Fox Run at Orchard Park

In the surveyor’s words

From the most serious findings on record at Fox Run at Orchard Park, in the surveyor’s own words.

• No harm, potential for more than minimal, patternF880Jan 13, 2021

  Based on interview and record review conducted during the Focused Infection Control COVID-19 survey completed on 1/13/21, the facility did not establish and maintain an Infection Control Program to ensure the health and safety of residents to help prevent the transmission of COVID-19. Specifically, the facility did not ensure employees were screened for COVID-19 symptoms (e.g., fever, cough, difficulty breathing, or other respiratory symptoms), including temperature checks every 12 hours while on duty. […]

• No harm, potential for more than minimal, isolatedF758Mar 7, 2025

  Based on observation, interview, and record review conducted during the Standard survey completed on 3/7/25, the facility did not ensure that as needed (PRN) orders for psychotropic drugs are limited to 14 days. Except if the attending physician or prescribing practitioner believes that it is appropriate for the order to be extended beyond 14 days; they should document their rationale in the resident's medical record and indicate the duration for the as needed order. Specifically, for one (1) (Resident #24) of five (5) residents reviewed for unnecessary medications an as needed psychotropic antianxiety medication was ordered longer than 14 days. Additionally, there was no documented physician rationale to extend the duration of the order. […]

• No harm, potential for more than minimal, isolatedF677Jul 1, 2022

  Based on observation, interview and record review completed during a Standard survey conducted from 6/27/22 through 7/1/22, the facility did not ensure that each resident who was unable to carry out activities of daily living (ADL's) receives the necessary services to maintain grooming and personal hygiene for one (Resident #31) of one resident reviewed for ADL's. Specifically, staff provided incomplete incontinence care, including retraction of the foreskin to Resident #31. Additionally, staff did not change their gloves and perform hand hygiene after they provided fecal incontinence care and prior to applying Resident #31's clean brief and clothing. […]