diabetes and other chronic conditions, but mistakenly entered the room of a different resident. The LPN informed the resident that medications and insulin were to be administered, and the resident consented. Upon returning to the medication cart, the LPN realized the error and immediately reported it to the Nurse Manager. The resident who received the incorrect medications had diagnoses including schizophrenia, dementia, congestive heart failure, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and was not prescribed insulin. The medications administered included both long- and short-acting insulin, psychotropic, and antihypertensive drugs, none of which were prescribed for this resident. Following the administration, the resident exhibited asymptomatic hypoglycemia and hypotension, with vital signs showing low blood pressure and heart rate, as well as fluctuating blood glucose levels. The resident was lethargic and dizzy, with intermittent confusion, which was noted as baseline due to advanced dementia. The facility's policy required staff to verify the right medication, dosage, time, and method of administration, and to ensure medications ordered for one resident are not given to another. The LPN failed to correctly identify the resident before administering the medications, leading to the error. The incident was discovered and reported promptly, and the resident was closely monitored and treated for the effects of the medication error.
Delayed Grievance Resolution for Residents
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure prompt resolution of grievances for residents, as evidenced by the experiences of 11 anonymous residents and one additional resident, Resident #127. During a resident group meeting, all 11 residents reported that their grievances were not addressed in a timely manner, and they were not provided with explanations for the delays. Additionally, Resident #127's family member filed three grievances, none of which received prompt resolutions. Resident #127, who had diagnoses including unspecified dementia and aphasia related to a stroke, had a health care proxy in place. The proxy filed grievances on three occasions: on August 7, 2024, regarding tube feed administration and other concerns; on September 23, 2024, regarding medical treatment complaints; and on November 13, 2024, regarding incontinence care. The investigations for these grievances were completed within a week, but the resolutions were communicated to the resident's representative months later, far exceeding the facility's policy of providing resolution within 7 business days. Interviews with facility staff, including the Director of Social Work and the Administrator, revealed that while grievances were investigated promptly, the communication of resolutions was significantly delayed. The Director of Social Work acknowledged the importance of timely follow-up to address concerns and prevent potential medical issues. The Administrator admitted there was a breakdown in the process and was working on improving the timeliness of grievance resolution follow-up.
Breach of Resident Confidentiality Due to Unsecured Narcotics Logbook
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure the privacy and confidentiality of residents' personal and medical records for 14 out of 29 residents on the 2 North Unit. During a recertification survey, it was observed that a Narcotics Logbook containing sensitive information, including resident names, room numbers, prescribed narcotic medications, and corresponding diagnoses, was left unsecured in a resident's room. This occurred when a Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) left the logbook on a dresser in a resident's room, where it remained for several hours. The resident was present in the room, and the LPN admitted to being distracted by an incident on the unit, which led to the oversight. Interviews with facility staff, including the LPN, a Registered Nurse Unit Manager, and the Assistant Director of Nursing, confirmed that the Narcotics Logbook should be kept locked in the medication cart or medication room to maintain confidentiality. The LPN acknowledged the mistake and stated that the logbook should not have been left in the resident's room, as it violated resident confidentiality. The facility's policy on Resident Rights, revised earlier in the year, clearly documented the residents' right to privacy and confidentiality, which was not upheld in this instance.
Inadequate Dialysis Care and Communication
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to provide consistent and appropriate dialysis care for two residents, both of whom required dialysis due to end-stage renal disease. The facility did not consistently assess the medical condition of these residents or monitor for complications before and after dialysis treatments. There was also a lack of consistent communication and collaboration with the dialysis facility regarding the care and services for these residents. Resident #14, who had diagnoses including end-stage renal disease and hypertension, required dialysis five times a week. The facility's records showed multiple instances where pre-dialysis and post-dialysis assessments were not documented. Additionally, there were missing dialysis communication logs on several dates. The facility's policy required open communication with the dialysis center and completion of a dialysis communication form, which was not consistently followed. Resident #29, with diagnoses including end-stage renal disease and type 2 diabetes mellitus, also required dialysis. Similar to Resident #14, there were numerous instances where pre-dialysis and post-dialysis assessments were not documented. The facility failed to maintain proper communication logs with the dialysis center, and there was no documented follow-up from the facility on the dialysis communication logs. Interviews with facility staff revealed a lack of awareness regarding the missing assessments and communication logs, highlighting a breakdown in the facility's processes for managing dialysis care.
Deficiency in Food Service Standards
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure that food was prepared, distributed, and served in accordance with professional standards in the main kitchen. During the recertification survey, it was observed that two of the four walk-in coolers were out of service for an extended period, and the working coolers had unclean and uncleanable surfaces. Specifically, the front walk-in cooler had food spills and debris under the shelving, and the produce walk-in cooler had several broken floor tiles, which were not smooth or easily cleanable. The facility's policies required that food service equipment be maintained in good repair and that staff report any equipment failures, but these procedures were not followed. The facility's work orders from September to December 2024 did not document the issues with the walk-in coolers or the broken tiles. The Food Service Director acknowledged that the cook's walk-in cooler had been out of service for a few weeks, and the Pull walk-in cooler had been down since September 2024. They also admitted that the broken tiles in the produce cooler had not been noticed or reported. Although staff were trained to report broken equipment, there was a lack of documentation and communication with the maintenance department. This deficiency highlights a failure in maintaining a clean and functional kitchen environment, which is essential for preparing meals for residents.
Unapproved Dialysis Den Operation
Penalty
Summary
The facility was found to be operating an unapproved dialysis den during a recertification survey. Observations revealed that the dialysis area had seven stations set up in a space that was not approved according to the facility's plans. The construction of the dialysis den did not align with the approved plans, as the wall was added at the wrong end of the corridor, and the double doors accessing the room were not changed. The Administrator was unaware of the construction requirements and the approved plans until informed by the Department of Health. Despite receiving the approved plans, the necessary construction was not completed. During the survey, it was observed that a resident was receiving dialysis treatment in the unapproved dialysis den. The Administrator stated that the dialysis vendor was responsible for the dialysis operations, including construction to meet the approved plans. However, the Administrator was unsure why the construction had not been completed or if the vendor intended to amend the plans to match the existing facility. The facility's failure to comply with Federal, State, and local laws and professional standards resulted in the deficiency.
Failure to Maintain Resident Dignity Through Proper Grooming
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure the dignity and quality of life for Resident #110, who was observed to be unshaven with visible chin and lip hair. The resident, who had diagnoses including anxiety disorder, major depressive disorder, and dementia, required assistance with activities of daily living due to severely impaired cognition. Despite the facility's policy that residents should be groomed according to their preferences and needs, Resident #110 was not shaved as desired, which was confirmed during interviews with the resident and their family member. The family member, who previously assisted with shaving, had moved away and expected the facility staff to take over this responsibility. Observations and interviews revealed that the certified nurse aides were responsible for shaving residents, typically on shower days or as needed. However, Resident #110 was not shaved during their shower due to poor lighting, and the resident expressed a desire to be shaved. Staff interviews indicated that not shaving a resident who wished to be shaved could affect their emotional well-being and sense of dignity. The facility's failure to provide this basic grooming service as per the resident's preference was identified as a deficiency in maintaining the resident's dignity and quality of life.
Failure to Maintain a Clean and Homelike Environment
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure a safe, clean, comfortable, and homelike environment for a resident, as evidenced by the presence of black and gray buildup on the floor near the base of the wall in the resident's room. Observations over several days revealed a persistent dirt shadow and grime extending 1 to 3 inches from the baseboard, which was not addressed by the housekeeping staff. The resident expressed dissatisfaction with the cleanliness of their room, specifically noting the dirt shadow around the bottom molding of the wall. The facility's policy required daily cleaning of resident rooms, including dust mopping and damp mopping of floors, with particular attention to baseboards to prevent buildup. However, interviews with housekeeping staff and the Acting Director of Environmental Services revealed that the buildup was not addressed during regular cleaning, and the last deep cleaning of the resident's room occurred weeks prior. The Acting Director acknowledged the oversight and stated that the buildup should have been cleaned during daily cleaning routines, but they were unaware of the issue until it was brought to their attention during the survey.
Failure to Monitor Scopolamine Patch Placement
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure that a resident received treatment and care in accordance with professional standards of practice, the comprehensive person-centered care plan, and the resident's choices. Specifically, the deficiency involved Resident #127, who did not have their Scopolamine patch monitored for placement as ordered. The Scopolamine patch, used to treat nausea, vomiting, and decrease respiratory secretions, was not consistently checked for placement every shift as required by the physician's orders. Resident #127 had a history of dementia and dysphagia following a stroke, which necessitated tube feeding and increased the risk of aspiration. The resident's care plan included monitoring for signs of aspiration and managing oral secretions with the Scopolamine patch. However, observations revealed that the resident was often without the patch, leading to increased coughing and secretions. The Medication Administration Record and Treatment Administration Record showed inconsistencies in documenting the patch's placement, and there was no evidence that the provider was notified when the patch was not in place. Interviews with nursing staff indicated a lack of routine checks and communication regarding the patch's status. Licensed Practical Nurse #33 admitted to expecting Certified Nurse Aides to inform them if the patch fell off, but this did not always happen. The Nurse Practitioner confirmed that the patch was crucial for managing the resident's secretions and should have been monitored and reported if not in place. The failure to ensure the patch was consistently applied and monitored contributed to the resident's increased secretions and coughing, highlighting a lapse in following physician orders and facility policy.
Inaccessible Nurse Staffing Information Posting
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to comply with the requirement to post daily nurse staffing information in a location that is prominent and readily accessible to residents and visitors. During the recertification survey conducted from December 16 to December 20, 2024, it was observed that the daily resident census and nurse staffing data were posted in an enclosed glass bulletin board across from the elevators in the 918 building, approximately five feet from the ground. This location was not easily accessible to all residents and visitors, as it was not in a prominent place such as the lobby where visitors typically enter. Interviews with facility staff revealed a lack of awareness and understanding of the proper posting requirements. The receptionist was not familiar with the census and staffing document, and the staffing coordinator acknowledged that the posting was not visible to all residents and visitors due to its height and location. The Director of Nursing was unaware that the staffing information was not posted in a more accessible location, such as the lobby, and agreed that it should be visible to all residents and visitors. This deficiency was noted for all five days reviewed during the survey.
Inadequate Pain Management for Residents
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to provide adequate pain management for three residents, leading to unresolved pain and diminished quality of life. Resident #28 did not receive their prescribed diclofenac gel consistently, despite it being documented as administered. The resident frequently reported not receiving the gel, which they stated helped alleviate their knee and shoulder pain. Interviews with staff revealed a pattern of signing off on medications before they were administered, and a lack of proper follow-up when the resident was not available or refused the medication. Resident #37 experienced a lapse in receiving their prescribed Lyrica for neuropathy, missing doses over a three-day period. The medication was not available in the facility's automated dispensing system, and there was a failure in communication and follow-up with the pharmacy to ensure timely delivery. The resident reported significant pain and difficulty in daily activities due to the missed medication, which was only addressed after the resident was sent to the hospital. Resident #64 was not informed of their as-needed pain medication orders and was not offered these medications when experiencing pain. Despite having orders for diclofenac gel and acetaminophen, these were not administered throughout the month, even when the resident reported pain levels as high as 10. The facility's documentation and communication failures contributed to the residents' unmanaged pain and compromised their well-being.
Failure to Provide Adequate Social Services for Residents with Mental Health Issues
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to provide medically related social services to help residents achieve the highest possible quality of life, as evidenced by deficiencies in the care plans and interventions for five residents with mental health issues. Resident #41, with a history of schizoaffective disorder, anxiety, and depression, did not have person-centered mental health interventions in their care plan. Despite recommendations from a licensed psychologist, the care plan was not updated to include these interventions, and there were no documented social services follow-ups after the resident exhibited behaviors such as attempting to leave the facility and expressing suicidal and homicidal ideations. Resident #126, who had a significant mental health history, also lacked person-centered interventions for their behaviors and refusals of care and medications. Similarly, Resident #153, with a traumatic brain injury and major depressive disorder, did not have the psychologist's recommendations implemented into their care plan, and there was no evidence of follow-up on the recommendation for a traumatic brain injury program. The resident exhibited aggressive behavior and medication refusals, yet there were no documented social services progress notes addressing these issues. Resident #235, diagnosed with dementia and major depressive disorder, displayed aggressive behaviors, including threatening staff with scissors, which required police intervention. The care plan did not include person-centered interventions for the resident's history of delusions and aggressive behavior. Lastly, Resident #250, with paranoid schizophrenia, did not have person-centered interventions for their behavioral symptoms. The lack of appropriate interventions and follow-ups placed all residents with mental health disorders at risk for harm, constituting Immediate Jeopardy and Substandard Quality of Care.
Removal Plan
- 100% of social work department staff educated on medically related social services.
- Post-tests reviewed.
- Staff education sign in sheets reviewed and compared to the current social work staff list with no discrepancies identified.
- Staff education verified during an onsite visit, all social work department staff interviewed to determine retention of education provided and able to accurately report content of the education.
- All five identified residents' records reviewed, and documentation reflected each had a social work assessment completed.
- All five identified resident plans of care reviewed and had updated person-centered interventions for their mental health.
Failure to Notify Physicians of Critical Lab Results
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to promptly notify the ordering physician of abnormal laboratory results for three residents, leading to serious health consequences. Resident #529 had abnormal lab results indicating possible dehydration and infection, including a high white blood cell count and high sodium levels, which were not reviewed or communicated to the medical provider in a timely manner. This delay resulted in the resident being hospitalized with pneumonia and dehydration three days later. Resident #153, who had a history of Type 2 diabetes, experienced a critically low blood glucose level of 49 milligrams/deciliter. Despite the critical nature of this result, there was no documentation that a medical provider was notified or that the resident was assessed for signs of hypoglycemia. The lab had communicated the critical result to a nurse, but the necessary follow-up actions were not taken. Resident #260, who was on anticoagulant therapy, had a high INR result indicating a risk of bleeding. The critical lab results were communicated to the facility, but there was no documentation of physician orders to hold the anticoagulant medication, and the results were not reviewed by the medical provider until the following day. This lack of timely communication and action could have led to serious health risks for the resident.
Removal Plan
- 86% of all licensed nursing staff have been educated on laboratory services.
- The remaining staff will be educated prior to the start of their next shift.
- Post-tests were reviewed.
- Staff education sign in sheets were reviewed and compared to the current nursing staff list and no discrepancies were identified.
- 100% of licensed nursing staff currently working received education.
- Staff education was verified during an onsite visit, multiple licensed nursing staff on multiple units were interviewed to determine retention of education provided and were able to accurately report content of the education.
Failure to Ensure Safe Self-Administration of Medications
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure that residents' ability to self-administer medications was clinically appropriate, affecting five residents. Specifically, medications were left in the rooms of four residents, some of which were unidentified, and there was no documented evidence that these residents were assessed for their ability to safely self-administer medications. Additionally, there were no physician orders for self-administration of medication for these residents. This oversight placed all 248 residents at risk for serious harm or adverse outcomes, resulting in Immediate Jeopardy to resident health and safety. Resident #239, who had a history of substance abuse and was cognitively intact, was not observed by nursing staff to ensure their controlled substance, Suboxone, was taken as prescribed. The resident admitted to flushing the medication down the toilet because they did not need it. Despite receiving Suboxone daily, there was no care plan or assessment for the resident's ability to self-administer medications. The nursing staff failed to monitor the resident for the required time after administration, allowing the resident to potentially hoard or misuse the medication. Resident #64, who was cognitively intact but dependent for activities of daily living, had unidentified pills left at their bedside by a nurse who assumed the resident could take them without supervision. The resident did not take the medications because they lacked something to drink, and some pills were found on the floor. Similarly, Resident #72, who had impaired vision, had eye drops left at their bedside without an order for self-administration. The resident was unaware of the medication's presence and could not self-administer the drops. These incidents highlight the facility's failure to adhere to its policies on medication administration and self-administration, leading to potential medication errors and safety risks.
Removal Plan
- Staff will be educated prior to the start of their next shift.
- Post-tests were reviewed.
- Staff education sign in sheets were reviewed and compared to the current nursing staff list and no discrepancies were identified.
- Licensed nursing staff received education.
- Staff education was verified during an onsite visit, multiple licensed nursing staff on multiple units were interviewed to determine retention of education provided and were able to accurately report content of the education.
Failure to Notify Physicians and Representatives of Significant Changes
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure timely notification of physicians and resident representatives when there were significant changes in residents' conditions, affecting four residents. One resident did not receive their prescribed medication, Lyrica, for several days due to the facility not having the medication in stock, and the provider was not notified. This resulted in the resident experiencing uncontrolled pain. Another resident refused critical medications, including heparin and insulin, for six months without the medical provider being informed, and no assessment was conducted to determine the outcome of these refusals. A third resident experienced a critically low blood glucose level, which was reported by the laboratory, but the provider was not notified. Additionally, a fourth resident exhibited symptoms such as lethargy, loose stools, medication refusal, and poor intake, yet was not assessed by a qualified professional, and neither the medical provider nor the resident's representative was notified. This resident was subsequently hospitalized with severe dehydration. The facility's policies required staff to monitor residents for changes in condition and notify the physician and responsible party of significant changes. However, these policies were not followed, as evidenced by the lack of documentation of assessments, provider notifications, and communication with resident representatives. Interviews with staff revealed a lack of clarity and adherence to the chain of command, resulting in significant lapses in care and communication.
Deficiencies in Medication Administration and Resident Care
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure that services provided met professional standards of quality in several critical areas, including medication administration, pressure ulcer prevention, and physician notification for changes in condition. Observations revealed that residents were in possession of medications without documented assessments for their ability to self-administer, and there were no physician orders for self-administration. This oversight placed all residents at risk for serious harm. Additionally, there were instances where residents did not receive their prescribed medications due to lack of availability, and the medical provider was not notified, resulting in immediate jeopardy to resident health and safety. The facility also failed to provide adequate care for residents with pressure ulcers and those requiring assistance with activities of daily living. Residents with pressure injuries were not assessed or treated in a timely manner, leading to further hospitalizations. Furthermore, residents did not receive necessary oral hygiene or assistance with eating as outlined in their care plans. These deficiencies resulted in harm and substandard quality of care for the affected residents. In addition, the facility did not maintain acceptable standards for pain management, respiratory care, and laboratory testing notifications. Residents experienced unresolved pain due to missed or improperly administered medications, and respiratory equipment was not maintained appropriately. Laboratory results were not reviewed or communicated to medical providers in a timely manner, leading to serious health consequences for residents. The lack of timely notification and intervention for significant changes in residents' conditions further contributed to the immediate jeopardy and substandard quality of care.
Failure to Provide Adequate Pressure Ulcer Care
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to provide necessary treatment and services for residents with pressure ulcers, leading to harm for several residents. Resident #826, who had severe cognitive impairment and was at risk for pressure ulcers, was not properly assessed or treated for pressure injuries. The resident developed an unstageable pressure injury to the sacral region and a deep tissue injury to the right heel, which were not documented or treated in a timely manner. This lack of care resulted in the resident being hospitalized with chronic sacral osteomyelitis and cellulitis, requiring surgical intervention. Resident #271, who had a history of stroke and diabetes, developed a deep tissue injury on the right heel due to the facility's failure to follow orders for pressure relief boots and other wound care recommendations. The resident's care plan included interventions to minimize moisture exposure and offload pressure, but these were not consistently implemented. Observations revealed that the resident often did not have protective boots on, and their wheelchair cushion was inadequate, contributing to skin breakdown. Resident #222, admitted with osteomyelitis and an unstageable pressure ulcer, did not receive daily pressure ulcer care as ordered. The facility's failure to monitor and treat the resident's wounds as per the care plan resulted in further deterioration of their condition. The report highlights systemic issues in the facility's wound care management, including inadequate documentation, lack of timely interventions, and poor communication among staff, leading to substandard quality of care for residents with pressure ulcers.
Medical Director's Failure in Policy Implementation and Coordination
Penalty
Summary
The facility's Medical Director failed to ensure the coordination of medical care with interdisciplinary teams and the implementation and evaluation of resident care policies, which did not reflect current professional standards. This deficiency was identified during an extended recertification survey. The Medical Director did not develop and implement policies and procedures to monitor the delivery of care and services to residents in critical areas such as self-administration of medication, pain management, laboratory services, and medically related social services. This failure resulted in actual harm with the potential for serious harm, classified as Immediate Jeopardy. Several residents were affected by these deficiencies. Residents were not assessed for their ability to safely self-administer medications, nor did they have physician orders for self-administration, placing all residents at risk for serious harm. Additionally, some residents experienced unresolved pain that impacted their daily functional abilities and quality of life, indicating a failure in pain management. Furthermore, residents with mental health disorders were not provided with necessary medically related social services, risking their physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being. The facility also failed to promptly notify physicians of critical laboratory results for certain residents, increasing the likelihood of serious injury or harm. Interviews with facility staff revealed that the Medical Director had limited involvement in policy development and oversight, as corporate policies dictated the facility's operations. The Medical Director expressed concerns about not being heard and having no input into facility assessments or policy changes, which were managed at the corporate level.
Deficiency in Food Temperature and Palatability
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure that food and drink provided to residents were palatable, flavorful, and served at appetizing temperatures during the extended recertification and abbreviated surveys. Specifically, during lunch meals on two consecutive days, food was observed to be served at incorrect temperatures, with hot foods not being hot enough and cold foods being too warm. Residents consistently reported dissatisfaction with the taste and temperature of the food, with nine residents at a Resident Council meeting expressing that the food was not appetizing. Interviews with residents further confirmed these issues, with complaints about food being too tough, cold, and generally unappetizing. Observations during meal service revealed significant temperature discrepancies. For instance, on one occasion, corn was served at 115 degrees Fahrenheit, and cold items like yogurt and coleslaw were served at temperatures well above the acceptable range. Similar issues were noted on subsequent days, with cold items such as yogurt, pudding, and chocolate milk being served at temperatures between 54 and 71 degrees Fahrenheit. The Food Service Director acknowledged that the expected temperatures for hot and cold foods were not met, and the practice of placing cold food on trays with hot food contributed to the problem. The facility's policies on meal service and food temperatures were not adhered to, leading to these deficiencies.
Deficiency in Nursing Competency and Education
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure that licensed nurses possessed the necessary competencies and skills to provide safe and effective care to residents. This deficiency was identified during an extended recertification survey, which revealed that 12 out of 16 licensed nurses lacked appropriate competencies in areas such as medication administration, wound care, and documentation. Specific issues included incomplete or inaccurately completed re-education for some nurses, missing skills competencies, and untimely completion of annual written competencies. The facility's job description for the Facility Educator outlined responsibilities for planning and implementing educational programs to ensure compliance with regulatory requirements. However, interviews with staff indicated gaps in the execution of these responsibilities. For instance, the Assistant Director of Nursing/Nurse Educator admitted to not remembering providing education beyond orientation and acknowledged the need for better organization of employee files. Additionally, some nurses reported not receiving necessary education or observation in critical areas like medication administration and wound care. The report highlighted several instances where nurses did not have documented evidence of required competencies. For example, one LPN had documented needs for re-education that were not addressed, and another LPN was observed leaving medications at the bedside. Furthermore, interviews with various nursing staff revealed inconsistencies in the education and competency verification process, with some nurses expressing a desire for more education and others noting that they had not been observed performing essential tasks. The lack of proper documentation and follow-through on competency assessments contributed to the facility's failure to ensure that nursing staff were adequately prepared to meet residents' needs.
Failure to Address Medication Refusals in Drug Regimen Review
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure that a licensed pharmacist conducted a thorough monthly drug regimen review for Resident #147, as required by their policies and procedures. The resident, who had diagnoses including diabetes mellitus type 1 and end-stage renal disease, had physician orders for heparin and insulin. However, these medications were consistently documented as refused on the Medication Administration Record, and there was no evidence that these refusals were reviewed or addressed during the monthly medication regimen reviews conducted by the pharmacists. The pharmacists, identified as #92 and #93, conducted drug regimen reviews remotely using the electronic health record. They focused on checking resident allergies, medication dosing, and ensuring no duplication of therapy, among other things. However, they did not review the medication administration records for refusals unless it involved as-needed medications. The pharmacists stated that it was the responsibility of the nursing staff to notify medical providers of medication refusals, and they did not include refusals in their recommendations unless specifically asked. Interviews with the Director of Nursing and the Medical Director revealed that the medication regimen reviews should have included a review of all medications and any irregularities, such as consistent medication refusals. The medical provider was not made aware of Resident #147's consistent refusals, which could have led to significant health risks. The facility's failure to document and address these refusals in the drug regimen reviews contributed to the deficiency.
Food Storage and Safety Deficiencies in Facility Kitchen
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure that food was stored, prepared, distributed, and served in accordance with professional standards, leading to several deficiencies in the main kitchen. During the survey, it was observed that food items in the cook's prep box walk-in cooler were not maintained at safe temperatures, with a large pan of turkey salad measuring between 47-49 degrees Fahrenheit, exceeding the safe limit of 41 degrees Fahrenheit. The Food Service Director acknowledged that the turkey salad, which contained ground deli turkey and mayonnaise, should have been kept below 41 degrees Fahrenheit and admitted that potentially hazardous food should not be out of temperature for more than 30 minutes during preparation. However, the turkey salad had been in the cooler for 15 hours, and there was no documented evidence of the recorded temperature at the time of preparation. Further observations revealed that the main kitchen front walk-in cooler was not maintaining safe temperatures, with a hanging thermometer reading 46 degrees Fahrenheit. Various food items, including dairy products and drinks, were measured at unsafe temperatures ranging from 46 to 49 degrees Fahrenheit. The Assistant Food Service Director noted that the back of the condenser in the cooler was encased in ice, potentially affecting its functionality. Despite the temperature log indicating that the cooler was checked and recorded as 40 degrees Fahrenheit, the actual temperatures of the food items were significantly higher, leading to the voluntary disposal of numerous crates and cases of milk, juices, and other perishable items. Additionally, the facility had uncleanable surfaces and equipment in disrepair, contributing to the deficiencies. The kitchen floor by the tray line and the cook's prep box walk-in cooler was rough concrete, making it difficult to clean. The pull box walk-in cooler door did not close properly, remaining ajar by about an inch. The kitchen pantry wall was in disrepair, with a fallen mop board and stained, sagging ceiling tiles. The Food Service Director admitted to being unaware of the wall and ceiling issues and acknowledged that the floor had been problematic for a long time. No work orders had been submitted for these issues until they were identified during the survey.
Deficiencies in Resource Management and Resident Care
Penalty
Summary
The facility was found to be deficient in administering its resources effectively and efficiently, failing to ensure the highest practicable physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being of each resident. The administration did not properly identify, communicate, and implement policies and procedures, and was unaware of the extent of the deficient practices cited. Additionally, the facility lacked an effective training program for all staff, as necessary based on the facility assessment, and did not maintain documented records of staff completing required trainings. Several residents were affected by these deficiencies. Residents were not assessed for their ability to safely self-administer medications, nor did they have physician orders for self-administration, placing all residents at risk for serious harm. Additionally, residents with unresolved pain had their daily functional abilities, psychosocial well-being, and quality of life diminished, posing an immediate jeopardy and substandard quality of care. Furthermore, residents with mental health disorders were not provided medically related social services to attain or maintain their highest practicable well-being, again placing them at risk for harm. The facility also failed to promptly notify ordering physicians of critical laboratory results, which could lead to serious injury or death. The training program was inadequate, with no recorded completion of required trainings in areas such as communication, resident rights, abuse and neglect, and infection control. The facility's administration and medical staff expressed concerns about the lack of involvement in policy development and the corporate-driven nature of policies, which contributed to the deficiencies observed.
Deficient Staff Training Program
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure an effective training program for all new and existing staff, as evidenced by the lack of documented training in 33 out of 36 staff files reviewed during the extended recertification survey. The facility's assessment outlined mandatory training topics such as abuse/neglect/mistreatment reporting, fire safety, resident rights, and infection control, among others. However, the survey revealed that many staff members did not receive documented education in key areas, including communication with non-verbal or English as a second language residents, resident rights, abuse prevention, quality assurance, infection control, compliance and ethics, and mental/behavioral health. Interviews with various staff members, including LPNs, CNAs, and other personnel, highlighted inconsistencies in the training provided. Some staff recalled receiving general orientation and specific job training, while others did not remember receiving any training on essential topics such as communication with non-verbal residents or quality improvement goals. Several staff members indicated that they had to rely on previous experience or education from other facilities to fill in the gaps left by the facility's training program. Additionally, there was a lack of clarity on how to bring quality improvement suggestions to the committee, and some staff were unaware of the current quality improvement goals. The facility's administration acknowledged the focus on the plan of correction and the need for improved record-keeping for staff education. Despite efforts to provide mandatory training through town hall meetings and orientation processes, the facility's training program did not adequately address the needs identified in the facility assessment. The Director of Nursing and the Administrator admitted that while dementia care education was provided, other mental health management training was lacking, and there was no definitive system for tracking staff education.
Environmental Deficiencies in Facility Maintenance
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to maintain a safe, clean, comfortable, and homelike environment across multiple units and areas, as observed during a recertification survey. The survey identified numerous environmental deficiencies, including damaged and unclean walls, windows, ceilings, floors, furniture, and sinks across all eight resident floors, the main kitchen, and one of the basement floors. Specific issues included torn chairs, broken light covers, water leaks, stained and soiled surfaces, and rodent droppings. Additionally, there were reports of strong odors of urine and stool in certain areas, indicating inadequate cleaning and maintenance. The facility's maintenance policy required work orders to be submitted for any non-compliance issues, either through yellow binders at nursing stations or electronically via kiosks. However, the facility was unable to provide work orders for the identified environmental issues, suggesting a breakdown in the reporting and maintenance process. Interviews with staff revealed that while there were systems in place for reporting maintenance issues, there was a lack of awareness and follow-through, as many staff members were not informed of the environmental problems, and work orders were not consistently submitted or acted upon. Interviews with various staff members, including CNAs, LPNs, and the Director of Maintenance, highlighted a lack of communication and coordination in addressing maintenance issues. Staff members reported that they were either unaware of the issues or believed that work orders had been submitted, but the Director of Maintenance confirmed that no work orders were found for the identified problems. This lack of effective communication and follow-up contributed to the persistence of the environmental deficiencies, compromising the residents' right to a safe and homelike environment.
Failure to Conduct Required PASARR Evaluations
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure that residents with newly evident or possible serious mental disorders, intellectual disabilities, or related conditions were referred for a Level II Preadmission Screening and Resident Review (PASARR) as required by federal regulations. This deficiency was identified during an extended recertification survey, where it was found that three residents were not properly assessed and referred for a Level II PASARR despite significant changes in their mental health conditions. Resident #41, who had a diagnosis of schizoaffective disorder, exhibited severe behavioral symptoms, including refusing medication, attempting to leave the facility unsafely, and expressing suicidal and homicidal ideations. Despite these significant changes, there was no documentation of a new Screen Level I or a Level II referral. Similarly, Resident #235, who had a history of aggressive behavior and was hospitalized for psychiatric evaluation, did not have a new Screen Level I completed or a Level II referral initiated after significant behavioral changes and medication interventions. Resident #250, diagnosed with schizophrenia, was documented to have a care plan for a Level II PASARR evaluation, but there was no evidence of a completed Level II evaluation. The resident had a history of assaultive behavior and paranoid delusions, yet the necessary assessments and referrals were not conducted. Interviews with facility staff revealed a lack of awareness and implementation of the PASARR process, contributing to the oversight in addressing the residents' mental health needs appropriately.
Medication Storage and Labeling Deficiencies
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure that drugs and biologicals were labeled and stored according to professional principles, as observed during an extended recertification survey. Specifically, two medication carts and three medication rooms were found to have deficiencies. On the A unit, a Lantus insulin pen was not labeled with the date it was opened, and the medication room refrigerator was at an unacceptable temperature of 28 degrees Fahrenheit with a white fuzzy substance on the back wall. Licensed Practical Nurse #28 confirmed the insulin pen was opened without a date, and the refrigerator's condition was unknown to them. On the 3rd floor, the medication room refrigerator was found to be at 62 degrees Fahrenheit, which is above the acceptable range. Licensed Practical Nurse #29 acknowledged the issue, stating that the refrigerator should not exceed 42 degrees Fahrenheit to maintain medication integrity. It was later discovered that the refrigerator was unplugged, leading to the high temperature, and the insulin stored there was discarded due to potential efficacy loss. On the 4th floor, a Novolog insulin pen was found with an expired open date, and the medication room refrigerator was at 30 degrees Fahrenheit. Licensed Practical Nurse #4 and the Assistant Director of Nursing confirmed the importance of labeling insulin with the open date and maintaining proper refrigerator temperatures. The maintenance staff was responsible for checking and adjusting refrigerator temperatures, but the unit staff was responsible for cleaning the refrigerators.
Deficiencies in Oral Hygiene and Nutritional Support
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to provide necessary assistance with activities of daily living for two residents, leading to deficiencies in oral hygiene and nutritional support. Resident #154, who had a history of cerebral vascular accident, hemiplegia, and dysphagia, was dependent on staff for most activities of daily living and required specific oral care involving toothbrush, toothpaste, and suctioning twice daily. Despite these orders, observations revealed that the resident's teeth were not brushed as required, evidenced by a white substance around the teeth and gums, and a clean, empty suction canister. Interviews with staff confirmed that oral care was not consistently provided as ordered, and documentation was inaccurately completed, indicating care was given when it was not. Resident #226, diagnosed with Alzheimer's disease and adult failure to thrive, required substantial to maximal assistance with eating due to severe cognitive impairment and significant weight loss. The care plan specified that the resident needed encouragement and cueing during meals, yet observations showed the resident was left unattended during meals without the necessary assistance. This lack of support was corroborated by staff interviews, which acknowledged the resident's need for help and the potential impact on their nutritional intake and weight status. Staff also noted challenges in providing adequate assistance due to workload and staffing levels. The deficiencies in care for both residents highlight a failure to adhere to care plans and provide essential support for activities of daily living. The lack of oral hygiene for Resident #154 and inadequate feeding assistance for Resident #226 were directly observed and confirmed through staff interviews, indicating systemic issues in the facility's ability to meet the needs of its residents as per their care plans.
Inadequate Supervision and Assistive Device Use for Residents at Risk of Elopement
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure adequate supervision and the use of assistive devices to prevent accidents for two residents. Resident #41, who had a history of exit-seeking behavior and cognitive impairments, was able to leave the facility through the main entrance. The security guard mistook the resident for a visitor and allowed them to exit, despite the resident's history of removing their wander alert device. The facility's policies on wandering residents and wander alarms were not effectively implemented, as there was no documented evidence of training provided to the security guard on identifying residents at risk for elopement. Resident #250, diagnosed with schizophrenia and moderately impaired cognition, was identified as a high risk for elopement upon admission. However, there was inconsistent documentation regarding the implementation and monitoring of a wander alert device for this resident. The resident was found in the lobby intending to leave the facility, and it was unclear whether the wander alert device was in place as ordered. The facility lacked a log of when wander guards were placed, and there was no clear documentation of the resident's initial high elopement risk score. Interviews with staff revealed gaps in communication and training regarding the identification and management of residents at risk for elopement. Security personnel and nursing staff were not adequately informed or trained on the specific needs and risks associated with these residents. The facility's failure to ensure proper supervision and the use of assistive devices contributed to the deficiencies identified during the survey.
Failure to Address Severe Weight Loss in Resident
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure that a resident maintained acceptable nutritional status, as evidenced by the lack of timely notification to the medical provider regarding the resident's severe weight loss and the absence of discussions about potential interventions such as an appetite stimulant. The resident, who had diagnoses including major depressive disorder, diabetes, and adult failure to thrive, experienced significant weight loss over several months. Despite the facility's policy requiring regular weight monitoring and prompt action in response to significant weight changes, the medical provider was not informed of the resident's condition in a timely manner. The resident's weight dropped from 97 pounds in February 2024 to 80.2 pounds by June 2024, indicating a severe weight loss. The facility's policies outlined specific thresholds for significant weight changes and required reweighs and notifications to the dietitian and medical provider. However, there was no documented evidence that the medical provider was notified of the resident's severe weight loss or the recommendation for an appetite stimulant until much later. Interviews with facility staff revealed that there was a breakdown in communication, as the registered dietitian and diet technician expected the nursing staff to relay the information to the medical provider, which did not occur promptly. Observations during the survey period showed that the resident's meal intake was inconsistent, with many meals consumed at 0-25%. Despite the resident's high nutritional risk and the facility's awareness of the weight loss, the necessary steps to address the issue, such as notifying the medical provider and discussing potential interventions, were delayed. This lack of timely communication and intervention contributed to the resident's continued weight loss and failure to maintain acceptable nutritional parameters.
Inadequate Respiratory Care for Resident with BiPAP Needs
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to provide appropriate respiratory care for Resident #64, who required a Bilevel Positive Airway Pressure (BiPAP) machine for breathing assistance due to chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, chronic respiratory failure, and obstructive sleep apnea. The resident's care plan included the use of a BiPAP machine at bedtime, but the facility did not have a policy on its use. The resident's physician order specified detailed settings for the BiPAP machine and required monitoring of the mask placement and skin integrity every shift. Observations and interviews revealed that the resident did not consistently receive the BiPAP treatment as prescribed. On multiple occasions, the resident reported that staff did not apply the BiPAP machine at night, and when it was applied, it was not always tolerated for the full duration. Additionally, the mask used had unblocked ports, which compromised the machine's effectiveness. The resident was observed using supplemental oxygen via nasal cannula instead of the BiPAP machine. Interviews with staff, including LPNs and a respiratory therapist, indicated a lack of training and understanding regarding the proper use of the BiPAP machine and mask. The respiratory therapist noted that the resident did not refuse the treatment and emphasized the importance of the BiPAP machine for the resident's respiratory condition. However, the staff responsible for applying the mask and operating the machine were unsure of the correct procedures, leading to inconsistent and inadequate respiratory care for the resident.
Deficient Transfer Documentation for Hospitalized Resident
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure an effective transfer or discharge planning process for a resident who was transferred to a local acute care hospital. The deficiency involved the lack of required documentation and communication with the receiving health care institution. Specifically, the resident was discharged without necessary documentation, including contact information of the responsible practitioner, resident representative information, advance directive information, special instructions for ongoing care, comprehensive care plan goals, and other essential medical information such as recent vital signs, diagnoses, allergies, medications, and recent lab results. The resident, who had diagnoses including cervical disc disorder, radiculopathy, and a displaced fracture of the right femur, was transferred to the hospital after experiencing an emergency involving vomiting and uncontrollable shaking. Despite the facility's policy requiring a transfer packet, there was no evidence that such records were provided to the hospital. The LPN Supervisor involved in the transfer stated that they completed a transfer form and gathered necessary paperwork, but the documents were not found in the hospital's records. The facility's Director of Nursing confirmed that a transfer packet was not sent with the resident.
Failure to Implement Comprehensive Pain Management Care Plan
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to develop and implement a comprehensive, person-centered care plan for a resident with chronic pain, leading to a deficiency. The resident, who had diagnoses including right shoulder and left knee pain, was receiving scheduled and as-needed pain medications, including opioids, acetaminophen, ibuprofen, and lidocaine cream. Despite this, the resident's comprehensive care plan did not document pain management interventions, and there was no evidence of non-pharmacological interventions being attempted. Nursing progress notes indicated that pain medications were administered and effective, but they lacked documentation of any non-pharmacological interventions for pain relief. Interviews with facility staff revealed that the care plan should have included pain management interventions, but it was overlooked. The resident expressed concerns about not receiving pain medication due to their Suboxone treatment for opioid dependence and mentioned being advised to see a pain management specialist, although no appointment had been made. Staff interviews confirmed that the care plan was not updated to reflect the resident's pain management needs, which could impact the resident's safety and well-being.
Failure to Apply Hand Splints as Ordered
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure that a resident with limited range of motion received appropriate treatment and services to prevent further decrease in range of motion. Specifically, Resident #64, who had diagnoses including chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, chronic pain syndrome, and hand contractures, did not have bilateral hand splints in place as ordered and care planned. The resident was cognitively intact and dependent for activities of daily living, with no functional limitation in range of motion documented in the Minimum Data Set assessment. The care plan and physician orders specified that the resident should have a left grip splint applied at night on Tuesday, Thursday, and Saturday, and a right grip splint on Monday, Wednesday, and Friday. However, observations and interviews revealed that the resident's hand splints were not consistently applied as ordered. The resident's family and staff members, including CNAs and LPNs, reported that they had not seen the resident with hand splints, and the splints were found stored improperly in the resident's room. Interviews with staff, including the Director of Rehabilitation and nursing staff, confirmed that hand splints were necessary to prevent worsening of contractures. The failure to apply the splints as ordered was acknowledged as a documentation error by one LPN, who incorrectly signed for the application of a right hand splint that was not ordered. The lack of adherence to the care plan and physician orders resulted in the resident's contractures not being managed as intended, potentially leading to worsening of the condition.
Latest citations in New York
A resident with spastic quadriplegic cerebral palsy, severe hypoxic ischemic encephalopathy, chronic respiratory failure, and a tracheostomy was on continuous pulse oximetry with ordered SpO2 parameters and linked Vocera alerts. When the resident’s oxygen saturation dropped significantly, the Vocera system sent sequential alarms to the primary RN, buddy RN, charge RN, and RT. The primary RN repeatedly pressed “Accept” on the alert device without assessing the resident, while the buddy RN, charge RN, and RT did not respond to the alarms, each assuming others would intervene or not recalling the alert. For approximately 25 minutes, no assigned clinician assessed the resident despite ongoing alarms, until another RN, not assigned to the resident, heard an alarm while passing the room and found the resident unresponsive and gray. A Code Blue was initiated, CPR was performed, and the resident was transferred to the hospital, where they were found to have no brain activity and later died. The facility’s investigation determined that staff failed to respond to and appropriately manage the pulse oximetry/Vocera alerts and failed to maintain and use required communication devices as expected.
A resident with Parkinson’s disease, dementia with behavioral disturbances, and known exit-seeking behaviors, care planned with a wander alarm, eloped through a 3rd floor stairwell door whose alarm had been disabled days earlier by maintenance and security while addressing a wandering system issue. A plastic barrier was placed in front of the door, but the door remained accessible and unrepaired. Video showed the resident repeatedly attempting to exit, bypassing the barrier, trying to remove the wander device, and ultimately opening the door, falling into the stairwell, and leaving the unit. Staff observed the resident at the door but did not consistently redirect them, and the resident was later found outside the building by a visitor after staff realized the resident was missing and discovered the wheelchair in the stairwell.
Two residents with psychiatric and behavioral histories were waiting by an elevator in a lobby when one, known to have prior aggressive behavior and a care plan noting risk for physical aggression, removed a wheelchair armrest and struck the other in the forehead, causing a bump and laceration that required ED evaluation. Video, staff, and security accounts confirmed that the aggressor resident was able to access and weaponize the removable armrest in a common area despite prior documented altercations and behavioral concerns, and was only on 30‑minute checks at the time, resulting in a failure to protect another resident from physical abuse.
Staff failed to respond promptly to an oxygen alert alarm for a resident with spastic quadriplegic CP, severe hypoxic ischemic encephalopathy, chronic respiratory failure, severe cognitive impairment, and total dependence for ADLs, resulting in the resident being found unresponsive with gray skin and requiring a Code Blue, CPR, and hospital transfer where no brain activity was found and life support was later withdrawn. Despite facility policy requiring alleged or suspected neglect and serious bodily injury to be reported to the State Agency within 2 hours (or within 24 hours if no serious bodily injury), the Administrator was not notified until days after the event and the NYS DOH was notified four days after the incident; the DON reported they were initially unaware of the failure to respond to alarms or of the need to report the incident, and the Administrator stated they had not been informed of the Code Blue on the day it occurred.
Surveyors found that the facility failed to implement an effective infection surveillance and reporting process during a norovirus gastroenteritis outbreak and in its routine infection tracking. During the outbreak, only a single-day tracking sheet was completed for several residents with gastrointestinal illness on two units, and daily surveillance with updated symptoms and management was not maintained as required by facility policy. Despite receiving a directive from the state health department to submit a Nosocomial Outbreak Reporting Application for the identified cluster, the DON acknowledged that the report was never submitted. Additionally, monthly infection control line lists for residents on antibiotics for various infections lacked documentation of signs and symptoms, diagnostic and lab results, precautions used, and outbreak potential, even though the IP relied on these lists for surveillance.
A resident with multiple chronic conditions and numerous scheduled medications had repeated discrepancies between scheduled morning medication times and documented administration times. On multiple days, all medications ordered for a 9:00 a.m. pass were documented as given around midday by an RN, contrary to policy requiring timely administration and immediate electronic documentation. The RN cited computer timeouts, possible late documentation, and workload pressures, while leadership acknowledged that a single nurse was responsible for passing medications to roughly 40 residents within a limited time window and that MAR review was primarily done by the passing nurse and through monthly reports, with no routine MAR review by the pharmacy consultant.
The facility did not ensure residents understood how to file grievances and failed to document and track grievances and their resolutions. Residents reported that they only voiced concerns during resident council and were unclear about the grievance process otherwise, and the designated Grievance Officer could not produce a grievance log or forms. The DON acknowledged the grievance process was informal and lacked clear documentation. In addition, a resident with significant cardiac and neurologic conditions and moderately impaired cognition had a representative who raised multiple concerns about care coordination, communication, discharge planning, call bell response, personal property, preferences, and nutrition, but these grievances were largely handled verbally, with no consistent documentation of how each concern was addressed or resolved.
Surveyors found that the facility failed to provide timely toileting assistance and call bell response for multiple residents who were dependent on staff for ADLs. A resident with Parkinson’s disease and dementia, care planned for two-hour toileting checks, was found by family with urine-saturated clothing and wheelchair cushion after a CNA admitted not changing or checking on the resident for most of a shift, and documentation showed numerous missing toileting and check entries over several months. Another resident with a history of stroke and MI, requiring maximal assist for toileting, reported long waits for morning care while the call bell rang, with staff not responding for extended periods, and the resident’s representative described multiple episodes of call bell waits exceeding an hour. Resident Council minutes, call bell audits, and observations showed repeated long call bell wait times, including bells ringing for 15–45 minutes while various staff passed the rooms without responding, and a spouse reported frequent overnight calls from a resident seeking help because call bells were unanswered.
A resident with bowel incontinence and new-onset loose, watery stools and nausea had a physician and NP order for a stool bacterial detection panel with C. difficile and a GI PCR, along with PRN Zofran. Over subsequent shifts, documentation showed the resident remained incontinent of bowel and that the ordered stool collection was repeatedly marked on the TAR as "not administered, unable to obtain" by LPNs, despite multiple incontinence episodes. There was no documentation that the NP or physician were notified that the ordered stool specimen had not been collected, even though facility policy required practitioner notification when orders were not carried out and the physician and NP later stated they expected to be informed if a lab test they ordered was not completed.
A resident with vascular dementia, behavioral disturbances, and dependence for transfers and toileting was sent to the hospital for suspected GI bleeding, with documentation indicating an unplanned hospital transfer and anticipated return. An IDT meeting held earlier did not document any discharge planning, and the resident’s care plan lacked a planned discharge. While the resident remained hospitalized, the facility issued a same-day discharge notice citing inability to meet needs and endangerment to others, based on interference from the resident’s guardians rather than documented resident behavior, and later did not accept the resident back after medical clearance. The medical record contained no IDT discharge plan and no subsequent nursing or social work notes, demonstrating a lack of documented discharge planning and coordination.
Failure to Respond to Pulse Oximetry Alarms for Tracheostomy-Dependent Resident
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to ensure that a resident requiring respiratory care and continuous pulse oximetry monitoring received services consistent with professional standards of practice and the resident’s care plan. The resident had spastic quadriplegic cerebral palsy, severe hypoxic ischemic encephalopathy, and chronic respiratory failure, was severely cognitively impaired, and was totally dependent on staff for all ADLs. The care plan and physician’s orders required mechanical ventilation with CPAP to tracheostomy collar overnight, humidified trach collar oxygen during the day, and maintenance of oxygen saturation above 92%, with pulse oximeter alarm parameters set to alert below 92%. The resident was equipped with a pulse oximeter linked to the Vocera alert system, which generated alarms at the bedside and on staff mobile devices when oxygen saturation fell outside ordered parameters. On the day of the incident, the resident’s oxygen saturation dropped to 84% at 8:58 AM, triggering an alert to the primary RN via the Patient Safe Solutions/Vocera system, followed by sequential escalation to the buddy RN, the charge RN, and the RT when not acknowledged. The Call Point Detailed Activity Report showed that an alert was sent to the primary RN at 8:58 AM, to the buddy RN at 8:59 AM, and to the charge RN and RT at 9:01 AM. The primary RN pressed “Accepted” on the device at 9:04 AM, and again when the system alerted at 9:17 AM and 9:18 AM, but did not go to the resident’s room to assess the resident and did not document any assessment or intervention. The buddy RN reported not recalling hearing the alert and stated they were administering medications and unaware of the resident’s distress until the rapid response was called. The charge RN acknowledged receiving the alert but did not respond timely, stating they expected the primary or buddy nurse to respond. The RT stated they received the alert but were busy with other residents and expected other staff to respond. From 8:58 AM to 9:23 AM, no assigned nurse or RT responded to the alarms or performed a clinical assessment of the resident, and the alarm cycle continued without intervention. At 9:23 AM, a second alert was triggered when the resident’s oxygen saturation dropped to 52%. An RN who was not assigned to the resident heard an alarm while passing the room, entered, and found the resident in a wheelchair, unresponsive with gray skin. This RN activated a rapid response/Code Blue, assisted in returning the resident to bed, and another RN began chest compressions. EMS was called and arrived at 9:44 AM; a pulse was briefly restored, and the resident was placed on a ventilator and transferred to the hospital, where they were determined to have no brain activity. Life support was later terminated and the resident expired. The facility’s own investigation concluded that nursing and respiratory staff failed to respond to alarms, failed to appropriately acknowledge and review alerts, failed to maintain accessibility to required communication devices, and failed to escalate when they were occupied or unable to respond, resulting in actual harm and Immediate Jeopardy to the resident and placing other monitored residents at risk.
Removal Plan
- Review camera footage, Patient Safe Solution phone verification notifications, and the pulse oximetry policy.
- Re-educate involved staff on pulse oximetry alarm response, notification handling, and escalation expectations.
- Send voice alarm presentation via email to all assistant nurse managers and assistant directors of nursing for review during evening and morning huddles.
- Ensure Vocera device functionality is reviewed and staff are instructed to keep devices accessible and operational.
- Have IT/MIS check and confirm monitoring equipment is functioning properly.
- Implement disciplinary action for staff involved.
- Discuss and initiate a root cause analysis.
- Review and revise the pulse oximetry policy.
- Provide leadership oversight.
- Implement an audit of alert response times.
Elopement of High-Risk Resident Through Disabled Stairwell Door Alarm
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to provide adequate supervision and maintain a safe environment for a resident with known exit-seeking behaviors and elopement risk. The resident had diagnoses of Parkinson’s disease, dementia with behavioral disturbances, and anxiety, and was assessed as having moderately impaired cognition. The resident’s MDS documented exit-seeking behaviors and daily use of a wander/elopement alarm, and the comprehensive care plan identified the resident as an elopement risk/wanderer related to disorientation to place, with an intervention for a wandering device on the ankle. A physician’s order also specified a wandering device to the right ankle with checks every shift. The 3rd floor North stairwell door alarm had been disabled by maintenance following a work order dated 07/02/2024. Maintenance and security staff attempted to address a wandering system alarm issue, and the alarm on the 3rd floor North stairwell door was turned off by removing a screw from the alarm box. A yellow plastic accordion-style barrier was placed in front of the door, and nursing staff were notified that the door was broken. However, the door itself remained accessible, and the alarm remained disabled for days prior to the elopement. Staff on the unit, including CNAs, were not all aware that the stairwell door was broken, and the door was not repaired until 07/17/2024. On the day of the incident, video footage showed the resident repeatedly exit-seeking at the 3rd floor North stairwell door over several hours. The resident moved the yellow barrier, wheeled around it, and closed it behind them. At one point, two unidentified staff observed the resident at the door, opened the barrier, and walked away without redirecting the resident. The footage documented multiple attempts by the resident to exit, including attempts to remove the wander alert bracelet and repeated efforts to push on the delayed egress bar with their leg and hands. Eventually, the resident stood from the wheelchair, pushed the crash bar, opened the door, and fell backwards into the stairwell while pulling the wheelchair through. The resident then maneuvered the wheelchair into the stairwell and exited the unit. Staff later discovered the resident missing, found the wheelchair in the stairwell, and the resident was ultimately located outside the building by a visitor and brought back inside by nursing and security. The DON’s investigation summary identified the root cause of the elopement as the 3rd floor North stairwell door alarm being disabled while the door remained broken and unsecured.
Removal Plan
- Resident #1 was placed on 15-minute safety checks and kept under line-of-sight supervision when outside of their room; continued with use of a wander alert device; and resided in a room adjacent to the nursing station for frequent observations.
- All staff were educated on the Elopement policy and what measures to take if a resident went missing, including a power point presentation and post-tests.
- All exit and stairwell doors in the facility on the 2nd and 3rd floors were repaired by an outside vendor.
Failure to Prevent Resident-to-Resident Physical Abuse in Lobby Elevator Area
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to protect a resident from physical abuse by another resident, despite a known history of aggressive behavior. One resident with paraplegia, mood disorder, major depressive disorder, and anxiety disorder had an established care plan noting potential for physical aggression and risk of being abused. Prior documentation showed that this resident had been involved in a physical altercation with another resident in June of the previous year, during which they reported being punched and stated they hit the other resident back. The care plan was updated at that time to reflect that the resident was abused by peers, with interventions including relocation as needed and a psychiatry referral, but later updates reflecting another resident-to-resident altercation did not include new interventions. On the day of the incident, video surveillance and witness statements documented that the aggressive resident and another resident were waiting at the elevator in the lobby, along with other residents. The second resident, who had diagnoses including schizophrenia and bipolar disorder, approached and stood next to the first resident’s wheelchair. The first resident was seen making hand gestures, then removed the left wheelchair armrest and used both hands to swing it toward the second resident. When the second resident reached toward the armrest, the first resident struck them on the forehead with the armrest, causing bleeding and resulting in a bump and small laceration. Staff arrived immediately after the assault and separated the residents, and the injured resident was later assessed and transferred to the hospital for evaluation. Interviews conducted after the event revealed differing accounts of the interaction leading up to the assault. The first resident reported that the second resident had previously used a racial epithet toward them and, on the day of the incident, again stood close, touched their shoulder, and repeated the racial epithet, prompting them to remove the armrest and strike the other resident. The second resident stated they were standing at the elevator, heard the first resident saying something, ignored it, and were then struck without warning. A security guard reported hearing the first resident tell the second resident not to stand close and to stop touching them, then observed the first resident swinging the armrest and hitting the second resident. Facility staff, including the RN Supervisor and DON, acknowledged that the incident occurred off the unit, that the aggressive resident had a history of verbal and physical abusive behavior toward staff, and that this was the first documented physical altercation between these two specific residents. Despite prior behavioral incidents and care plan documentation of aggression risk, the resident was on 30‑minute checks and was able to access and weaponize a removable wheelchair armrest in a common area, resulting in physical abuse of another resident.
Failure to Timely Respond to Oxygen Alarm and Report Suspected Neglect
Penalty
Summary
Facility staff failed to immediately report an alleged incident of neglect involving a resident who was dependent on respiratory support and continuous monitoring. The resident had spastic quadriplegic cerebral palsy, severe hypoxic ischemic encephalopathy, chronic respiratory failure, was severely cognitively impaired, and totally dependent on staff for all ADLs. On the date of the incident at 8:58 AM, the resident’s alert alarm indicated decreasing oxygen levels, but nursing and respiratory staff did not respond to the alarm or assess the resident in a timely manner, in deviation from the facility’s pulse oximetry escalation pathway and alarm response procedures. The resident was later found unresponsive with gray skin, and a Code Blue was initiated. CPR was started, and the resident was transferred to the hospital, where they were determined to have no brain activity; life support was later terminated and the resident expired. Although the facility’s policy required that alleged or suspected violations involving mistreatment, neglect, or other reportable events be reported to the State Survey Agency and other appropriate authorities no later than 2 hours after forming the suspicion if serious bodily injury occurred, or within 24 hours otherwise, the incident was not reported in accordance with these time frames. The incident occurred on one date, the Administrator was not notified until a later date, and the New York State Department of Health was not notified until four days after the event. The DON stated they were unaware that staff had failed to respond to the alerts until reviewing the alert system report and interviewing staff, and also stated they were unaware the incident should have been reported to the Department of Health, while the Administrator confirmed they had not been notified of the Code Blue on the day it occurred.
Failure to Implement Effective Infection Surveillance and Outbreak Reporting
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to maintain and implement an effective infection prevention and control program during a norovirus outbreak and in its ongoing surveillance activities. During a norovirus gastroenteritis outbreak, the facility identified multiple residents with gastrointestinal illness on two units, as documented on an infection control tracking sheet for a single date. The facility’s policy on routine infection control surveillance required ongoing assessment of all residents for changes in symptoms or conditions indicative of infection, but surveillance tracking was only completed for one day and was not continued or updated with symptoms or management throughout the outbreak. The DON and the Infection Preventionist (IP) both acknowledged that surveillance tracking sheets should have been completed daily during the outbreak and that they did not know why this was not done. The facility also did not comply with state reporting requirements related to the outbreak. After the cluster of gastrointestinal illness cases was identified, the NYSDOH sent an email to the DON stating that submission of a Nosocomial Outbreak Reporting Application report was required for a single case of a reportable pathogen in a nursing home resident or a cluster of cases above baseline. The DON stated they were aware of this email but confirmed that the requested outbreak report was never submitted to NYSDOH. The DON further stated that NYSDOH should have been contacted immediately when the outbreak was discovered, and that they were not the DON at the time and did not know why the previous DON failed to submit the report. In addition to the outbreak-related issues, the facility’s ongoing infection surveillance line lists for several months were incomplete. The Infection Control Line List for January, February, and March documented residents on antibiotic therapy for various infections, including wound infections, respiratory infections, urinary tract infections, bacteremia, and Clostridium difficile. However, these line lists lacked documentation of infection signs and symptoms, diagnostic tests and laboratory results, the type of precautions used, and any indication of outbreak potential. During interview, the IP confirmed that they used the line list for surveillance and monitoring of residents with infections and on antibiotics, but acknowledged that the lists did not include the required clinical details and precautions. The DON also stated that the IP was responsible for ensuring surveillance included signs and symptoms, diagnostic tests with results, and precautions to prevent outbreaks.
Incomplete and Inaccurate Medication Administration Documentation for a Resident
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to maintain complete and accurately documented medical records in accordance with accepted professional standards for one resident. For this cognitively intact resident with essential hypertension, adjustment disorder with mixed anxiety and depressed mood, major depressive disorder, and dementia, standing medication orders included multiple daily and twice-daily medications such as antihypertensives, antidepressants, an anticoagulant, a diuretic, an antianginal patch, an inhaler, and other agents. The facility’s medication administration policy required that medications be administered in accordance with physician orders, that documentation of administration be completed on the computer immediately after administration with the nurse’s initials at the corresponding date and time, and that at the end of each shift the medication nurse review the MAR, 24‑hour report, and nurses’ notes to ensure documentation is accurate and complete. Record review of the medication administration audit report for multiple dates in December 2024 showed discrepancies between the scheduled 9:00 a.m. administration times and the times documented as administered for this resident’s medications. On thirteen separate dates, all medications scheduled for 9:00 a.m. were documented as being administered after 12:00 p.m. but before 1:00 p.m. when a particular RN was passing medications to this resident. These documented times did not align with the scheduled administration time and were inconsistent with the policy requirement that medications be given at the right time and documented immediately after administration. The pattern of late documentation occurred on each of the identified dates when that RN was responsible for the medication pass for this resident. In interviews, the RN who administered the medications stated that the resident received most medications at 9:00 a.m. and some at 5:00 p.m., and described issues such as the computer timing out after about 10 minutes, logging the nurse out, and situations where medications might have been given earlier but not clicked off in the system. The RN reported that the documented times (for example, showing around 12:00 p.m.) might not be accurate, could reflect late documentation, and could be affected by computer glitches, but could not recall specific details from the December dates. The Assistant DON reported that one nurse on the unit was responsible for administering medications to approximately 38–40 residents, that the incoming nurse’s start of shift included a narcotic count and report that delayed the start of the medication pass to about 8:30 a.m., and that this left about two minutes per resident to complete the pass by 10:00 a.m. The Administrator stated that their expectation was that nurses review the MAR at the end of the shift and that unit managers run a monthly report, while the Pharmacy Consultant stated they did not review MARs and assumed nursing conducted internal auditing. These practices and conditions contributed to incomplete and inaccurate medication administration documentation for the resident on the identified dates.
Failure to Inform Residents of Grievance Process and Document Grievances and Resolutions
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure residents were informed about the grievance process and that grievances were documented and tracked in accordance with its grievance policy. The Social Services/Admissions Coordinator, identified as the Grievance Officer, reported that while they interviewed residents and emailed Administration about complaints they could not resolve, they were unable to provide a grievance log or grievance forms. During resident council, multiple residents stated they voiced concerns in the meeting but did not know how to file grievances outside of that setting, and there was no documented evidence listing grievances or the facility’s responses. The DON stated that grievances should be monitored by Social Services with documentation of the nature of the complaint and the resolution, but acknowledged that the process was informal, dependent on circumstances, and not completely clear, with no forms or documentation used to track grievance progress and resolution. For one resident reviewed for care planning, the facility did not consistently address and document multiple grievances raised by the resident’s representative. This resident had diagnoses including cerebral infarction, occlusion and stenosis of the left carotid artery, and myocardial infarction, with the admission MDS indicating moderately impaired cognition and involvement of the resident and family in assessment and goal setting. The representative reported numerous concerns regarding miscommunication between nursing and rehabilitation, discharge planning, appointment scheduling, call bell response time, personal property, resident preferences, nutrition, and proper diet, all of which were communicated to Administration via email and paper copies. Although a family meeting was held to discuss these concerns, the Social Services/Admissions Coordinator and the DON confirmed there was no documented evidence of how each grievance was addressed or resolved, and that most concerns were handled verbally without formal documentation or investigation of every complaint.
Failure to Provide Timely Toileting Assistance and Call Bell Response
Penalty
Summary
Surveyors identified a deficiency in the facility’s failure to provide necessary assistance with toileting and timely response to call bells for residents who were unable to perform activities of daily living independently. Facility policy on Activities of Daily Living required that residents receive appropriate treatment and services to maintain or improve their ability to carry out ADLs, including elimination and toileting, and the facility’s No Pass policy required all staff to respond to call lights and obtain help if they could not provide it themselves. Despite these policies, multiple observations, interviews, and record reviews showed that residents did not consistently receive timely toileting care or call bell responses. One resident with Parkinson’s disease, dementia, heart disease, severely impaired cognition, and total dependence on staff for toileting and hygiene was care planned to be checked for incontinence and changed as needed, and to have toileting needs anticipated every two hours with assistance to the toilet. Kardex instructions for several months reiterated two-hour toileting checks and assistance, and CNA documentation reports for January through March showed numerous missing entries for toileting and two-hour checks across multiple shifts. A nursing home investigative report documented that a family member found this resident with urine-saturated clothing and wheelchair cushion in the afternoon, and the Administrator confirmed the saturation. The CNA identified as responsible for ADLs and accountability tasks for that shift stated they did not change the resident at all during the eight-hour shift, did not perform end-of-day care, and did not inform anyone that they were unable to care for the resident, and also stated they did not check on the resident until late morning. There was conflicting documentation on the assignment sheet, and another CNA reported that the resident was checked every two hours and could indicate when cleaning was needed, while a second family member reported having observed a strong urine smell on three Sunday visits in recent months, which staff addressed when notified. Another resident with a history of stroke and myocardial infarction, and moderately impaired cognition, required maximal assistance with toileting and moderate assistance with bathing and dressing. During one observation, this resident’s call bell was ringing, and the resident reported having waited a long time for care and stated they had been waiting since early morning; staff did not respond until several minutes after the surveyor’s observation began, at which time morning care was provided. On another day, the shared room call bell was ringing while two residents in the room reported they were still in bed, unwashed, undressed, and waiting to get out of bed, stating they had been waiting about half an hour; staff arrived to assist approximately 18 minutes after the surveyor’s initial observation. The resident’s representative reported multiple episodes when call bell response times exceeded one hour and had communicated these concerns to staff. The DON stated that call bells should be responded to when heard and that 30–60 minutes was not acceptable, but also indicated that response time depended on staffing. Additional evidence of delayed call bell response and unmet toileting needs came from Resident Council minutes, call bell audits, and direct observations. Resident Council minutes over several months documented ongoing resident reports that call bell wait times were “on the longer side” and “too long,” and that more nursing staff were needed, particularly on weekends when residents reported only three CNAs were often scheduled. Facility call bell audits conducted in response to complaints documented 23 observations, including one call bell active for 45 minutes and another for 15 minutes in the same room. During one observation, a room call bell rang for at least 14 minutes while multiple staff, including a CNA, a medication nurse, a social work/admissions coordinator, and a unit clerk, passed the room without entering; when the CNA finally entered, the resident requested a bedpan and the CNA left and did not return with the bedpan for another 10 minutes. In another observation, a room call bell rang for at least 27 minutes while a medication nurse, social work/administration staff, and a unit clerk were present in the hallway or nearby but did not respond to the bell. A spouse reported receiving at least 10 overnight phone calls from a resident asking them to call the nurses’ station because no one was responding to the call bell, and also reported that it took a long time for the nurses’ station to answer the phone.
Failure to Collect Ordered Stool Specimen and Notify Practitioner of Uncompleted Lab Test
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to ensure that a resident received treatment and care in accordance with professional standards and practitioner orders when a stool specimen was not collected as ordered, and the ordering practitioners were not notified. The facility’s policy dated 05/2025 required that when a physician or other authorized practitioner’s order is not carried out as ordered, delayed, modified, or discontinued, the practitioner must be notified. Resident #124 had diagnoses including moderate persistent asthma, essential hypertension, and spinal stenosis, and was documented as always incontinent of bowel and dependent on staff for toileting and hygiene per the care guide, care plan, and admission MDS. On 12/11/2024, the resident developed loose, watery stools and nausea, and the physician and NP were notified, resulting in orders for a stool bacterial detection panel with C. difficile and Zofran as needed. On 12/11/2024, nursing documentation showed that the resident had an episode of loose watery stool in the morning, with the physician notified and an order given to collect stool for testing. Later that day, an RN documented that the resident had nausea and loose stool, that the NP was made aware, and that stool collection and Zofran were ordered. The NP progress note that evening documented watery stool, ordered a GI PCR to rule out gastroenteritis, and planned to monitor the resident, noting stable vitals and a mildly elevated white blood count. The functional abilities record showed the resident was incontinent of bowel on multiple shifts on 12/11/2024, 12/12/2024, and 12/13/2024. The Treatment Administration Record for December 2024 documented the stool test order on 12/11/2024 and 12/12/2024, with entries by LPN #2 and LPN #3 indicating the stool collection was “not administered, unable to obtain.” Despite repeated incontinence episodes that could have provided opportunities to obtain a specimen, there was no documented evidence that the NP or physician were notified that the ordered stool sample had not been collected. A nursing progress note on 12/12/2024 at 2:24 A.M. documented that the resident was alert, able to make needs known, had poor appetite, good fluid intake, an episode of emesis after drinking water too fast, and was feeling better afterward, but did not address the outstanding stool order. During interviews, LPN #3 acknowledged awareness of the stool collection order and documented “not administered” on two shifts but did not write a note indicating that the NP or physician had been informed that the specimen was not obtained. The LPN Unit Manager stated that whether to notify the NP or physician when a stool sample was not collected was handled on a case-by-case basis. In contrast, the Medical Director/Primary Physician and NP #1 both stated they expected to be informed if a lab test they ordered, such as a stool specimen, was not completed, and NP #1 indicated they might have added additional orders and reminded staff to collect the stool if they had known it was not obtained.
Failure to Provide Appropriate Discharge Planning and Readmission for Hospitalized Resident
Penalty
Summary
Surveyors identified that the facility failed to ensure an appropriate discharge plan for one resident who was hospitalized for a suspected gastrointestinal bleed. The resident had vascular dementia with behavioral disturbances, sequelae of cerebral infarction, constipation, and atrial fibrillation, and was dependent for toileting and transfers with documented verbal and physical behaviors toward others. After the resident vomited coffee-ground emesis, the physician ordered a transfer to the hospital emergency department to rule out a GI bleed, and the discharge MDS reflected an unplanned discharge to a short-term general hospital with return anticipated. An interdisciplinary care plan meeting held prior to the hospitalization included multiple disciplines, the resident’s companion, and two guardians, but there was no documentation that discharge planning was discussed, and the resident’s care plan contained no evidence of a planned discharge. While the resident was in the hospital, the facility issued a same-day Transfer/Discharge Notice stating that the IDT had determined the resident would be discharged that day, citing that the resident’s needs could not be met after reasonable accommodation and that the safety and health of individuals in the facility would be endangered. The notice identified interference from the resident’s two guardians as the evidence supporting these reasons, but there was no documentation that the resident personally endangered the health or safety of others. The notice included information about the right to appeal the discharge, and the discharge was appealed. When the resident was medically cleared to return, the facility did not accept the resident back. Review of the electronic medical record showed no documented IDT discharge plan and no nursing progress notes after the date of hospital transfer, and no social work progress notes after that time, indicating a lack of documented planning and coordination related to the discharge decision.
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.



