Amelia Rehabilitation And Healthcare Center

Penalty

No penalty information released

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

Summary

Facility staff failed to provide required ADL care, specifically incontinence care and bathing, to multiple dependent residents as documented in clinical records, interviews, and facility documents. One resident with severe cognitive impairment, always incontinent of bowel and bladder and dependent on staff for toileting hygiene, had extensive gaps in ADL documentation over several months. ADL records from January through March showed multiple dates and shifts where incontinence care entries were left blank, despite a care plan stating the resident’s bowel and bladder continence needs were to be met and a facility policy requiring daily personal care and clean clothing and linens each time they were soiled. The resident’s representative reported visiting on weekends and finding the resident’s brief appearing wet for hours. CNAs interviewed stated that incontinence care was provided every two hours and documented as evidence of care, but the records did not reflect consistent documentation. Another resident, moderately cognitively impaired and dependent for showering and bathing, did not receive showers at the frequency required by facility policy and the resident’s care plan. Clinical documentation over a two‑week period showed that the resident received only two showers, even though the policy required tub/shower baths not less than twice weekly and the care plan specified assistance with bathing and hygiene as required. The resident’s authorized representative expressed concern that the resident was not being showered regularly. A CNA reported that showers were given at least twice a week and documented in the electronic system, and that refusals were verified by the nurse, but the documentation reviewed did not show showers being provided at the required frequency. Additional residents with bowel and bladder incontinence and dependence on staff for toileting, hygiene, and positioning also had missing documentation of incontinence care and turning/positioning on specific dates and shifts. One resident, frequently incontinent and dependent on staff for toileting, had no documented toileting hygiene on two night shifts in June, despite a care plan directing staff to observe for moisture and provide care as indicated. Two other residents, both severely cognitively impaired, dependent for locomotion, transfer, dressing, toileting, and hygiene, and care‑planned for bladder and bowel incontinence and risk for pressure ulcer development, had ADL records with missing evidence of incontinence care and turning/positioning on multiple day and night shifts across several months. CNA interviews described a process of rounding at the beginning of the shift and then every two hours, with all care documented in the electronic record and the understanding that if it is not documented there is no evidence it was done, yet the reviewed records contained numerous blank entries for required care.

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

Facility staff failed to ensure the environment remained free of accident hazards and did not provide adequate supervision and safety measures related to resident smoking. Staff permitted residents to smoke in a non-designated courtyard that lacked required fire safety controls, including ashtrays or fire-safe disposal containers, a fire extinguisher, or a fire blanket. The trash receptacle in this area contained combustible materials such as paper, cardboard, and plastic liners, and there were high winds at the time of observation, all of which were documented as increasing the fire ignition risk. On one observed occasion, a resident admitted for post-surgical rehabilitation, with an MDS BIMS score of 15 indicating no cognitive impairment and assessed as an independent smoker, was seen smoking in the non-designated courtyard. The resident extinguished a cigarette on the ground and discarded it into the trash receptacle containing combustible waste. No appropriate smoking safety equipment or supervision was present in that courtyard at the time. Staff interviews confirmed that the courtyard where the resident was observed smoking was not a designated smoking area, although residents sometimes smoked there and staff only attempted to redirect them when noticed. The designated smoking courtyard, located in a different area, was reported to have a fireproof metal can for cigarette disposal, a fire extinguisher, and a smoking blanket; however, the fire extinguisher in that designated area had no inspection tag or date and appeared to be a store-bought unit with no evidence of inspection. The facility’s smoking policy required the Administrator to designate outdoor smoking areas and mandated access to noncombustible ashtrays in those areas, but these requirements were not consistently implemented or enforced, contributing to the identified deficiency and immediate jeopardy related to accident hazards and smoking safety.

Removal Plan

• Resident #10 was placed on 1:1 observation for safety reasons due to smoking in an unauthorized area.
• Resident #10 was re-educated on the smoking policy and procedure, including smoking location and cigarette disposal.
• Locks were ordered to be installed on the courtyard doors to prevent unauthorized smoking.
• Lock installation on the non-designated courtyard began.
• The Facility Administrator will conduct a town hall meeting with residents that smoke to review the facility smoking policy (locations, cigarette disposal, and consequences for non-compliance up to suspension of smoking privileges or potential discharge).
• All residents that smoke will have a new smoking policy acknowledgement obtained.
• The Interdisciplinary Team will be educated by the President of Operations on the smoking policy and designated smoking areas.
• Facility staff will be educated by the Director of Nursing or designee on the smoking policy and designated smoking areas; no employee will be allowed to work until educated.
• The Administrator or designee will conduct weekly environmental safety rounds three times a week for 4 weeks, then monthly audits for 2 months to ensure no resident is smoking in a non-designated smoking area.
• The Administrator made the Medical Director aware of the Immediate Jeopardy via telephone.

Penalty

No penalty information released

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

Summary

The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to protect multiple residents from physical and verbal abuse by another resident with known aggressive behaviors. One resident with severe cognitive impairment and diagnoses including heart failure, diabetes, dementia, hemiplegia, and seizure disorder repeatedly exhibited aggression toward other residents and staff. Behavior notes documented frequent verbal outbursts with expletives, yelling, and threatening behavior, as well as physical aggression such as ramming another resident’s wheelchair, attempting to strike a resident using a walker, and kicking and punching a nurse. These behaviors were noted to occur multiple times per week or daily, and staff documented that separating the resident from others and moving him to a quiet location were not effective interventions. The aggressive resident’s behaviors were directed toward several specific residents. On one occasion, when another resident came downstairs to visit friends, the aggressive resident yelled profanities and ordered him to leave. On another date in the dining room, the aggressive resident stared and ground his teeth, yelled loudly, frightened two female residents, rammed one resident’s wheelchair as she tried to leave, and lunged toward another resident with a walker, swinging his arms in an attempt to hit her before a male nurse intervened. During the same incident, the aggressive resident kicked and punched a nurse, causing bruising and a knot on the shin and bruising on the chest. On a later date at the elevator, when the aggressive resident encountered another resident he disliked, he began screaming profanities, kicked the other resident, and swung at him, causing the other resident to back into the wall and yell. Additional behavior notes described the aggressive resident yelling repetitively, grinding his teeth, shaking with anger, and attempting to attack a female resident after she asked him to stop yelling, with staff intervening to block him. Staff interviews confirmed that this resident’s behaviors were sporadic, unpredictable, and could be directed at anyone, and that he became aggressive when his wants were not met immediately. Staff reported that another resident was a known trigger and had been moved to another unit, but the aggressive behaviors toward other residents and staff continued. Psychiatric documentation indicated that the aggressive behavior was possibly related to vascular dementia and a mood disorder, and the treatment plan called for identifying triggers, redirection, one-to-one staffing, and psychosocial interventions; however, staff described their responses as largely reactive, focused on separation and occasional one-to-one, and behavior notes repeatedly documented that these interventions were ineffective. The facility also failed to produce an incident summary or investigation for the incident involving two residents in the dining room, despite documentation that they were involved and upset at the time. Interviews with the affected residents showed that they experienced the aggressive resident as loud, hateful, rude, and a bully. One resident reported that the aggressive resident had been physically aggressive toward him in the elevator but that he did not sustain injuries. Two female roommates reported that the aggressive resident had not physically contacted them but had come toward one of them aggressively and was stopped, and they described him as hateful, loud, and believing he should get everything he wants. Another resident stated that the aggressive resident had been aggressive toward her and that she tried to stay to herself. Staff, including CNAs, LPNs, the unit manager, social services, and the facility NP, consistently described the aggressive resident as unpredictable, easily escalated when his demands were not met, and requiring separation when angry. Despite ongoing, documented aggressive behaviors toward multiple residents and staff over an extended period, the facility did not implement and sustain effective interventions to prevent further abuse, and did not consistently investigate all incidents, resulting in a failure to ensure residents’ right to be free from abuse.

Removal Plan

• Resident #1 was placed on 1 to 1 supervision and will remain on 1 to 1 supervision while out of bed until discharge or a significant change in condition limits the resident's physical ability to encounter another resident; while in bed the resident is not considered a risk because the resident cannot transfer independently.
• Residents #2, #3, #4, and #5 will receive follow-up psychosocial support from facility staff.
• The facility will continue attempts to find alternative placement for Resident #1.
• All residents in the facility will be screened for evidence of abuse and neglect (interviewable residents with BIMS ≥ 8 interviewed using an abuse questionnaire; non-verbal residents and residents with BIMS ≤ 7 assessed head-to-toe to validate absence of signs of physical abuse).
• Any identified concerns from the screening will be addressed according to the facility Abuse Policy.
• All residents will be assessed/reviewed for similar behaviors as exhibited by Resident #1 by reviewing all Facility Reportable Incidents (FRIs), and care plans will be reviewed and revised with interventions for any identified residents.
• All facility and agency staff will be reeducated on the facility Abuse Policy, including abuse prevention, types of abuse, and abuse reporting.
• Staff not present will be required to complete mandatory abuse-policy education prior to the start of their next shift.
• No staff member will be allowed to return to work until the mandatory abuse-policy education has been completed.
• New hire orientation will include abuse-policy training as part of the new hire process.
• All agency staff will be required to complete abuse-policy education prior to starting work in the facility.
• Facility leadership will be reeducated by the Regional Director of Clinical Operations and Regional Director of Operations on assessing triggers, root causes, and escalation patterns and developing an effective and sustained supervision and separation intervention for residents with behavioral disturbances.
• The Medical Director was notified of the situation.
• The facility conducted an Ad Hoc QAPI committee meeting to accept the IJ Removal Plan.

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

Facility staff failed to ensure a resident was free from significant medication errors by not following a physician’s order requiring blood pressure assessment prior to administering an antihypertensive medication. The resident had diagnoses including quadriplegia, primary progressive multiple sclerosis, aphasia, anemia, cognitive communication deficit, and essential primary hypertension, and was assessed as cognitively intact with a BIMS score of 15 but dependent on staff for all ADLs, requiring a mechanical lift for transfers and an electric wheelchair for ambulation. The physician’s order for Nifedipine ER 30 mg once daily for hypertension, dated 6/2/25, directed staff to hold the medication if the systolic blood pressure was less than 120. Review of the MAR from 3/31/26 through 4/14/26 showed no recorded blood pressures prior to administration of Nifedipine on 15 occasions. During interview, an LPN stated that blood pressures are not automatically taken when administering blood pressure medications and that if there is an order to obtain blood pressure prior to administration, it would be recorded on the MAR, and blood pressures are documented in the EHR. The LPN was unable to locate any blood pressure readings prior to Nifedipine administration in the EHR and acknowledged that nurses should read orders before giving medications and that not checking blood pressure before administration could result in the resident’s blood pressure “bottoming out.” The DON later stated that blood pressure had been checked and the medication was discontinued because the resident no longer needed it.

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 report and investigate resident-to-resident abuse incidents involving three residents. One resident with heart failure, diabetes, dementia, hemiplegia, seizure disorder, and a severely impaired cognitive score of 5 was involved in an altercation in the dining area with two other residents. One of the other residents had heart failure, kidney disease, dysphagia, a cognitive communication deficit, and a mildly impaired cognitive score of 12, while the third resident had cerebral palsy, anxiety, bipolar disorder, a psychotic disorder, and was cognitively intact with a score of 15. Progress notes showed that during the dining incident, the cognitively impaired resident began yelling "No" to another resident nearby, after which one of the female residents told the resident to stop. The cognitively impaired resident then rammed the wheelchair of one of the female residents and started swinging and trying to attack the other female resident, requiring staff to separate all residents. Staff interviews and record review confirmed that the residents were separated and skin assessments were completed, with no injuries identified, although the two female residents were upset at the time. The RN who documented the behavior reported that the DON was informed of the involvement of the two female residents. When surveyors requested all investigations and incident summaries related to the aggressive resident’s behavior toward others, the facility produced documentation only for a separate altercation involving a different resident, and there was no evidence of an investigation or incident synopsis for the dining room altercation involving the two female residents. The DON stated that no incident synopsis or report was completed because there was no actual physical abuse due to staff separating the residents. Later review of a progress note showed that one of the female residents had been pushed by the aggressive resident, and the administrator acknowledged that no investigation or incident summary was found and that one should have been reported. This failure occurred despite the facility’s abuse policy requiring all alleged violations involving abuse to be reported immediately, but no later than two hours after the allegation is made.

Penalty

No penalty information released

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

Summary

The facility failed to investigate an incident of resident-to-resident abuse involving three residents. One resident with diagnoses including heart failure, diabetes, dementia, hemiplegia, and seizure disorder, and a severely impaired cognitive score of 5 on the most recent MDS, was involved in an altercation in the dining area with two cognitively intact residents whose diagnoses included heart failure, kidney disease, dysphagia, cognitive communication deficit, cerebral palsy, anxiety, bipolar disorder, and psychotic disorder. Progress notes documented that during the incident, the cognitively impaired resident began yelling "No" to another resident near the dining area, after which one of the female residents told this resident to stop. The cognitively impaired resident then rammed one resident’s wheelchair and started swinging and trying to attack the other resident, and staff separated all residents involved. During interviews, the RN who wrote the behavior note confirmed that the residents were separated, the DON was informed, and skin assessments were completed on the two cognitively intact residents, which showed no injuries, though both were upset at the time. When surveyors requested all investigations and incident summaries related to the aggressive resident’s behavior toward others, the facility produced documentation only for a separate altercation involving a different resident, and there was no evidence of an investigation or incident summary for the dining room altercation involving the two cognitively intact residents. The DON stated there was no incident synopsis or investigation because there was no actual physical abuse due to staff separating the residents. Later review of a progress note indicating that one resident had been pushed did not yield any additional documentation, and the administrator acknowledged that an investigation and incident summary should have been completed. The facility’s abuse policy required designated staff to immediately review and investigate all allegations or observations of abuse and to communicate results to the administrator and appropriate officials within five working days, but no such investigation was completed for this incident.

Penalty

No penalty information released

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

Summary

Facility staff failed to develop and implement a comprehensive, measurable behavior care plan for one resident requiring 1:1 supervision. The resident had diagnoses including heart failure, diabetes, dementia, hemiplegia, and seizure disorder, and a recent MDS with a cognitive score of 5 indicating severe cognitive impairment. Review of the resident’s behavior care plan showed an intervention initiated on 12/30/25 that stated "1:1 supervision as indicated" without specifying parameters such as timeframe, whether the supervision was continuous or behavior-based, what specific behaviors would trigger its use, or the duration of the intervention. During an interview on 3/19/26 at 12:15 p.m., the DON stated that the resident is placed on 1:1 when he becomes aggressive toward another resident and remains on 1:1 until he deescalates, and acknowledged that the care plan should be more specific regarding 1:1 supervision. This lack of detailed parameters and measurable actions in the written care plan for 1:1 supervision constituted the deficiency identified by surveyors for failure to develop and implement a complete care plan that met all of the resident’s needs with clear timetables and measurable interventions.

Penalty

No penalty information released

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

Summary

The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to protect a cognitively impaired resident from sexual abuse and neglect, including inadequate supervision despite known risks. One resident with Wernicke’s encephalopathy and severe cognitive impairment, reflected by a BIMS score of 99, was fully ambulatory and had a documented history of wandering, exit seeking, and intrusive behaviors into other residents’ rooms. Another resident involved in a sexual incident had mild cognitive impairment with a BIMS score of 13 and self-propelled in a wheelchair. On one occasion, documentation showed the cognitively impaired resident was found in another male resident’s room on his knees performing oral sex; the residents were separated, and the cognitively impaired resident later had no recollection of the event. A subsequent progress note documented the same cognitively impaired resident sitting on the side of a female resident’s bed with his pants off while the other resident was fully clothed under the covers; staff could not later identify this third resident for surveyors. The facility’s care planning and supervision for the cognitively impaired resident were deficient. A comprehensive care plan entry dated 2/24/26 identified a psychosocial well-being problem related to sexual/physical contact with another resident and directed staff to immediately separate and remove the resident from such situations and notify the NP and responsible party/guardian. Another care plan entry dated 3/9/26 specified that the resident had obsessive compulsive behavior and required 1:1 monitoring at all times, medication administration as ordered, and redirection and cues as needed. However, multiple nursing staff and CNAs interviewed on 3/17/26 and 3/18/26 denied knowing that the resident was to be on 1:1 supervision, and supervision was not provided. The care plan interventions focused on reacting after sexual or physical contact was found, and there was no evidence of preventative measures being implemented to protect the resident from himself or to protect others from him. None of the care plan interventions for behaviors or elopement were documented as implemented, and no behaviors were documented on the MAR during the resident’s stay. The facility also failed to adequately supervise the resident’s known wandering and elopement risk and to secure exit doors. Nursing and physician notes documented multiple episodes of wandering and exit seeking, including the resident going into other residents’ rooms during their personal care, attempting to exit through doors, and an elopement through the courtyard gate on 12/15/25, when he pushed the gate and exited to the parking lot before being redirected back inside. An elopement evaluation completed later incorrectly indicated no history of elopement and minimized the impact of the resident’s wandering on safety and privacy, despite prior documentation of elopement and intrusion into other residents’ rooms. A Wander-Guard device had been ordered on 11/13/25, but on 3/17/26 no device was found on the resident, and he had previously removed it on 3/8/26 without replacement or care plan direction until the time of survey. During survey observations, the courtyard gate alarm was found in the off position, the gate could be opened without an alarm sounding, and no staff were present in the courtyard despite residents being there. The resident’s prior elopement and the incident of him unclothed in a female resident’s room were never reported to the state agency, and the facility’s abuse reporting and investigation documentation for the 2/23/26 sexual incident was incomplete, lacked the initial report, lacked staff witness statements, and had no confirmation that required reports were timely submitted to the state agency, contrary to federal, state, and facility policy requirements.

Removal Plan

• Resident #1 was placed on 1:1 continuous supervision 24 hours/day.
• The resident provider and resident representative were notified.
• Residents who have a BIMS score of 9 or greater have been interviewed to determine if they have experienced any unwanted sexual interaction with another resident, if they have concerns about other residents wandering into their rooms, and if they feel safe residing in the facility.
• Residents who have a BIMS score of less than 9 have had a body skin assessment completed by a licensed nurse to identify any changes in skin that may have resulted from abuse.
• Any newly identified areas from skin assessments will be reported to the residents' provider and the residents' representative.
• Other residents who have a moderate or higher risk for elopement have been reviewed to determine that appropriate interventions, including use of a Wander Guard, are in place and functional.
• A staff member has been assigned to continuously monitor the facility exit door to the courtyard until another alarm system can be installed.
• The courtyard gate alarm was activated and is being monitored every 30 minutes to ensure that it remains engaged.
• All current residents will be reviewed to ensure that elopement risk assessments have been completed and that appropriate interventions are being implemented per the resident care plan and provider orders.
• All staff will be re-educated on abuse, including unwanted or non-consensual sexual activity and the capacity to consent.
• Staff who are unable to participate in the initial abuse training will be educated prior to their next scheduled shift.
• All licensed nursing staff will be re-educated on completion of the elopement risk assessment, importance of implementing safe precautions and supervising residents who may be at risk of elopement, and documenting functionality and placement of the Wander Guard.
• Licensed nursing staff who are unable to participate in the initial elopement training will be educated prior to their next scheduled shift.
• The smoke attendant will be educated on safety precautions and their responsibility for supervising the exit door to the courtyard and supervising that the alarm on the courtyard gate is engaged each shift.
• All staff will be re-educated on the importance of supervising wandering residents and approaches to re-direct residents who wander into other resident rooms.
• Staff who are unable to participate in the initial wandering supervision training will be educated prior to their next scheduled shift.
• Residents who have expressed concern of other residents wandering their rooms will be offered interventions such as a room change, use of stop sign, or other alternative, to minimize other residents from wandering into their rooms.

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 accident-hazard-free environment and provide adequate supervision for residents with known wandering, exit-seeking, and sexually disinhibited behaviors. One resident with Wernicke’s encephalopathy, severe cognitive impairment (BIMS score of 99), and full ambulatory ability was repeatedly documented as wandering into other residents’ rooms, disrupting care, and seeking exits. Nursing notes showed that this resident attempted to leave the enclosed courtyard by pushing open the gate, was observed going to numerous exit doors and setting off a door alarm, and wandered throughout multiple units. Despite a physician’s order for a Wander-Guard device and an elopement risk care plan focus, the resident removed the Wander-Guard and it was not replaced, and on the day of survey no Wander-Guard was found on the resident. The elopement event when the resident exited the courtyard gate was not reported to the state agency. Surveyors also identified environmental hazards and lack of supervision related to the courtyard exit. The courtyard gate, which opened to the parking lot, was equipped with an audible alarm and keyed lock, but surveyors found the alarm in the off position and were able to open the gate without any alarm sounding. No staff were present in the courtyard while four residents were there, and surveyors waited approximately five minutes at the open gate with no staff response. The Maintenance Director stated that the alarm had been shut off by someone, that multiple keys were “floating around,” and that he could not account for all of them. He also confirmed that the gate did not have a Wander-Guard alarm. These conditions demonstrated that exit doors and the courtyard gate were not secured or supervised adequately to prevent resident elopement. The facility also failed to protect the cognitively impaired resident from engaging in sexual activities he could not consent to and failed to protect other residents from his behaviors. Progress notes documented that this resident was found on his knees performing oral sex on another male resident who was lying on his bed, and later was found sitting on the side of a female resident’s bed with his pants off while she was fully clothed under the covers. The cognitively impaired resident had no recollection of the sexual event. A psychiatric evaluation documented dementia, Wernicke’s encephalopathy, and altered mental status. The care plan was updated to include a psychosocial problem related to sexual/physical contact with another resident and later to require 1:1 continuous monitoring for behaviors, but multiple nursing staff and CNAs reported they were unaware of the 1:1 requirement, and supervision was not provided. The sexual incident between the two male residents and the subsequent intrusion into the female resident’s room were not reported to the state agency. The surveyors concluded that withholding required supervision for a resident known to be a danger to himself and others constituted neglect and contributed to Immediate Jeopardy related to accidents, hazards, abuse, and neglect. In addition, documentation and assessment processes related to elopement and behavior were deficient. An elopement evaluation completed after the resident’s documented elopement incorrectly indicated no history of elopement and minimized the impact of his wandering on safety and privacy, despite prior notes of him entering other residents’ rooms during personal care and attempting to exit the building. Care plan interventions for behaviors and elopement were not documented as implemented, and no behaviors were recorded on the MAR throughout the resident’s stay. The facility’s incident and abuse investigation files contained only limited documentation related to the sexual incident between the two male residents, lacked the original initial report allegedly faxed to the state agency, and had no fax confirmation for either the initial or follow-up reports. These omissions and inaccuracies in assessment, care planning, implementation, and reporting contributed to the identified deficiency and Immediate Jeopardy. During the survey, additional observations confirmed ongoing failures in supervision and hazard control. On the initial tour, the cognitively impaired resident was observed walking alone from his unit to the main dining room without supervision. The courtyard gate alarm, when later tested, sounded briefly and then went silent without any staff response. Staff interviews revealed a lack of awareness of critical care plan elements, including the 1:1 supervision requirement for the resident with severe cognitive impairment and sexually disinhibited behavior. Collectively, these actions and inactions demonstrated that the facility did not ensure a safe environment free from accident hazards and did not provide adequate supervision to prevent accidents, elopement, and non-consensual sexual contact, resulting in Immediate Jeopardy and substandard quality of care.

Removal Plan

• Resident #1 was placed on 1:1 continuous supervision 24 hours/day.
• The resident provider and resident representative were notified.
• Residents who have a BIMS score of 9 or greater have been interviewed to determine if they have experienced any unwanted sexual interaction with another resident, if they have concerns about other residents wandering into their rooms, and if they feel safe residing in the facility.
• Residents who have a BIMS score of less than 9 have had a body skin assessment completed by a licensed nurse to identify any changes in skin that may have resulted from abuse.
• Any newly identified skin assessment areas will be reported to the residents' provider and the residents' representative.
• Other residents who have a moderate or higher risk for elopement have been reviewed to determine that appropriate interventions, including use of a Wander Guard, are in place and functional.
• A staff member has been assigned to continuously monitor the facility exit door to the courtyard until another alarm system can be installed.
• The courtyard gate alarm was activated and is being monitored every 30 minutes to ensure that it remains engaged.
• All current residents will be reviewed to ensure that elopement risk assessments have been completed and that appropriate interventions are being implemented per the resident care plan and provider orders.
• All staff will be re-educated on abuse, including unwanted or non-consensual sexual activity and the capacity to consent.
• All licensed nursing staff will be re-educated on completion of the elopement risk assessment, importance of implementing safe precautions and supervising residents who may be at risk of elopement, and documenting functionality and placement of the Wander Guard.
• The smoke attendant will be educated on safety precautions and their responsibility for supervising the exit door to the courtyard and supervising that the alarm on the courtyard gate is engaged each shift.
• All staff will be re-educated on the importance of supervising wandering residents and approaches to re-direct residents who wander into other resident rooms.
• Residents who have expressed concern of other residents wandering their rooms will be offered interventions such as a room change, use of stop sign, or other alternative, to minimize other residents from wandering into their rooms.

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

Facility staff failed to maintain a safe, clean, comfortable, and homelike environment and appropriate grooming for residents on Units W1 and W2. Upon entering the facility lobby, surveyors noted a strong pervasive odor resembling old dried urine. On Unit W1, observations during the initial tour included privacy curtains with dark smeared substances, baseboards buckling away from the wall, and bed linens with yellow-brown halos of stains. Foul odors of feces and urine were noted at various times of the day. Residents were observed with food particles on their clothes and in their wheelchairs, as well as wearing wet pants, stained clothing, and having oily hair. On Unit W2, multiple rooms were observed to be unclean and in disrepair. In one room, the baseboard near the HVAC unit was not attached to the wall and appeared to be crumbling, window blinds were bent, and paint on the wardrobe was scuffed; both residents in that room had hair under the chin and there was a very foul odor. Another room had a bedside table with a missing drawer, yellow-orange (rust-colored) stains and various trash on the floor under the sink, including a wound dressing, glove, and straw. A different room had bedside and overbed tables with liquid spills and dried substances and a very foul odor. One resident in a bariatric bed reported that bariatric sheets were not always available when linens needed changing and that towels sometimes ran out at the start of shifts, though she confirmed her linens had been changed that day and had extra towels and washcloths at bedside. Housekeeping aides reported they typically clean 18–20 rooms per day, focusing on floors and bathrooms and only wiping tables if residents request it. A CNA stated that sometimes there were not enough towels at the beginning of a shift and that staff would go to another unit to obtain more, and that bariatric sheets were available most of the time but occasionally not.