Hico Nursing And Rehabilitation

Penalty

Fine: $27,378

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

Summary

The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to follow its own policy and regulatory requirements for the assessment, ordering, care planning, and safe use of bed rails for a cognitively impaired resident. The resident was an elderly female with severe dementia, repeated falls, a fractured neck of the left femur, cognitive communication deficit, and a need for assistance with personal care. Her admission MDS showed a BIMS score of 03, indicating severe cognitive impairment, and documented that she required substantial staff assistance with bed mobility and was completely dependent on staff for transfers from bed to chair. Despite these needs, her care plan addressed ADL self-care performance deficits related to dementia and included interventions for bed mobility requiring one staff member to assist with repositioning, but it did not mention bed rails or any risk of entrapment. The facility obtained a bed rail consent form signed by the resident’s family member, which listed multiple potential dangers of bed rail use, including suffocation and various forms of entrapment that could cause injury or death. However, from the time of admission through the date of the incident, there was no documented bed rail safety or entrapment risk assessment for this resident, no physician order for bed rails, and no inclusion of bed rail use in the resident’s care plan. Maintenance staff reported that a charge nurse verbally requested installation of bed rails on the resident’s bed, and he believed the usual clinical steps—assessment, IDT review, consent, and physician order—had already been completed, but he had no documentation of when the rails were installed. The DON later confirmed that, for this resident, the required risk of entrapment assessment, physician order, and care plan focus for bed rails were not completed, and alternatives to bed rails were not attempted prior to installation, contrary to facility policy. On the night of the incident, a CNA observed the resident resting calmly around 2:00 a.m. During a subsequent round close to 5:00 a.m., the CNA found the resident partially out of bed with her head pinned between the assist bar/bed rail and the mattress, and notified the LVN. The LVN’s written statement described finding the resident seated on the floor on the right side of the bed, off the mattress, with her head resting between the side rail and the mattress, unresponsive. CPR was initiated and EMS was called, but the resident was later pronounced deceased. The county medical examiner reported that the resident had bruising and abrasions around the neck and jawline and hemorrhaging in the neck muscles, injuries consistent with being trapped between the mattress and bed rails, and indicated that the likely cause of death would be strangulation on the bed rails or asphyxiation on the mattress. Subsequent observation of the bed showed 1/3 bed rails of the same make and model as the bed frame and a low air loss mattress; while the rails were not loose and there was little space when the mattress was fully inflated, the air mattress could be compressed enough to create significant space between the mattress and rails. The facility’s failure to conduct a bed rail entrapment risk assessment, obtain a physician order, and incorporate bed rail use into the care plan prior to installation led to the resident’s entrapment and death, and constituted noncompliance identified as past Immediate Jeopardy. The facility’s written bed rail policy required that appropriate alternatives be attempted before installing bed rails, that the IDT assess each resident for entrapment risk, that risks and benefits be reviewed with the resident or representative, that informed consent be obtained prior to installation, and that manufacturer instructions and compatibility of bed, mattress, and rails be verified. It also required updating the care plan to reflect the need or choice for bed rails. In this case, staff interviews and record review showed that these steps were not followed for the resident involved. The DON acknowledged that the process did not occur as required, that the IDT did not meet to assess the resident for entrapment risk, and that the bed rails were installed based on the responsible party’s request without the mandated clinical review and documentation. This sequence of omissions and deviations from policy directly preceded the resident’s fatal entrapment between the bed rail and mattress.

Removal Plan

• Notify Medical Director
• Notify Ombudsman
• Conduct ad hoc QAPI
• DON to provide education to trainers regarding abuse and neglect
• Review admissions processes regarding bed rails and complete in-service with DON, ED, and IDT
• Provide in-service to all nurses involved with admissions process regarding bed rails
• Audit bed rails currently in use
• Inspect bed rails currently in use
• Verify consent on file for all bed rails in use
• Verify order and care plan for all bed rails
• Complete bed rail safety evaluation for all residents with bed rails
• Audit low air loss mattresses currently in use
• Verify order and care plan for all low air loss mattresses in use
• Complete fall risk assessment for all residents with low air loss mattress
• Provide staff education regarding use of enabler/bed rail
• Provide staff education regarding false safety
• Provide staff education regarding low air loss mattress
• Audit admissions for completion
• Audit low air loss mattresses and bedside rails
• Conduct ongoing monitoring for improvement to be reviewed at QAPI

Penalty

Fine: $23,520

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

Summary

The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to provide safe, appropriate pain management consistent with professional standards of practice and the resident’s needs during wound care. A female resident with severe cognitive impairment (BIMS score of 00) was admitted with multiple pressure-related skin conditions, including a left heel deep tissue injury (DTI), right heel DTI, an unstageable sacral pressure injury, a left heel ulcer, a right bunion DTI, and other bruising/discoloration. Her MDS Care Area Assessment did not trigger for pain and no care planning decision for pain was documented. The resident’s care plan contained detailed entries for her multiple wounds but did not include any care plan for pain, despite the presence of significant pressure injuries and ongoing wound care orders. Record review showed the resident had an active PRN order for acetaminophen 500 mg every 6 hours as needed for pain and an order for Doxycycline for the sacral wound, as well as twice-daily wound care orders for the unstageable sacral pressure injury. The MAR for the month showed that no acetaminophen had been administered since early in the month, even though wound care was being performed twice daily. During an observed attempt to perform wound care, the resident was dependent for mobility and required staff to roll and reposition her. When staff attempted to roll her for treatment, she winced, cried out "Oh my God" in Spanish, and displayed furrowed eyebrows and facial expressions consistent with pain. CNAs assisting with care noted that she appeared to be lying on the wound, that her wounds often drained, and that there was a foul odor and visible brownish-green drainage on her brief and positioning towels. Despite these signs, the treatment nurse could not confirm whether the resident had been assessed for pain or medicated prior to the procedure and was unsure of the resident’s primary language. During this same encounter, the resident was noted by the surveyor and CNAs to feel warm to the touch, and her wounds and dressings showed green, brown, or red drainage. The treatment nurse and CNAs acknowledged the resident felt warm, but the charge nurse (LVN) initially stated there was no indication the resident was in pain or needed vital signs assessed and only checked the resident’s temperature after being prompted by the surveyor. The LVN reported a normal temperature using a contactless thermometer, was unsure if the resident had any pain medication orders, and did not initially perform a direct pain assessment. Subsequent interviews revealed that the wound care NP had observed increased necrotic tissue and odor in the sacral wound the prior week and that the resident had been frequently combative, refusing wound care by kicking and biting, but this behavior had not been considered as a possible reaction to pain. CNAs later described the resident’s facial expressions and reactions during repositioning as indicating pain, while the LVN reported feeling pressured and nervous during the surveyor’s questioning and could not clearly describe having assessed the resident for pain during her shift. The resident’s responsible party stated they had not been informed of wound odor, infection concerns, or antibiotic orders and believed the resident was receiving pain and fever medications, later expressing shock upon reviewing video that showed wound care being attempted without medication. The facility’s own pain assessment and management policy stated that residents should be assessed for pain at admission and ongoing, monitored for pain with changes in condition, and that procedures such as moving or wound care can cause pain. It also directed that pain management interventions be consistent with the resident’s goals and documented in the care plan, and that underlying causes of pain, including skin/wound conditions like pressure ulcers, be addressed. In this case, the resident with multiple pressure injuries and ongoing wound care had no pain care plan, no documented pain assessment using appropriate tools for severe dementia, and no administration of ordered PRN pain medication in the weeks preceding the observed event, despite clear non-verbal signs of pain during wound care attempts. These actions and omissions led surveyors to determine that the facility failed to ensure pain was assessed and treated prior to wound care, resulting in the resident crying out and exhibiting pain behaviors when touched or moved.

Removal Plan

• Amend treatment orders to require pain evaluation prior to treatments and medication if indicated upon re-admission.
• Provide additional 1:1 education to CNA A, CNA B, LVN A, and the facility treatment nurse specific to issues identified in the preliminary fact analysis.
• Nursing leadership (DON/designees) to conduct facility rounds on all residents to ensure no unreported or undocumented changes in pain levels; audit all wound care orders to ensure pain management orders are present as indicated.
• Complete house-wide pain assessments; communicate any reported pain to the charge nurse for medication administration if indicated and complete follow-up assessment to ensure effectiveness.
• Re-educate licensed nurses on change in condition, pain assessment and management, administering pain medications, and the pain-clinical protocol (including identifying situations where increased pain may be anticipated such as wound care, ambulation, repositioning, and reviewing the critical element pathway for pain recognition and management).
• Re-educate all non-licensed nursing staff on recognizing change in condition/status including changes in pain levels and proper reporting using STOP AND WATCH Alert in PCC/point-of-care documentation and/or direct communication to the charge nurse; re-educate staff not working prior to their next scheduled shift.
• Educate the Facility Administrator and DON by the Divisional President of Operations on standards of care, pain management, and quality oversight.
• Validate staff education via completion of a quiz and acknowledgement covering recognition of changes in condition, proper notification procedures, and pain assessment and management.
• Review and validate the pain assessment and management policy to ensure alignment with regulatory requirements (no changes required).
• Implement monitoring: change in condition/pain assessment audits (review 24-hour summary report and nurse progress notes; ensure changes are reported to the provider and documented; ensure pain assessments are completed prior to treatments); review audit results in IDT/QAPI meetings and address issues immediately, including provider communication.

Penalty

Fine: $23,520

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

Summary

The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to provide accurate pharmaceutical services, including acquiring, receiving, dispensing, and administering medications as ordered, for two residents. One resident with Parkinson’s disease, chronic right hip pain, and severe cognitive impairment had physician orders for Tramadol 50 mg by mouth three times daily, Tramadol 100 mg by mouth three times daily until a specified date, and a 4% lidocaine patch to the right hip once daily for pain. Surveyors observed this resident twice on the same day lying in bed, rubbing her right hip/thigh in a circular motion, shaking her legs, and stating she was “sore,” with no lidocaine patch present on either hip or thigh or in the bedding. The MAR showed that a medication aide documented administration of the lidocaine patch that morning, but in interview the aide admitted she did not have the patches on her cart at the scheduled time, signed that she had given the patch intending to retrieve and apply it later, and then forgot to do so. On the following day, the MAR showed that an RN documented administration of the lidocaine patch, but in interview that RN stated she had not administered any medications to this resident and was not assigned to her; she reported that another nurse had borrowed her computer earlier in the day. Record review of the same resident’s controlled substance log showed multiple irregularities in Tramadol administration over several days. Entries reflected doses of two 50 mg Tramadol tablets being given at various times without signatures identifying the administering staff, missing third daily doses, and inconsistent dosing patterns. On one date, the ADON documented administering two 50 mg tablets at an unknown time, followed by single 50 mg doses at noon and in the evening by other staff. On another date, a medication aide documented administering two 50 mg tablets in the morning and early afternoon, and another aide documented two 50 mg tablets mid-afternoon, resulting in a total of 200 mg of Tramadol within a short time frame. Additional entries showed two 50 mg tablets given in the morning and again at midday on a subsequent date. The DON acknowledged on interview that she had reviewed the controlled substance log and noted incorrect dosages but had not recognized that some administration times were too close together. The second resident involved was an older adult with hemiplegia and hemiparesis following cerebral infarction, type 2 diabetes mellitus, hypertension, severe cognitive impairment, and a gastrostomy tube in place. This resident had an order for Rezvoglar KwikPen (a long-acting basal insulin) 32 units subcutaneously at bedtime, scheduled at 8:00 p.m. Review of the MAR for March showed that the insulin was repeatedly administered outside the ordered time parameters on six different days, with documented administration times after midnight and late evening rather than at the scheduled hour. Blood sugar logs for the month showed wide fluctuations, with values ranging from 66 mg/dL to 332 mg/dL. Video monitoring from the resident’s room confirmed that on one date the night-shift LVN administered the scheduled 8:00 p.m. insulin dose after midnight. In interview, this LVN stated that bedtime medications, including insulin, were usually given between 7:00 p.m. and 9:00 p.m., that the acceptable window was one hour before or after the scheduled time, and that she believed she had not been late administering the insulin, despite documentation and video evidence to the contrary. The facility’s medication administration policy required medications to be administered safely, timely, and in accordance with prescriber orders, including within one hour of the prescribed time, and required staff to question inappropriate or excessive dosages.

Penalty

No penalty information released

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

Summary

The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to provide pressure ulcer care consistent with professional standards, including accurate assessment, staging, measurement, care planning, and implementation of ordered treatments for multiple residents with pressure injuries. For one resident with hemiplegia, vascular dementia, incontinence, low body weight, and an admission Braden score indicating risk, the facility did not consistently identify and document all existing wounds. Her care plan listed only a left heel pressure wound and omitted a sacral wound. Weekly skin assessments from late January through March repeatedly failed to document the sacral wound after its initial identification, and heel wounds were inconsistently documented without required measurements or staging. On several dates, the weekly skin assessment was left blank or lacked measurements, despite physician documentation that the left heel wound progressed from Stage 3 to Stage 4 with increasing size. The treatment administration record (TAR) also showed missing documentation of ordered wound treatments to the sacrum and left heel on multiple dates, with no corresponding nursing notes indicating that care was provided. A second resident with hemiplegia, vascular dementia, diabetes, malnutrition, peripheral vascular disease, incontinence, and significant weight loss was identified as at risk for pressure ulcers but initially had no documented pressure wounds. Her care plan, last updated the previous year, addressed only potential for pressure ulcer development and other skin integrity risks, and did not reflect a current sacral pressure wound. However, physician orders and TAR entries showed daily treatment to a sacral wound, and weekly skin assessments documented a sacral wound beginning in mid-February. These assessments frequently lacked staging and, at times, lacked complete measurements. Over several weeks, documentation showed the sacral wound increasing in size and evolving from MASD to an unstageable wound and then to a Stage 4 pressure injury requiring surgical debridement of devitalized tissue, including subcutaneous tissue, muscle fascia, and tendon. Despite this progression and ongoing wound physician involvement, the resident’s care plan was not updated to reflect the current pressure injury and specific wound care interventions. A third resident with dementia, Alzheimer’s disease, muscle weakness, incontinence, and an initially non-risk Braden score that later declined to moderate risk had an unstageable sacral pressure ulcer present on admission and MASD. Her care plan included potential for pressure ulcer development, an unstageable sacral pressure ulcer related to immobility, and a wound infection requiring oral antibiotics. Physician orders directed weekly skin assessments and specific daily and evening wound treatments to the sacral area. However, the March TAR showed multiple dates where ordered sacral wound treatments and topical medication for left upper buttock redness were not documented as given, and nursing progress notes did not show that wound care was provided on those dates. Weekly skin assessments for this resident were inconsistent, with several assessments in early January documented as refused or limited, alternating between noting arm discoloration and no skin issues, and later assessments intermittently omitting the sacral wound or lacking measurements and staging. Wound physician notes documented an unstageable sacral pressure injury with rapid clinical decline and later a Stage 3 pressure injury that had increased in size, but these changes were not consistently mirrored in the facility’s weekly skin assessment documentation. Interviews with nursing staff and leadership further described systemic issues contributing to the deficiency. The treatment nurse stated she could not stage wounds and relied on the DON or wound physician for staging, and that she was responsible for updating care plans when new pressure injuries were identified, though she was unsure of the required timeframe. She also reported that she performed nearly all weekly skin assessments for approximately 96 residents Monday through Thursday, with no assessments scheduled on Fridays unless there was a new admission, and that wound measurements were typically taken only when the wound physician visited, after which she transferred his measurements into the weekly skin assessments. The DON and ADON indicated that the treatment nurse was responsible for all wound care planning, weekly skin assessments, and ensuring documentation, and acknowledged that missing or inconsistent wound measurements and documentation on weekly skin assessments would prevent the facility from determining whether wounds were improving or worsening. Facility policies required full assessment and documentation of pressure ulcers, including location, stage, length, width, depth, exudate, and necrotic tissue, as well as complete wound care documentation, but the records for these three residents showed repeated omissions and inconsistencies in assessment, staging, measurement, care planning, and documentation of ordered treatments.

Penalty

No penalty information released

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

Summary

Surveyors identified a deficiency in the facility’s failure to reasonably accommodate resident needs and preferences by not ensuring that call lights were accessible to four residents reviewed. For one male resident with a skull fracture, a baseline MDS showing he was a fall risk and unable to complete the BIMS interview, and a care plan indicating he required assistance with ADLs, observation showed he was lying in bed with his call light positioned at the head of the bed, out of his reach. A second male resident, with diagnoses including need for assistance with personal care, stroke, and dysphagia, and a quarterly MDS indicating he was unable to complete the BIMS interview, had a care plan intervention specifying that his call light should be within reach; however, observation found him lying in bed with his call light on the floor, out of reach. A third resident, a female with lack of coordination, unsteadiness on her feet, repeated falls, and severe cognitive impairment (BIMS score of 1), had a care plan intervention to ensure her call light was within reach, yet she was observed lying in bed with her call light placed on her roommate’s bed. A fourth male resident with right-sided paralysis, intact cognition (BIMS 14), and a care plan identifying him as a fall risk with an intervention to keep his call light within reach, was observed lying in bed with his call light on the nightstand, out of reach. During interviews, a CNA, an LVN, and the DON each stated that call bells should always be within residents’ reach and that all staff are responsible for ensuring this, and acknowledged that lack of accessible call bells could result in accidents, falls, avoidable injuries, delayed care, and unmet needs. The facility’s written policy on call lights required staff to place the call device within the resident’s reach before leaving the room.

Penalty

No penalty information released

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

Summary

Surveyors identified a deficiency in the facility’s failure to provide a safe, clean, comfortable, and homelike environment, as required by the facility’s Resident Rights policy. During observations on the 300 and 400 halls, surveyors noted that handrails contained debris, including a piece of tissue with a red and brownish substance on the 300 hall and candy wrappers, gum, clear plastic materials, and large pieces of paper wedged between the rails on the 400 hall. Multiple resident rooms on these halls were found with unclean and unsanitary conditions. Several bathrooms had brownish or grayish stains in the corners of the floors and around toilets, as well as dark stains along floor edges, in corners, and in showers. Room floors showed built-up dirt near closet doors, door frames, and along floor edges, with brownish or dark stains near beds and walls. Additional observations revealed that air conditioning unit vents and filters in several rooms had black grime or thick dust accumulation. In multiple rooms, sharps containers used for needle disposal had used, dirty or disposable gloves and pieces of trash placed on top of them. During interviews, the Administrator stated that housekeeping services were provided seven days a week, with cleaning in the morning and evening, and that housekeeping was expected to thoroughly clean resident rooms and facility areas. A housekeeper assigned to the 300 and 400 halls confirmed responsibility for cleaning entire rooms, bathrooms, floors, and wiping down handrails, stating that handrails were wiped at least once a week and acknowledging that the observed conditions were a health hazard. The Housekeeping Supervisor confirmed that housekeeping and floor technicians were responsible for cleaning hallways, floors, handrails, entire rooms, bathrooms, and air conditioning units, and acknowledged that not thoroughly cleaning rooms and handrails could cause an infection.

Penalty

No penalty information released

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

Summary

Surveyors identified that the facility failed to provide respiratory care consistent with professional standards, physician orders, and the infection prevention and control program for three residents receiving oxygen and nebulizer treatments. For a male resident with COPD, record review showed physician orders to change tubing, clean filters, and change the O2 water bottle and nebulizer kit weekly on night shift every Saturday. However, observation revealed that his nasal cannula connected to the oxygen concentrator and his nebulizer mask connected to the nebulizer machine were not bagged or labeled with a date when not in use. For a female resident with asthma, physician orders directed weekly changes of tubing, filter cleaning, and O2 water bottle changes, but observation showed her nasal cannula connected to the oxygen concentrator was not bagged or labeled, and an oxygen humidifier bottle left on the nightstand was only one-quarter full, cracked, and dated from an earlier date. A female resident with COPD had physician orders to change tubing, clean filters, and change the O2 water bottle and nebulizer kit weekly, as well as orders to obtain and record pulse, O2 saturation, treatment minutes, and lung sounds in relation to nebulizer treatments. Observation found that her nasal cannula connected to the oxygen concentrator and nebulizer mask connected to the nebulizer machine were not bagged or labeled with a date when not in use. Staff interviews with a CNA, an LVN, and the DON confirmed that facility practice and expectations were for oxygen tubing and nebulizer masks to be bagged and dated when not in use, with bags changed weekly or as needed, and for humidifier bottles to be changed regularly. The DON stated that failure to follow these practices could be an infection control issue leading to serious health consequences. The facility’s written Infection Prevention and Control Program policy emphasized decreasing infection risk, recognizing infection control practices during care, and ensuring compliance with infection control regulations, which was not followed in these observed instances.

Penalty

No penalty information released

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

Summary

The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to provide pharmaceutical services that ensured accurate acquiring, receiving, dispensing, and administering of medications and biologicals for all 10 residents reviewed for pharmacy services. Record reviews showed that multiple residents had active physician orders for medications to treat conditions such as Type 2 diabetes, dementia, end-stage renal disease, hypertension, heart failure, schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, hypothyroidism, seizures, neuropathy, and pain. These medications included antihypertensives (such as amlodipine, hydralazine, metoprolol, benazepril, nifedipine), anticoagulants (Eliquis), antidiabetics (metformin, insulin), antipsychotics (olanzapine, quetiapine), anticonvulsants (levetiracetam), thyroid replacement (levothyroxine), heart failure medications (furosemide, carvedilol, isosorbide dinitrate), and others such as gabapentin, baclofen, galantamine, and lidocaine patches. During observation of a morning medication pass, surveyors noted that Med Tech F had not finished passing morning medications on two hallways between 10:15 a.m. and 11:14 a.m., even though those medications were scheduled for 8:00 a.m. and 9:00 a.m. This meant that residents’ medications were administered more than one hour after their scheduled administration times, contrary to the facility’s stated one-hour before or after administration window. Interviews with Med Tech F, LVN A, and the DON confirmed that facility practice and policy required medications to be given at the ordered times within that window to maintain effectiveness and comply with physician orders. The facility also failed to follow required procedures related to medication parameters and storage. Med Tech F and LVN A stated that medications with blood pressure check parameters required a blood pressure reading before dispensing the medication into a cup, but the report states the facility failed to check one resident’s blood pressure before dispensing medication. Additionally, observations and interviews revealed that the Med Pass liquid nutritional supplement, described as milk-based, was not kept refrigerated or on ice during medication administration, despite manufacturer directions and facility protocol requiring it to be refrigerated or kept on ice. Further, review of insulin storage on three halls showed that 12 of 14 insulin vials were not dated with the date of first use, even though LVN A, LVN B, and the DON stated that facility policy required insulin vials to be dated when opened and discarded after a specified period (generally 28–30 days). These failures placed residents at risk for receiving medications outside ordered time frames and using insulin vials without a known open date. Facility policy and procedure for medication administration (Policy Number 7C) required that medications be administered as prescribed by the resident’s physician, in accordance with written orders and the resident’s service plan, and that routine medications be administered per facility time ranges unless otherwise specified. The policy also required that medications be recorded on the MAR, that resident identification be verified prior to administration, and that medications be administered according to the dosage schedule on the MAR. Staff interviews confirmed awareness of these requirements, including the need to date insulin vials upon opening and to maintain proper storage conditions for nutritional supplements. Despite this, the observed late medication administration, failure to check blood pressure before dispensing certain medications, failure to keep Med Pass on ice or refrigerated, and failure to date insulin vials demonstrated noncompliance with the facility’s own medication administration and pharmaceutical services procedures for the residents reviewed.

Penalty

No penalty information released

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

Summary

The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to maintain an effective infection prevention and control program, specifically related to improper storage of personal items on medication carts and inadequate hand hygiene practices. On the 200 hall, a medication technician was observed with a personal water bottle placed on top of the medication cart; she acknowledged it was her bottle, that she had brought it out to drink, and that she did not have time to put it away. She further stated that personal water bottles were not allowed on top of the medication cart because of infection control concerns. On the 100 hall, a separate medication cart was observed with another personal water bottle on top. The LVN assigned to pass medications on that hall confirmed the water bottle was hers, explained she was thirsty and needed a drink, and stated that staff were not allowed to have personal items on the medication cart due to infection control concerns. The Administrator, Corporate Nurse, and DON each confirmed that staff were not to have personal items on top of medication carts because of contamination and infection control issues. The report also details a hand hygiene failure involving a resident with identified infection risks. Resident #9 was an elderly male with dementia, severe cognitive impairment (BIMS score of 7), and an active diagnosis of dementia. His care plan documented that he was at risk of infection related to dialysis access and required Enhanced Barrier Precautions during close contact care. Physician orders specified that enhanced barrier precautions and PPE were required for high resident contact care activities, with dialysis access to be monitored every shift. During medication administration for this resident, the same medication technician was observed sanitizing her hands, then picking up her keys from the floor, and failing to sanitize her hands again before donning clean gloves and entering the resident’s room to administer medication. In subsequent interviews, the medication technician, the LVN, and the DON each stated that hand hygiene was required after touching dirty surfaces, between residents, between glove changes, and before donning and after removing gloves, and that failure to perform hand hygiene could spread bacteria or germs and make residents sick. Review of the facility’s Infection Prevention and Control Program policy showed that personnel were required to wash their hands after each direct resident contact as indicated by accepted professional practice, and that infection prevention practices were to be monitored by the infection preventionist through skills competency evaluations such as observation of hand hygiene.

Penalty

No penalty information released

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

Summary

The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to maintain an effective Infection Prevention and Control Program, including proper use of enhanced barrier precautions and hand hygiene, for three residents observed for infection control practices. For one resident with a sacral pressure ulcer, dysphagia, a G-tube, and a PICC line, an enhanced barrier precautions sign was posted indicating the need for gown and gloves during high-contact care. During incontinent care and preparation for transfer to a wheelchair, a PTA, a CNA, and an RN all wore gloves but did not don gowns, despite performing high-contact activities such as changing briefs, disconnecting a feeding tube, and using a gait belt to transfer the resident. In interviews, these staff members acknowledged they had been trained on enhanced barrier precautions, recognized that residents with wounds or medically inserted devices required such precautions, and admitted they should have worn gowns during this high-contact care. For a second resident with diagnoses including type 2 diabetes mellitus, COPD, and overactive bladder, a CNA entered the room to provide incontinent care after performing hand hygiene and donning gloves. The CNA unfastened a wet brief, cleansed the resident’s perineal and buttocks areas, then changed gloves without performing hand hygiene before placing a clean brief under the resident and completing the brief change and repositioning. Hand hygiene was only performed after the gloves were removed at the end of care. In a subsequent interview, the CNA stated she was supposed to perform hand hygiene before and after incontinent care and further acknowledged she should have performed hand hygiene after cleaning the resident and changing gloves. For a third resident with dementia and COPD, a CNA and the Staffing Coordinator provided incontinent care while the resident’s oxygen concentrator was on and the oxygen cannula was observed lying on the floor. Both staff performed hand hygiene and donned gloves before care. The CNA unfastened the brief, placed a clean brief beside the resident, cleansed the perineal area, and, with assistance, removed the soiled brief and placed the clean brief under the resident before cleaning the buttocks, thereby placing a clean item under the resident prior to completing cleansing. Without changing gloves, the CNA then applied barrier cream using the same gloves that had been used for cleaning. After fastening the brief and repositioning the resident, the Staffing Coordinator picked up the oxygen cannula from the floor and placed it back on the resident’s nose. Both staff then removed their gloves, collected trash, left the room without performing hand hygiene, and only washed their hands later at a sink behind the nurse’s station. In interviews, both the CNA and the Staffing Coordinator acknowledged they had not followed required hand hygiene and glove-change practices and described the expected protocols as taught by the facility’s infection control policies.