Every finding on record at Monette Manor, LLC

Based on observation and interview, the facility failed to ensure the Infection Preventionist had completed specialized training in infection prevention and control before taking the position. The failed practice had the potential to affect all 79 residents residing in the facility. The findings include: Review of the facilities Infection Prevention and Control Program (IPCP) states the facility must designate one or more individuals who are responsible for the facility IPCP who have the specialized training in infection prevention and control. During an interview on 04/22/2026 at 12:39 PM the Director of Nurses (DON) indicated she had not completed specialized training beyond her initial professional training as a nurse, nor received a completion certificate for infection prevention and control. The DON stated I have not completed a full module of the necessary training as of yet for the Infection Preventionist.

Based on interviews and record review, the facility failed to maintain an infection prevention and control program that included an Antibiotic Stewardship Program (ASP) ) this failed practice had the potential to affect all residents who resided in the facility. The findings include: Review of an undated facility Antibiotic Stewardship Manual revealed that the Infection Preventionist (IP) will track antibiotic use and monitor adherence to evidence-based criteria and compile reports related to monitoring antibiotic usage and resistance data. Review of a facility Antibiotic Stewardship Tracking and Trending document revealed no documentation for the months of March and April of 2026. Last documentation for tracking/trending was February. Documentation in February showed antibiotic use, with a resident's name, s/s were documented, but the tracking/trending of the different halls for the month of February were not completed. During an interview on 04/22/2026 at 12:36 PM, the Director of Nursing indicated they were responsible for the Antibiotic Stewardship Tracking and Trending as the Infection Preventionist but I have not completed the training for the Infection Preventionist, I have not even completed one module. At the current time there was no Infection Preventionist in the building. During a second interview on 04/23/2026 at 11:56 AM, the Director of Nursing indicated that that the Antibiotic Stewardship Tracking and Trending was important to determine where and when infections arise, the days and who was working. The previous DON was the Infection Preventionist and kept up with the Antibiotic Stewardship. When she left, I was literally handed the job as the Infection Preventionist, so it hasn't been kept up to date.

Based on observations, interviews, record review, and facility policy review, it was determined that the facility failed to develop and implement a Comprehensive Person-Centered Care Plan for one (Resident #36) of five residents reviewed that included measurable objectives and timeframes to meet a resident's medical, nursing, needs that were identified in the Comprehensive Assessment Specifically, Resident #36's Care Plan did not address or focus on an active diagnosis of type 2 diabetes, nor include interventions to guide staff in monitoring for complications. The findings include: Review of an admission Record revealed the facility admitted Resident #36 on 12/29/2025 with diagnoses that included type 2 diabetes with elevated blood sugars, congestive heart failure, chronic kidney disease, Alzheimer's, high blood pressure, cognitive communication deficits, depression, insomnia and anxiety. Review of Resident #36's admission Minimum Data Set (MDS), with an Assessment Reference Date of 01/05/2026, revealed Resident #36 had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 14 which indicated the resident was cognitively intact and was independent for daily decision making. The MDS indicated Resident #36 used a wheelchair for ambulation with no impairments to arms or legs. Active diagnosis listed included coronary artery disease, heart failure, hypertension, kidney failure, and diabetes mellitus. The MDS indicated insulin injections were administered seven out of the seven days assessed for the look back period. Resident #36's MDS also indicated use of a high-risk hypoglycemic medication. Review of Resident #36's Care Plan initiated on 12/29/2025, revealed Resident #36's Do Not Resuscitate status, Resident #36's use of medication related to depression and insomnia with specific medications listed, activities of daily living (ADL), pain medication usage with specific medication listed, diuretic therapy related to high blood pressure, and nutritional problems related to diet. Interventions included black box warnings, assistance as needed with activities, monitor for choking and pocketing foods. The care plan did not mention any focus on diabetes or list any interventions for diabetes. Review of Resident #36's Physician Orders dated 12/29/2025, revealed the following active orders: -Low Concentrated Sugars (LCS)-Fast-acting insulin given per sliding scale (depending on how elevated Resident 36's blood sugars were.)-Slow acting insulin to be administered every morning. Review of Medication Administration Record-Treatment Administration Record (MAR-TAR dated for the month of April 2026, revealed Resident #36 received 35 units of insulin subcutaneously every morning for diabetes type 2 with hyperglycemia. Resident #36 also received fast acting insulin each day at 7:30 AM, 11:00 AM, 4:00 PM, and 8:00 PM per sliding scale, if required by Resident #36's blood sugar levels. Fast acting insulin was administered approximately 51 times in April from 04/01/2026 through 04/21/2026 During an interview on 04/22/2026 at 12:40 PM, Registered Nurse (RN) #4 indicated that the Care Plan was what staff reviewed to know how to care for residents. RN #4 indicated the Care Plan should be specific in listing diagnoses and interventions to help the residents. During an interview on 04/23/2026 at 11:35 AM, the Director of Nursing (DON) stated the Care Plans should be checked and updated with all MDS assessments. The DON indicated that the MDS triggers things that should be included on the resident's Care Plan. The DON stated, The care plan has basic things first such as the residents code status to activities of daily living to certain medical diagnosis like diabetes, congestive heart failure, falls, or hypertension. During an interview on 04/23/2026 at 2:00 PM, the Administrator indicated there have been several issues with the MDS being updated and the Care Plans being person-centered. The Administrator indicated completing the MDS and updating the residents Care Plan was part of Quality Assurance. The Administrator indicated a Care Plan could include pretty much anything ranging from a resident's risks, accidents, medications, and diagnosis, and were to be updated with any changes with the residents. During an interview on 04/21/2026 at 9:54 AM, the MDS Consultant indicated that a full time MDS Coordinator was recently hired, and on 04/06/2026 the MDS Coordinator conducted direct observations and interviews with residents and direct care staff and updated all Care Plans accordingly. Review of a facility undated policy titled, Comprehensive Care Plan indicated, Each resident will have a person-centered comprehensive care plan developed and implemented to meet their holistic preferences and goals and address the resident's nursing, medical, physical, mental and psychosocial needs identified in the comprehensive assessment and This facility will help develop and implement a comprehensive person-centered care plan for each resident that includes: a. Measurable objectives and time frames to meet the residents medical, nursing and mental/psychosocial needs that are identified in the comprehensive assessment utilizing the RAI process, evidence-based criteria, and professional standards.

Based on observations, interviews, record review and facility policy review, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that antibiotic medications were administered promptly and as ordered, and that the accuracy of orders entered into a resident's electronic health record was verified for one (Resident #76) of one resident reviewed for medication administration. Specifically, the facility failed to ensure ordered antibiotics were not left in the medication room's overflow box for seven days prior to initiating administration, and to ensure the duration of the antibiotics were entered as ordered. The findings include: Review of Resident #76's Medical Diagnosis report revealed, the facility admitted Resident #76 with diagnosis that included chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) [damage to the airways causing inflammation and other problems that block airflow and make it hard to breath]; urinary tract infection (UTI) [infection in any part of the urinary system]. Review of an Order Summary revealed, Resident #76 had an active order for two antibiotics (medication given for an infection) twice a day with a start date of 04/17/2026. One antibiotic was ordered for 10 days, and the other antibiotic was ordered for 14 days. On 04/21/2026 at 8:03 AM, this surveyor observed Resident #76 was not given one of the ordered antibiotics during medication administration by LPN #12. On 04/21/2026 at 11:25 AM, this surveyor observed medications for Resident #76 that were on the medication cart for administration. One ordered antibiotic was not present on the medication cart for administration. During an interview on 04/21/2026 at 2:00 PM, when asked why the ordered antibiotics were not being administered, Registered Nurse (RN) Supervisor #6 indicated that Resident #76's antibiotics were only to be given for a period of two days for one antibiotic and three and a half days for the other antibiotic, as opposed to the durations of 10 and 14 days that had been entered into the resident's health record. RN Supervisor #6 stated that she thought medication was for the normal time of 10 days when it was reported to her that the medication had arrived in the facility. RN Supervisor #6 stated she did not verify the duration of the order for the antibiotic before writing the order into the resident's health record. Review of a Pharmacy Medication Sheet sent from the Pharmacy revealed two different antibiotics were delivered to the facility on [DATE] at 5:50 PM and signed by Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #11 as acknowledgement of medications received. During an interview on 04/21/2026 at 2:37 PM, Pharmacist #2 revealed that on 04/10/2026 two different antibiotics were sent to the facility for Resident #76 following a hospital visit. One had a quantity of four tablets with directions to administer one tablet twice day for two days, the other antibiotic had a quantity of seven tablets with directions to administer one tablet twice a day until gone. Review of Resident #76's Medication Administration Record revealed the order for the two prescribed antibiotics did not begin to be administered until 04/17/2026, seven days following their delivery to the facility. During an interview on 04/21/2026 at 3:12 PM, the Director of Nursing (DON) revealed that a night shift nurse put the antibiotics in the overflow box in the Medication Room when they were delivered to the facility and did not put in an order for the medications, or find out what the medication was for. The DON stated the medications were not administered until another nurse found the medication in the overflow box and took it to the RN Supervisor. During interview on 04/21/2026 at 9:42 PM, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #11 stated that Resident #76's medication arrived at the facility from the pharmacy on 04/10/2026 at around 6 PM and that she had signed for it, acknowledging receipt of this medication. LPN #11 stated the process for when medications were delivered to the facility, the receiving nurse would put the medication in the overflow box in the medication room. Later in the night, they would take the medication and compare the medication with the Physicians Order and Medication Administration Record (MAR). LPN #11 revealed she did not remember if she took Resident #76's medications and put them in the medication cart or not.

Based on observations, interviews, record review and facility policy review, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure each resident received adequate supervision and assistive devices to prevent accidents for one (Resident #83) of three residents reviewed for accidents. Specifically, the facility failed to follow the person-centered care plan interventions for Resident #83, resulting in an accident. The findings include: Review of an admission Record revealed the facility admitted Resident #83 on 08/15/2025 with diagnoses that included brain cancer, heart failure, need for assistance with personal care, muscle wasting and atrophy, abnormalities of gate and mobility, cognitive communication deficit, infection following a procedure at surgical cite, repeated falls, syncope and collapse, and fracture to left femur. Review of a discharge return anticipated Minimum Data Set (MDS), with an Assessment Reference Date of 10/25/2025, revealed Resident #83 had a Brief Interview for Mental Status score of 3, which indicated the resident had severe cognitive impairment. The MDS revealed Resident #83 was dependent on staff for toileting hygiene and required substantial/maximal assistance for toilet transfers and sit to stand motion Review of a documented titled CMS's RAI Version 3.0 Manual Section GG, dated 10/2025, revealed toileting hygiene consisted of managing clothing, including briefs, adjusting clothing, and perineal cleaning. Review of Resident #83's Care Plan initiated on 10/30/2025, revealed the resident had limited physical mobility due to a fracture to the left femur. Interventions included Resident #83 required extensive assistance from two staff members for toileting. Resident #83 was incontinent of bowel and bladder and wore a brief. Staff were to provide incontinent care and hygiene with each incontinent episode. The Care Plan also revealed Resident #83 was at risk of falls due to gait and balance problems. Interventions included a safe environment with even floors, a working a reachable call light, bed in lowest position, and handrails on walls. Review of an Incident and Accident (I&A) report, dated 11/13/2025, revealed a written statement from Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) #7 that indicated on 11/12/2025 she took Resident #83 to their room to change the resident's brief. She asked Resident #83 if the resident was able to stand. Resident #83 stated yes. CNA #7 had Resident #83 stand, and she pulled the brief and soiled pants down then had Resident #83 return to a seated position. CNA #7 reported when Resident #83 stood back up for the last time Resident #83 lost balance and fell to the floor landing on their buttocks and hand. The I&A Report also included a typed statement obtained from Resident #83 that stated, The CNA stood me up to change me, she lost her grip and I fell. During an interview on 04/21/2026 at 8:50 AM, the Nurse Educator indicated that she trained all the new CNAs upon hire. She stated she taught the CNA's how to access the Care Plan in the electronic health record, and she trained them one on one with certain things. such if a CNA seemed to be struggling in an area. The Nurse Educator indicated if a resident allowed you to change them, you should change them in their bed or in their bathroom because there was a bar in the bathroom the residents could grab for safety. The Nurse Educator indicated she had instructed CNA #7 multiple times on transferring residents safely. During an interview on 04/23/2026 at 3:30 PM, Registered Nurse (RN) #6 indicated 11/12/2025 CNA #7 reported she was changing Resident #83 in the room and Resident # 83 fell. RN #6 indicated CNA #7 was the only CNA in the room and that she was attempting to change Resident #83 in the room instead of in the bathroom. During an interview on 04/23/2026 at 11:10 AM, Nursing Aid (NA) # 8 stated she was in NA school in the facility and had been taught to change residents in the bathroom if they were able to stand, to allow them to grab the bar so that the resident could support themselves. During an interview on 04/23/2026 at 11:16 AM, CNA #9 reported that the Nurse Educator taught her to change residents in the bathroom if a resident was able to stand and grab the bar for support. CNA #9 stated, training was completed before and after the incident of Resident #83's fall on 11/12/2025. CNA#7's training dates were initiated on 10/22/2025 and 11/25/2025. During an interview on 04/23/2026 at 11:25 AM, CNA #10 stated Resident #83 was a two-person assist. CNA #10 stated, Two people had to transfer [the resident] to be safe. Resident #83 was never changed by one person, it was always two. CNA #10 stated if a resident refused to lay down to be changed but could stand she would do it with a second person present. During an interview on 04/23/2026 at 11:35 AM, the Director of Nursing (DON) indicated she was not present on the day of Resident #83's fall. The DON stated that the Nurse Educator instructed every CNA on how to properly transfer a resident. During an interview on 04/23/2026 at 2:00 PM, the Administrator indicated CNA#7 attempted to change Resident #83 in the middle of the room and Resident #83 lost balance and fell. The Administrator indicated it was the Nurse Educator's responsibility to train all CNA staff. The Administrator indicated CNA #7 was terminated on 02/19/2026 following a written warning on 02/18/2025 related to similar incidents as Resident #83's incident on 11/12/2025. Review of CNA #7's Employee file on the Employee Disciplinary Action Form for CNA #7 indicated on 02/18/2026 CNA #7 was given a written warning due to work quality, safety and multiple incidents involving falls with residents. Review of a CNA New Hire Check List provided by the Nurse Educator on 04/21/2026 at 8:50 AM revealed that all CNAs on hire were taught how to access the Care Plan located on the electronic health record for each resident. Review of a Duties and Check Off of CNA dated 10/22/2025 and 11/25/2025 revealed, CNA #7 was trained to dress and undress a resident and assist a resident to the bathroom. A review of the document titled In-Service Training report-Transfer a Resident (Gait Belt) dated 11/13/2025, Department: Nursing (CNA) an in-service was completed by the Nurse Educator that addressed How to transfer a resident to the bathroom, to bed or change their clothing. Do not ask the resident. Always find the right way to transfer a resident before you do anything. Ask another CNA or nurse to help you with the resident transfer. Always use a gait belt. Review of a facility undated policy titled Accidents revealed, The facility must ensure that: Each resident receives adequate supervision and assistance devices to prevent accidents. And The intent of this policy is to ensure this facility provides and environment that is free from accident hazards over which the facility has control and provides supervision. And Individualized person -centered interventions will be implemented, including adequate supervision and assistant devices to reduce risk related to hazards in the environment.

Based on observations, interviews, record review and facility policy review, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that all drugs and biologicals used in the facility were labeled in accordance with professional standards, including expiration dates and with appropriate accessory and cautionary instructions for one (Resident #36) of three residents reviewed. The findings include: Review of an admission Record revealed that the facility admitted Resident #36 on [DATE] with diagnoses that included type 2 diabetes with elevated blood sugars, congestive heart failure, chronic kidney disease, Alzheimer's, high blood pressure, and cognitive communication deficits. Review of Resident #36's admission Minimum Data Set (MDS), with an Assessment Reference Date of [DATE], revealed Resident #36 had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 14 which indicated the resident was cognitively intact and was independent for daily decision making. The MDS indicated Resident #36 used a wheelchair for ambulation with no impairments to arms or legs. Active diagnosis listed on the MDS included coronary artery disease, heart failure, hypertension, kidney failure, and diabetes mellitus. The MDS indicated insulin injections were administered seven out of the seven days assessed during the look back period. Resident #36's MDS also indicated use of a high-risk hypoglycemic medication. Review of Resident #36's Physician Orders dated [DATE], revealed the following active orders: -Low Concentrated Sugars (LCS)-Fast-acting insulin given per sliding scale (Depending on how elevated Resident #36's blood sugars were.)-Slow acting insulin to be administered every morning. Review of Resident #36's Lab Report dated [DATE] indicated Resident #36's Glucose level was high. Resident #36's reading was 143 mg/dl. The normal reference range was 74-109 mg/dl. Review of Resident #36's Medication Administration Record-Treatment Administration Record (MAR-TAR) dated for the month of [DATE], revealed Resident #36 received 35 units of insulin subcutaneously every morning for diabetes type 2 with hyperglycemia. The MAR/TAR revealed insulin was administered every morning, including [DATE]th, 19th, 20th and 21st as indicated by the signatures of the nursing staff. Resident #36 received fast acting insulin as well each day at 7:30 AM, 11:00 AM, 4:00 PM, and 8:00 PM. On [DATE] Resident #36's blood sugars ranged from 103-266 with insulin required ranging from 2-6 units. On [DATE] Resident #36's blood sugars ranged 88-220 with insulin required ranging from 2-4 units. On [DATE] Resident #36's blood sugars ranged 142-257 with insulin required ranging from 2-6 units. On [DATE] Resident #36's blood sugar ranged 132-344 with insulin required ranging from 4-8 units. During an observation on [DATE] at 8:16 AM an insulin box labeled with Resident #36's name and date of birth , with a written date of [DATE] indicated as an opened date for the vial of insulin inside the box. During an interview on [DATE] at 8:16 AM, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #1 indicated the insulin dated [DATE] belonged to Resident #36. LPN #1 stated the date of [DATE] indicated the day the vial was first opened and initiated use. LPN #1 reported the last administered dose was completed by LPN #1 on [DATE] during the morning medication pass. LPN #1 indicated the insulin should have been discarded and not administered after 28 days from the opened date. LPN #1 indicated night shift nurses check carts for expired medication nightly but that she should have checked the vial prior to administering the insulin. LPN #1 indicated if the insulin was administered after the 28th day it could cause the blood sugar to not be in control and cause other symptoms or illnesses. During an interview on [DATE] at 11:35 AM, the Director of Nursing (DON) indicated insulin vials should not be used after the 28th day of being opened. The DON indicated all nurses were ultimately responsible for checking the expiration dates on medication prior to administering them. The DON stated, insulin being administered after the 28th day could be an ineffective treatment for blood sugar levels and cause a lot to go wrong. During an interview on [DATE] at 2:00 PM, the Administrator stated, We definitely have to follow all the guidelines on the medications, and we can always contact our pharmacy consultant. During an interview on [DATE] at 9:50 AM, Pharmacist #2 indicated no insulin should be used past the 28th day after opening. All insulin vials were good for administration for 28 days. During an interview on [DATE] at 9:58 AM, Pharmacist #3 stated, It is the law from the manufacturer not to use an insulin multi dose vial after the 28th day once opened. Pharmacist #3 indicated after multiple sticks to an insulin vial; air gets into a vial and the more frequently a vial of insulin is exposed to light the more it loses effectiveness. Review of a facility's undated policy titled Storage of Medication revealed, No discontinued, outdated or deteriorating medications are to be used in this facility. All such medications are destroyed according to facility policy. and Multi-dose vials that have been opened or accessed should be dated and discarded within 28 days of opening/initial access unless the manufacturer specifies a shorter or longer date. Review of a document titled [Name Brand] Manufactures Insert dated 11/2018 revealed Storage, 10ml vial of [Name Brand] in-use(opened) can be used for 28 days refrigerated or at room temperature. And Do not use [Name Brand] after the expiration date stamped on the label or 28 days after you first used it. And The [Name Brand] vials you are using should be thrown away after 28 days, even if it still has insulin left in it.

Based on observations, interviews, record review and facility policy review, it was determined that facility staff failed to wear proper Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) while providing direct care to a resident that had an indwelling catheter in place and was on Enhanced Barrier Precautions (EBP) for one (Resident #11) of one resident reviewed for Infection Control. The findings include: Review of Resident #11's Medical Diagnosis revealed the facility admitted Resident #11 with diagnosis that included Urinary Tract Infection (UTI) [bacteria in urinary tract] Review of a quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS), with an Assessment Reference Date of 01/26/2026, revealed Resident #11 had a Brief Interview for Mental Status score of 15 which indicated the resident was cognitively intact. Review of Resident #11's Care Plan initiated on 04/17/2026, revealed Resident #11 had EBP in place due to indwelling catheter. Care Plan interventions included appropriate PPE to be worn by staff. Review of an Order Summary revealed Resident #11 had an order for EBP in place related to indwelling catheter with a start date of 04/17/2026. The Order Summary also revealed an order for indwelling catheter output every day and night shift for indwelling catheter placement related to Extended Spectrum Beta-Lactamase (ESBL) [group of bacteria that commonly cause infections] in urine with a start date of 04/14/2026. Review of a Progress Note dated 04/14/2026 at 9:23 PM revealed, Resident #11 had an indwelling catheter placed. Review of a Progress Note dated 04/15/2026 revealed, Resident #11 continued on EBP due to indwelling catheter in place. During an observation on 04/22/2026 at 11:29AM, this surveyor observed a green dot which indicated EBP precautions, outside Resident #11's room on the nameplate beside the door and appropriate PPE on a supply cart in the hall. Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) #5 was observed in Resident #11's room getting Resident #11 dressed without proper PPE on, such as a gown. During concurrent interview and observation on 04/22/2026 at 11:40 AM, Registered Nurse Supervisor (RNS) #6 was observed in Resident #11's room assisting with transfer of Resident #11 from bed to chair with mechanical lift without proper PPE on, such as gown or gloves. the Director of Nursing (DON) was present with this surveyor in Resident #11's room while RNS #6 transferred Resident #11. The DON stated, staff was not wearing proper PPE due to Resident #11 having an indwelling catheter while providing direct care to the resident. During an interview on 04/22/2026 at 3:31 PM, CNA #5 stated staff would know when a resident was on EBP by a green dot on name plate outside of door. CNA #5 revealed Resident #11 was on EBP due to having an indwelling catheter and she should have put on a gown when providing direct resident care. During an interview on 04/23/2026 at 11:44 AM, The DON revealed that PPE should be worn every time staff go into a resident's room that was on EBP. The DON also stated that when proper PPE was not worn infections could spread throughout the facility. Review of in-service provided on 04/17/2026 covering EBP for CNAs revealed that EPB in addition to standard and contact precautions will be implemented during high contact resident care activities when caring for a resident that have increased risk for acquiring a resistant MRDO. CNA #5's signature was on the sign-in sheet for this in-service. Review of a facility policy titled Enhanced Barrier Precaution revealed Enhanced Barrier Precautions expand the use of PPE beyond situations in which exposure to blood and body fluids is anticipated and refer to the use of gown and gloves during high contact resident care activities that provide opportunities for transfer of Multidrug resistant organisms (MRDO) to staff hands and clothing. High contact resident care activities include dressing, bathing/showering, transferring, providing hygiene, changing linens, changing briefs or assisting with toileting, device care or use of a device- central line, urinary catheter, feeding tube, tracheostomy/ventilator, wound care. Enhanced Barrier Precautions apply to wounds and/or indwelling medical devices (i.e., central line, urinary catheter, feeding tube, tracheostomy/ventilator) regardless of MDRO colonization status.

Based on record review, facility document review, interview, and facility policy review, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure fall interventions were placed in a person-centered care plan following falls for five (Resident #4, Resident #5, Resident #7, Resident #8, and Resident #9) of seven residents reviewed for fall interventions in a person-centered care plan. The findings include: Resident #4: A review of Resident #4's admission Record indicated the facility admitted the resident on 02/13/2024 with diagnoses which included a nondisplaced fracture of coracoid process, right shoulder (broken part of the shoulder blade), multiple rib fractures to the right side, and a wedge compression fracture of the T7-T8 vertebra (fracture to the middle of the spine). A review of Resident #4's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS), with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 08/26/2025, revealed a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 07, which indicated the resident had severe cognitive impairment. Resident #4's MDS also revealed the resident required partial/moderate assistance with transfers and was dependent when using a wheelchair. A review of a facility, Incident by Incident Type, with a date range of 10/01/2024 to 10/31/2024, revealed Resident #4 had a witnessed fall on 10/29/2024. A review of Resident #4's Care Plan, revised on 02/14/2024, revealed the resident had an actual fall and was a high risk for falls, related to a history of falls. Resident #4 did not have an intervention for the fall that occurred on 10/29/2024. Resident #5 A review of Resident #5's admission Record indicated the facility admitted the resident on 08/14/2023, with diagnoses which included muscle wasting and atrophy, lack of coordination, difficulty walking, hemiplegia and hemiparesis following Cerebral Infarction affecting left non-dominant side (weakness and paralysis following a stroke), a personal history of Transient Ischemic Attack (TIA), and Cerebral Infarction without residual deficits (mini stroke). A review of Resident #5's significant change MDS, with an ARD of 11/28/2025, revealed a BIMS score of 12, which indicated the resident had moderate cognitive impairment. Resident #5's MDS also revealed the resident required substantial/maximal assistance with transfers and was dependent when using a wheelchair. A review of a facility, Incident by Incident Type, with a date range of 10/01/2024 to 10/31/2024, revealed Resident #5 had an unwitnessed fall on 10/05/2024. A review of Resident #5's Care Plan, revised on 12/09/2024, revealed the resident had a history of frequent falls. Resident #5 did not have an intervention for the fall that occurred on 10/05/2024. Resident #7 A review of Resident #7's admission Record indicated the facility admitted the resident on 10/18/2024, with diagnoses which included systolic congestive heart failure (CHF) (heart cannot pump oxygenated blood out to the body) and muscle weakness. A review of Resident #7's admission MDS, with an ARD of 11/28/2024, revealed a BIMS score of 13, which indicated the resident was cognitively intact. Resident #7's MDS also revealed the resident required partial/moderate assistance with transfers and required substantial/maximum assist while using a wheelchair. A review of a facility, Incident by Incident Type, with a date range of 10/01/2024 to 10/31/2024, revealed Resident #7 had unwitnessed falls on 10/20/2024 and 10/24/2024. A review of Resident #7's Fall Log revealed on 10/20/2024, Resident #7 received a skin tear approximately three centimeters in length on the left elbow. A review of Resident #7's Care Plan revised on 12/18/2024, revealed the resident was at risk for falls related to gait and balance problems. Resident #7 did not have an intervention for the falls that occurred on 10/20/2024 and 10/24/2024. Resident #8 A review of Resident #8's admission Record indicated the facility admitted the resident on 09/17/2024, with diagnoses which included acute on chronic diastolic CHF (heart becomes stiff preventing it from relaxing and filling properly with blood between beats), weakness, and intervertebral disc degeneration in lumbar region (age-related breakdown of the spinal discs in the lower section of the spine.) A review of Resident #8's admission MDS, with an ARD of 11/17/2024, revealed a BIMS score of 14, which indicated the resident was cognitively intact. Resident #8's MDS also revealed the resident required partial/moderate assistance with transfers. A review of a facility, Incident by Incident Type, with a date range of 10/01/2024 to 10/31/2024, revealed Resident #8 had an unwitnessed fall on 10/29/2024. A review of Resident #8's Care Plan, revised on 12/11/2024, revealed the resident was at risk for falls, related to gait and balance problems. Resident #8 did not have an intervention for the fall that occurred on 10/29/2024. Resident #9 A review of Resident #9's admission Record indicated the facility admitted the resident on 07/23/2024, with diagnoses which included encephalopathy (disease that changes brain function or structure), falls, abnormalities of gait and mobility, muscle wasting and atrophy, difficulty walking, tremors (involuntary movement), and a personal history of TIA. A review of Resident #9's significant change MDS, with an ARD of 11/17/2025, revealed a BIMS score of 06, which indicated the resident had severe cognitive impairment. Resident #9's MDS also revealed the resident was dependent with all transfers and with utilizing a wheelchair. A review of a facility, Incident by Incident Type, with a date range of 10/01/2024 to 10/31/2024, revealed Resident #9 had an unwitnessed fall on 10/28/2024. A review of Resident #9's Care Plan, revised on 01/20/2025, revealed the resident was at a high risk for falls. Resident #9 did not have an intervention for the fall that occurred on 10/28/2024. During an interview on 12/30/2025 at 2:40 PM, the Registered Nurse (RN) Supervisor explained the process of Care Planning interventions for falls was that the Director of Nursing (DON) and the Restorative Certified Nurse Assistant (CNA) would determine the intervention that was placed upon the Care Plan. She confirmed that Resident #4, Resident #5, Resident #7, Resident #8, and Resident #9's interventions for the falls that occurred for the month of October 2024 were on the Care Planned. She stated, If you didn't see them then they are not there. I was not trained and thrown in to figure it out. She explained the importance of Care Planning falls was to inform the staff if the resident had a fall and what interventions to take. She confirmed that falls were to be Care Planned when they happened. She verbalized that she was doing Care Plans prior to the current MDS Coordinator in the building. The RN Supervisor explained that the expectation of falls being Care Planned was to make sure fall care plans were up to date and had accurate interventions. She then confirmed that the MDS Coordinator was responsible for Care Planning falls and that she was the MDS Coordinator. The RN Supervisor expressed that Care Planning falls was essential for each resident for everyday life to make sure that the resident stayed safe and that the Care Plan was person specific. During an interview on 12/30/2025 at 3:05 PM, Restorative CNA/CNA #1 explained that CNA#1 collaborated with the DON and the floor nurses and decided upon interventions that would go into the Care Plan for every resident. CNA #1 confirmed that she did not know for sure if the fall intervention for the falls that Resident #4, Resident #5, Resident #7, Resident #8, and Resident #9 had for October 2024 were on their Care Plans. She explained that she used the Care Plan for the care of the residents, and that the importance of Care Planning falls was so staff would know what interventions the resident would have. She verified that the purpose of interventions was to keep the resident from falling again, and that falls should be Care Planned as soon as they happened. CNA #1 confirmed the MDS Coordinator was responsible for Care Planning falls and that fall interventions were Care Planned for safety. During an interview on 12/31/2025 at 9:00 AM, the DON explained the process of Care Planning interventions was the MDS Coordinator was to put the fall interventions in the care plans. The DON verified that Resident #4, Resident #5, Resident #7, Resident #8, and Resident #9 did not have a fall intervention for their falls within the month of October 2024. She confirmed not having these falls Care Planned would increase the risk for future falls. She expressed that the importance of Care Planning falls was to prevent future falls for residents and protect the residents. She confirmed that falls should be placed into the Care Plan. The DON confirmed that the MDS Coordinator was responsible for Care Planning falls, and that the Administrator oversaw that the person responsible was doing their job. She explained that the CNA's would look at the Kardex, in which information was pulled from the Care Plan, to care for the residents. During an interview on 12/31/2025 at 10:44 AM, the Administrator explained that the DON and Restorative can/CNA #1 collaborated regarding interventions for falls and then communicated the interventions to the MDS Coordinator who put the interventions into the Care Plan. The Administrator verified that he was not aware of Resident #4, Resident #5, Resident #7, Resident #8, and Resident #9 not being Care Planned on the falls that happened in October 2024. He explained that the importance of Care Planning falls was to prevent future falls from happening and to protect the residents. He confirmed that falls should be Care Planned as they happened. He explained that the expectations of falls were to make sure the residents were Care Planned and interventions were in place and well documented. He then confirmed that the RN Supervisor, who was the MDS Coordinator at that time, was responsible for Care Planning falls. On 12/30/2025 at 4:00 PM, this surveyor requested the policy and procedure for care plans from the Administrator, not provided.

Based on observations, interviews, record review, document review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to report 3 of 3 incidents of resident-to-resident abuse reviewed, failed to report an unwitnessed fall with serious injury, and failed to complete a thorough investigation of the incidents. The findings are: 1. A review of an Admission Record indicated the facility admitted Resident # 46 with diagnosis Dementia, Severe with other Behavioral disturbance. The quarterly Minimum Data Set with an Assessment Reference Date 6/27/2024 revealed Resident # 46 had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 01 (0-7 suggest severe cognitive impairment). In Section E0200. Behavioral Symptoms revealed Physical behavioral symptoms directed towards others and B. Verbal behavioral symptoms directed towards others. A review of nursing Health Status Note dated 8/16/2024 at 8:04 revealed Resident was aggressive and combative toward another resident. Resident being sent to ER (emergency room ) for evaluation. (family member) notified and report called to (Name of hospital) ER. During an interview on 9/25/2024 at 10:54 AM Certified Nurse Aid (CNA) # 1 said she was in the dining room when Resident # 46 hit another resident. She said it happened very fast and resident was immediately separated from the other resident. The Director of Nurses (DON) came into the dining room and quickly assessed both residents. During an interview on 9/26/2024 at 4:30 PM, The Administrator said he didn ' t file a report to the State Office of Long-Term Care because the incident lasted a few seconds and neither resident was hurt. A video of the incident was shown to the surveyor by the Administrator. Resident # 46 was observed seated in adjustable chair at the assisted table, when Resident # 120 scooted the adjustable chair over to another resident, pulled the hair of that resident and slapped at the top of the resident ' s head twice before the Dietary Manager could separate them. CNA # 1 was observed removing resident was removed. The Dietary Manager was unavailable for interview. 2. Upon review of the admission record, Resident #48 was admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses of dementia and generalized weakness due to previous stroke. The Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) with an Assessment Reference Date of 6/24/2024 revealed Resident #48 had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 02 (0-7 suggest severe cognitive impairment). Resident #48 required set up assistance for meals, and 1to 2 staff assistance for transfers. used a manual wheelchair for mobility. No Incident & Accident (I&A) reports were provided. Upon review of an I&A progress note dated 07/10/2024 at 11:32 PM, revealed the resident had an unwitnessed fall from a wheelchair in the hall. The facility's nursing staff assessed Resident #48. Resident #48 had a skin tear to the right elbow and complained of right hip pain. The Director of Nursing (DON), provider, and family were notified per documentation. Resident #48 was transported via ambulance to a local hospital for evaluation and treatment. Upon review of the hospital records, it was determined Resident #48 sustained a fracture to the right hip which required surgical repair. During an interview on 09/24/24 at 03:28 PM, the Administrator stated he didn't file a report to the State Office of Long-Term Care because the incident was originally reviewed via video and staff responded quickly to assist the resident after the fall. Since a video was reviewed, the Administrator didn't view it as an unwitnessed fall. There were no witness statements available or documentation of an investigation determining the cause of the fall with major injury. The video was unavailable for review when requested due to the incident being over 60 days ago. 3. Upon review of the Admission Record, Resident #71 was admitted on [DATE] for a diagnosis of left hip pain and initially for rehabilitation, and assistance with abnormal gait. The Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) with an Assessment Reference Date 8/04/2024 revealed Resident #71 had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 15 (13-15 suggests that cognition is intact). Resident #71 requires set up assistance for meals and was independent with transfers. The MDS reflects Resident #48 used a walker to assist with mobility. Upon review of a progress note dated 01/14/2024 at 5:15 PM, Resident #71 was involved in a resident-to-resident altercation with the roommate at that time. During an interview on 09/26/24 at 10:42 AM, Resident #71, and was notified of an incident that was not reported during our initial encounter on 09/23/2024. Resident #71 reported physical altercation where the roommate choked, scratched, and hit Resident #71 due to an argument about a light being turned on. Resident #71 stated, I took a video of the attack because this other roommate was always threatening me. The staff intervened and moved me to a different room afterwards. I showed the video to the girls (staff) that helped me. During an interview with Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) #8 on 09/26/24 at 1:42 PM, she stated she was one of the staff that assisted with this incident, and stated, she was on the north front of the hall and heard screaming and yelling. She, the nurse, and another aide ran to the back hall. We saw [Resident #71] hurrying out of the room with the roommate following close behind, cursing and hitting. (Resident #71) explained the resident turned on the light and the roommate started yelling and threatening the resident. Resident #71 showed us the video Resident #71 took on the phone of the roommate attacking Resident #71, and also the marks on (Resident #71's) neck and chest. We reported it to the DON at the time. We moved (Resident #71) into a different room. During an interview on 09/26/24 at 2:15 PM, the Administrator stated he didn't file a report to the State Office of Long-Term Care regarding this resident-to-resident altercation because he was unaware of any injuries and was advised it was just a [NAME] between the residents. There were no I&A reports or witness statements provided. Resident #71 did not have a body audit or documentation related to any injuries or marks seen per CNA #8 interview and reported by Resident #71. No documentation was provided by the facility showing an investigation regarding the altercation.

Based on facility document review and interview, it was determined the facility failed to electronically transmit encoded, accurate, and complete, Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessments to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) within the required time frame of 14 days to provide accurate and up-to-date information for quality measures for 6 (Residents #1, #2, #26, #34, #41, and #44) sampled residents whose MDS assessments were reviewed. The findings are: On 09/26/2024 the following observations were made in resident health records: Resident #1 had an Admission assessment with an ARD of 11/08/2023 exported but not accepted. Resident #2 had a Significant Change assessment with an ARD 1/28/2024 that was export ready. Resident #26 had an Admission assessment with an ARD 11/5/2023 that was exported but not accepted. Resident #34 had an Admission assessment with an ARD 11/13/2024 that was exported but not accepted. Resident #41 had an Admission assessment with an ARD 3/12/2024 that was exported but not accepted. Resident #44 had an Admission assessment with an ARD of 2/07/2024 that was exported but not accepted. Review of a facility policy titled, Chapter 5 Submission and Correction of the MDS Assessments revised December 2002 indicated Assessment Transmission: Comprehensive assessments must be transmitted electronically within 31 days of the MDS Completion date.

Based on observations, interviews, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to develop and implement a comprehensive person-centered care plan to reflect the residents needs and preferences for 5 residents (Resident #37, Resident #13, Resident #14, Resident #220, and Resident #120) of 19 residents reviewed for care plans. The facility failed to properly assess residents and implement care plan interventions which affect the residents' highest practicable physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being. The findings are: 1. A review of an Admission Record, indicated the facility admitted Resident #120 with diagnoses that included congestive heart failure, atrial fibrillation, chronic kidney disease and repeated falls. A review of Resident #120's electronic records revealed on 9/17/2024, an Admission MDS had not been completed and a Baseline Care Plan had not been initiated. There was not a Plan of Care to document Resident #120's cognitive function, fall risk or the administration of Oxygen (O2), an anxiety medication, pain medication, a diuretic, nor the care and monitoring required related to use and potential side effects of these medications. A review of Resident #120's Order Summary Report revealed an order dated 9/17/2024 for O2 [oxygen] at 2L (liters) per nasal cannula PRN (as needed) for SOB (shortness of breath), CP (chest pain) O2 saturation < [less than] 92% or maintenance of medical condition as needed, for SOB. A review of Resident #120's Order Summary Report revealed an order dated 9/17/2024 for Alprazolam Oral Tablet 0.5mg (milligram), give 1 tablet by mouth every 8 hours as needed for anxiety. A review of Resident #120's Order Summary Report revealed an order dated 9/17/2024 for Hydrocodone Oral Tabel 7.5-325mg, give 1 tablet by mouth every 8 hours as needed for pain. A review of Resident #120's Order Summary Report revealed an order dated 9/17/2024 for Furosemide 40mg, give 1 tablet by mouth once daily related/to Congestive Heart Failure. During an interview on 9/26/2024 at 2:14 PM, the Director of Nursing (DON) said she tries to complete- the baseline care plans within 4 hours after an admission. Currently she is responsible for ensuring the MDS is completed, and the care plans are updated since the facility does not have an MDS Coordinator. She looked in Resident #120's record and said there was no admission assessment or care plan and that needed to be corrected. The care plan should be updated with relevant interventions. A review of a facility's undated policy titled, Policy and Procedure Topic: Comprehensive Care Plan indicated, .1. The admitting Registered Nurse will complete baseline care plan on admission within 48 hours to address the following care areas: Resident's initial goals, skin prevention, fall prevention, pain management, Advance Directives, Psychosocial Mood state and specific care plan on the main reason for admission . 50682 2. Resident #220 had a diagnosis of osteoarthritis and [NAME] Nephropathy (kidney disease). The Minimum Data Set (MDS) with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 04/30/2024 indicated the resident received a score of 15 (13-15 indicates cognitively intact) on a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) and that the resident received pain medication. Review of the Order Summary Report revealed an order dated 04/11/2024 indicated to administer Oxycodone with Acetaminophen 10-325 milligrams (mg) 1 tablet every 12 hours as needed for pain. Review of the Order Summary Report revealed an order dated 04/11/2024 indicated to administer, Morphine Sulfate Extended Release (ER) 15 MG, 1 tablet two times a day as needed for pain. Review of the resident's care plan with a revision date of 04/03/2024 did not address the use of the pain medication. 50923 3. Upon review of the Admission Record, Resident #37 was admitted on [DATE], with a diagnosis of altered mental status. Upon review of the quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) date of 6/23/2024 revealed Resident # 37 had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 00 (0-7 suggest severe cognitive impairment). Has both verbal and physical behavioral symptoms directed toward others, and behaviors were present one to three days and ambulates per self with supervision. Upon review of the Progress Notes, Resident #37 had multiple documented physical altercations with staff such as resident hitting, scratching, and kicking staff, the most recent on 09/22/24 where Resident #37 was urinating in a hallway, then became angry during redirection to the bathroom by staff. Resident #37 is known to have many triggers such as staff attempting to offer medications, showers, meals, redirection, or other assistance in daily care. During an interview on 09/23/24 at 10:42 AM, Resident #67 and Resident #71 both complained about Resident #37 coming into their room often and stated they are fearful. Both residents stated they have woken up to Resident #37 in their room at night. Resident #71 stated, Resident #37 will get mad or angry when asked to leave their room. On 09/23/24 at 10:55 AM, observed Resident #37 walking into Resident's #67's and Resident #71's room, then quickly exiting the room. On 09/23/24 at 11:50 AM, the surveyor notified the Administrator of Resident #67 and Resident #71 complaining about Resident #37 coming into their room often, stating they don't feel safe. Upon review of Resident #37's care plan, last revised 06/26/2024, interventions regarding the behaviors during mealtime stated resident refuses to eat, and when staff encourages, the resident becomes upset, yells and raises fist to staff, but no interventions were noted regarding monitoring for behaviors, aggression, wandering into resident rooms, hitting, anger, or irritability outside of the dining episodes. Wandering and aggressive behaviors had been present per staff interviews and documentation since admission 12/6/2023 for Resident #37. The physical aggression towards staff continued with the resident striking staff repeatedly. Per documentation, no physical altercation had occurred with another resident at this time, but on 1/30/2024 at 4:55 PM, Resident #37 was repeatedly hitting the dining table with their fist. Another resident at the table asked him to stop leading to a verbal argument between the residents. Per documentation, staff had to intervene to prevent a physical altercation. Per the facility's undated policy titled, Behavioral Health Services, number 2 referenced the resident's individualized behavioral health needs are met through the Resident Assessment Instrument (RAI) process. This process includes the Minimum Data Set (MDS), Care Area Assessment (CAA) process, Care plan development and implementation, and Evaluation of care plan. The facility did not meet this resident's individualized needs due to not completing assessments and the MDS in a timely manner, and not updating care plans as care areas and needs changed. In addition to not meeting the needs of the residents, and potentially putting other residents at risk due to the continued aggressive behaviors. On 09/24/24 at 8:40 AM, during an interview- the (Interim) Director of Nursing (DON) confirmed the facility had lost the MDS Coordinator and the Director of Nursing recently which had delayed the completion of assessments and updates to the care plans. She continued to explain they do have someone hired for both positions. During the interview, the DON reviewed the care plan for Resident #37, the DON confirmed the care plan did not adequately address -Resident #37's wandering or aggressive behaviors, nor did it mention monitoring behaviors. On 09/24/24 at 9:50 AM, during an interview with the Administrator, when asked if Resident #37 had been sent to any in-patient behavioral health facilities for stabilization, evaluation and treatment, the Administrator stated, The resident hasn't been aggressive with other residents, just staff to my knowledge, so not since they've been here. When asked if the administrator thought it was possible for Resident #37 to be physically aggressive with other residents, he stated, Yes, it's possible. During the interview, the Administrator was asked to review the current care plan (updated 6/26/2024) and particularly the area that addresses aggressive behaviors for Resident #37. As he scanned, he stated, I don't see an area where we are addressing the behaviors with interventions. On 09/25/24 at 11:36 AM, during an interview Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #7 confirmed Resident #37 displays anger and irritability often, triggered by various things such as administering medications, checking his wander guard, encouraging him to eat, redirecting him from an exit, or encouraging showers. She confirmed there have been several incidents of verbal and physical aggressions she is aware of with Resident #37. LPN #7 stated, When the resident follows me for med [medication] pass, I make sure I've got eyes on him all the time because of his behaviors. On 09/25/24 at 1:42 PM, during an interview Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) #8 stated, This particular resident does get angry very easy, and we have to watch how we offer him care because he will hit and grab us [staff]. When asked if there are concerns of aggression with other residents and Resident #37, CNA #8 confirmed there haven't been any resident-to-resident physical altercations, but several verbal arguments where staff quickly intervened. 51477 4. A review of the Order Summary Report revealed Resident #13 had diagnoses of chronic kidney disease stage 3, retention of urine, and need for assistance with personal care. A review of the Order Summary Report revealed an active order for a suprapubic catheter was received on 08/24/2024. A review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 07/24/2024 revealed Resident #13 scored a 15 (cognitively intact) on the Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS). A review of the care plan initiated on 4/10/2024 revealed interventions had not been implemented for the suprapubic catheter or enhanced barrier precautions. The feeding tube interventions are missing the treatment orders and the head of the bed elevation interventions. On 09/25/2024 at11:30 AM, observed with Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #5 that Resident #13 had stat lock (stabilization device for catheters) to right thigh. On 09/26/2024 at 2:30 PM, during an interview the Director of Nursing (DON) confirmed that treatment orders and the head of the bed elevations were not implemented in the care plan. The DON then confirmed that the suprapubic catheter and interventions including treatment, size, enhanced barrier precautions, a securement device, and others were not implemented in the care plan. A review of the Order Summary Report revealed Resident #14 had diagnoses of edema, congestive heart failure, type 2 diabetes, and blood clot of right lower extremity. A review of the MDS with an ARD of 06/12/2024 revealed that Resident #14 scored a 13 (cognitively intact) on the BIMS. A review of the emergency room Transfer Sheets revealed Resident #14 had been transferred to the emergency roiagnom on [DATE] to 06/12/2024, and 06/22/2024 to 07/02/2024 for the diagnosis of edema. A review of the Order Summary Report revealed an active order as of 08/20/2024, to apply two-layer lite compression system to bilateral lower extremities every three days. A review of the Order Summary Report revealed an active order as of 09/03/2024 to cleanse wound to right dorsal foot with normal saline. Pat dry. Use (a no-sting skin protection wipe) to peri wound. Apply nickel thick Santyl (used to help with healing skin ulcers) to wound bed then cover with calcium alginate. Cover with supra-absorbent dressing and roll gauze every day on dayshift. A review of the Order Summary Report revealed an active order as of 06/12/2024 for Eliquis Oral Tablet (Apixaban) by mouth two times a day for blood clots. A review of the care plan initiated on 05/30/2024 revealed that Resident #14 did not have interventions implemented for anticoagulant with blood clot interventions and wound care in the care plan. Further review revealed that the care plan was to be reviewed on 09/12/2024 but was not completed. On 09/26/2024 at 2:30 PM, during an interview the DON confirmed that wound care interventions, and the anticoagulant with blood clot interventions were not implemented into the care plan.

Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to complete clinical assessments to accurately portray the resident's care for the Minimum Data Set (MDS) and care plan intervention implementation for 6 (Residents #2, #14, #37, #48, #70, and #220) residents of 19 sampled residents affecting their quality of care. These are our findings: A review of the electronic health record revealed that Resident #2 had the following overdue assessments: wandering risk assessment due on 05/02/2024, side rail assessment due on 05/02/2024, fall scale due on 05/29/2024, pain interview due on 05/29/2024, neurological check list due on 05/30/2024 at the following times 1:15 AM, 1:30 AM, 2:00 AM, and 9:00 AM, pain interview due on 07/09/2024, fall scale due on 07/09/2024, skin observation tool on 08/16/2024, and skilled charting on 09/08/2024 at 8:49 AM. A review of the Clinical - Assessment revealed Resident #14 had the following overdue assessments: side rail assessment due on 05/30/2024, functional abilities and goals-admission due on 05/31/2024, skin observation tool due on 08/16/2024, wandering risk assessment due on 08/30/2024, pain interview due on 08/30/2024, fall scale due on 08/30/2024, Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ)-9 due on 09/01/2024, and Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) Assessment due on 09/04/2024. A review of the electronic health record revealed Resident #37 had the following overdue assessments: pain interview due on 06/13/2024, fall scale due on 06/19/2024, scale for predicting pressure sores risk assessment due on 06/19/2024, side rail assessment due on 06/19/2024, skin observation tool due on 08/16/2024, Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) assessment due on 09/13/2024, Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ)-9 due on 09/13/2024. A review of the electronic health record revealed Resident #48 had the following overdue assessments: side rail assessment due on 05/06/2024, interim care plan due on 05/06/2024, admit/readmit screener due 05/07/2024, functional abilities and goals assessments due on 05/07/2024, wandering risk assessment due on 08/07/2024, skin observation tool due on 08/16/2024, pain interview due on 09/05/2024, fall scale due on 09/05/2024, MORSE fall scale due on 09/09/2024, pain interview due on 09/09/2024. A review of the Clinical - Assessment revealed that Resident #70 had the following overdue assessments: admit/readmit screener due on 03/20/2024, scale for predicting pressure sore risk assessments due on 06/19/2024, wandering risk assessment due on 06/19/2024, side rail assessment due on 06/19/2024, Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) Assessment due on 09/02/2024. A review of the Clinical - Assessment revealed that Resident #220 had the following overdue assessments: fall scale due on 04/17/2024, side rail assessment due on 04/27/2024, pain interview due on 07/16/2024, wandering risk assessment due 07/17/2024, skin observation tool on 08/16/2024. On 09/24/2024 at 10:09 AM, during an interview the Director of Nursing (DON) stated she had worked here for seven years and came back after the tornado and rebuild, about 22 months ago and was named the Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON). The DON stated that she completes admissions, does Infection Preventionist duties including rounding with wound Advanced Practice Registered Nurse (APRN). The DON stated she is helping to complete the Minimum Data Sets (MDS) and care plans since the MDS nurse left 8/14/2024. The MDS Consultant assists with advising her of the MDS tasks to complete because she isn't familiar with MDS and completely how it works. When asked who was responsible for completing the resident assessments, the DON stated, The nurses on the floor complete them as they can complete them. On 09/26/2024 at 9:30 AM, during an interview the Social Director stated that the MDS does assessments, I do quarterly, annual, and discharges and social history. She was not sure who did the assessments that are currently overdue. On 09/26/2024 at 2:30 PM, during an interview the DON stated that she was responsible until there was an MDS Coordinator for section C and the BIMS and that the Social Director is responsible for section D and the PHQ9 for the assessments.

Based on observations, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to follow the menu for pureed diets for the lunch service. The findings are: On 09/26/2024 at 11:50 AM, Dietary Aide #2 was overheard stating they did not puree white beans. On 09/26/2024 at 12:10 PM, the Surveyor observed that while plating the pureed trays during lunch that the resident's received pureed pork chop, pureed turnip greens, puree cornbread, and pureed banana creme pie for dessert, an alternate was not observed for the white beans. On 09/26/2024 at 2:11 PM, during an interview the Assistant Dietary Manager stated that yesterday for lunch the puree diets should have got pork chops, turnip greens, white beans, cornbread, and banana creme pie. The Assistant Dietary Manager continued stating that they were not aware until later that the pureed white beans were not served with the lunch meal. The Assistant Dietary Manager stated that Dietary Aide #2 had come to them and explained that she had forgotten to puree the white beans for lunch service. The Assistant Dietary Manager then stated that it was important to follow the menus to ensure residents are getting proper nutrition. On 09/26/2024 at 2:31 PM, during an interview the Director of Nursing (DON) stated following a menu is important with some residents who have swallowing issues, diabetic or other diets that need to follow. A review of the menu revealed for puree diets the following should have been received during the lunch service on 09/25/2024: pureed pork chop, pureed white beans, pureed turnip greens, pureed cornbread, and pureed banana creme pie. On 9/27/2024 at 3:00 PM, the Assistant Dietary Manager stated the facility did not have policy for Menus.

Based on observations, record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure infection control procedures were followed by not performing hand hygiene between residents while assisting at the assisted diner table in the dining room to prevent the potential spread of infection for 2 residents observed during a lunch meal, and failed to ensure infection control procedures were followed in the areas of perineal care, catheter care, and enhanced barrier precautions to prevent the spread of infections for 1 of 1 sampled resident (Resident #13). The findings are: A review of the Order Summary Report revealed Resident #13 had diagnoses of chronic kidney disease stage 3, retention of urine, and need for assistance with personal care. A review of the Order Summary Report revealed Resident #13 had an order for Enhanced Barrier Precautions active as of 08/23/2024, related to the resident having a percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) tube (a feeding tube that's inserted through the abdominal wall and into the stomach) and a suprapubic catheter placement (a tube that drains urine from the bladder through a small incision in the lower abdomen). A review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 07/24/2024, revealed Resident #13 scored a 15 (cognitively intact) on the Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS). A review of the care plan initiated on 04/10/2024 revealed interventions had not been implemented for the suprapubic catheter or enhanced barrier precautions. On 09/25/2024 at 10:30 AM, the Surveyor observed Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) #3 and CNA #4 enter Resident #13's room. CNA #3 and CNA #4 did not put on personal protective equipment to perform high contact care, perineal care, as stated by CNA #3. On 09/26/2024 at 11:10 AM, the Surveyor observed perineal care with CNA #6 and the Director of Nursing (DON). The DON and CNA #6 cleaned the bowel movement first before cleaning the front half. The DON then performed wound care after changing gloves and washing hands. CNA #6 then performed perineal care for the front half, and catheter care by starting at the end of the catheter and working towards where it was inserted. The Surveyor observed debris around the insertion site after catheter care was performed and that the perineal area was covered in several red open areas. The DON stated, It was the first time she had seen the open areas. Resident #13 stated, It has been like this for a couple days and I have told staff. On 09/25/2024 at 10:40 AM, during an interview CNA #3 confirmed that she had performed perineal care without personal protective equipment. CNA #3 stated, I know we are supposed to do that in Resident #13's room. CNA #3 then stated that they are to wear a gown and gloves in an Enhanced Barrier room to protect the staff and the residents. On 09/25/2024 at 10:45 AM, during an interview CNA #4 confirmed that she had performed perineal care without personal protective equipment. CNA #4 then stated that she knows that they are to wear gowns and gloves in an Enhanced Barrier room to protect the staff and resident. On 09/26/2024 at 12:15 PM, during - an interview with the DON and CNA #6. The DON stated she had performed perineal care back to front first, to be able to perform wound care for Resident #13. The DON stated that it is proper to work from front to back when performing perineal care to prevent infection to the resident. CNA #6 then stated catheter care should be performed from the top down to keep debris out of the insertion area. A review of a facility training titled, Catheter Care, Indwelling Catheter, stated, .7. All debris must be removed from the catheter insertion site . A review of a facility training titled, Perineal Care, indicated, 8. a. If a resident is soiled with feces, place the resident on their side and clean the perineum and rectal area. A review of the facility policy titled, Enhanced Barrier Precautions, stated, .These precautions refer to the use of gowns and gloves during high-contact resident care activities that provide opportunities for transfer of multi-drug resistant organisms (MDROs) to staff hands . 43262 During an observation on 09/23/2024 at 12:26 PM, CNA #1 was observed seated between 2 residents at the assisted dining table (for residents needing help with eating) in the dining room. The resident seated on the right side of CNA #1 was being fed by the CNA and the resident seated on the left side was being encouraged to eat by CNA #1. During the observation at 12:41 PM, CNA #1 was observed feeding the resident on the right, she then picked up the spoon for the resident on the left and assisted the resident's with taking the spoon the resident's mouth, then she touched the straw and assisted the second resident with drinking, before turning back to the first resident. Hand hygiene was not performed between residents. During an interview on 09/23/2024 at 12:45 PM, CNA #1 said she had been a CNA for 4 months and should have performed hand hygiene between residents to prevent spread of infection between residents. An in-service for the nurses and CNAs titled, Hand Hygiene instructed by the previous DON on 09/28/23 indicated, Wash your hands or use alcohol-based hand rub before and after each resident contact to prevent infections. A review of facility undated policy titled Infection Prevention and Control Program (IPCP) indicated that hand hygiene procedures were to be followed by staff involved in direct resident contact.

Based on record review, and interview, it was determined the facility failed to ensure a baseline care plan was completed with the minimum necessary information within 48 hours after admission to promote continuity of care for 1 (Resident #120) sampled resident who was admitted within the last 30 days. The findings are: A review of the Admission Record indicated the facility admitted Resident #120 with diagnoses that included congestive heart failure, atrial fibrillation, chronic kidney disease and repeated falls. A review of Resident #120's electronic records did not include an admission assessment on the admitted [DATE], a Minimum Data Set (MDS), or indicate a care plan had been initiated. During an interview on 9/26/2024 at 2:14 PM, the Director of Nursing (DON) said the nurses were responsible for the assessments upon admission or readmission to the facility and responsible for the functional and abilities assessments which must be completed within 24 hours. She does the baseline care plan within 4 hours of admission. She looked in Resident #120's record and said that there was no admission assessment or care plan had been done. A review of a facility's undated policy titled, Policy and Procedure .Comprehensive Care Plan indicated, 1. The admitting Registered Nurse will complete baseline care plan on admission within 48 hours to address the following care areas: Resident's initial goals, skin prevention, fall prevention, pain management, Advance Directives, Psychosocial Mood state and specific care plan on the main reason for admission.

Based on observation, interviews, and record review, the facility's administration failed to ensure the administrator was knowledgeable regarding reporting requirements, which resulted in failure to immediately report a resident to resident altercations, and an unwitnessed fall with major injury, to the State Survey Agency (SSA). The findings are: a. On 01/14/2024, a resident to resident altercation involving Resident #71 was not reported to the SSA. b. On 07/10/2024, Resident #48's unwitnessed fall with major injury was not reported to the SSA. c. On 08/16/2024, a resident to resident altercation involving Resident #46 was not reported to the SSA. Review of the Administrator's job description provided by Business Office Manager (BOM) on 09/25/2024 indicated the nursing home administrators are responsible for managing the daily operations of long-term care facilities, including hiring personnel, developing budgets, and ensuring that the facility meets all local, state, and federal regulations. During an interview on 09/25/2025, the Administrator was asked who was responsible for reporting verbal and physical resident to resident altercations and unwitnessed fall with a major injury to the SSA. He stated the administrator was responsible for reporting to the SSA.

Based on record review, and interviews, the facility failed to have an effective governing body in place to ensure proper management and operation of the facility's: Quality Assurance and Performance Improvement Plan (QAPI) feedback system to ensure resident care areas were addressed, for baseline, implementation, and revision of care plans and for timing and transmitting the Minimum Data Sets (MDS). The findings include: On 09/23/2024 at 11:30 AM, the survey team confirmed with the Administrator that there had not been a Minimum Data Set (MDS) Coordinator at the facility. That the previous MDS Coordinator put in her two weeks and her last day was 08/14/2024. On 09/23/2024 at 4:00 PM, the survey team confirmed during record review for initial pool that there was a widespread issue with MDS timing and transmitting, and care plan implementation. On 09/24/2024 at 3:00 PM, during an interview the Administrator stated, We do have the Director of Nursing (DON) and the MDS new hires starting in the next week or so and that should help us get caught up on anything we are behind on completing. He stated the previous MDS nurse that left 8/14/2024, was still learning MDS and the MDS Consultant was assisting her as needed via contract work. At this time the Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON) is assigned those duties. When asked what other duties is the ADON assigned, he responded, admissions, Infection Preventionist, assessments, ADON/DON duties, and MDS/care plans. On 09/26/2024 at 2:30 PM, during an interview the Administrator stated that feedback systems were usually done by doing routine meetings. The Administrators stated, The current feedback system is not working, I have noticed this with the concerns that are being brought to me this week. The Administrator then stated, For the last year we have been in admissions mode with our QAPI we need to make the switch to involve more resident concerns. The Administrator then stated that their governing body duties were up to him to make sure we have staff, the supplies needed, and he takes personal responsibility for interviews and CNA scheduling. He tries to make sure each department lead has what they need to adequately perform their jobs and for each department he helps out with areas that may need assistance. On 09/26/2024 at 2:40 PM, during an interview the Director of Nursing (DON) stated that for the governing body involves the interdisciplinary team, me, administrator, business office manager, medical director and therapy. A review of the facility policy titled, Governing Body stated, .2. The governing body appoints the Administrator who is licensed by the State and is responsible for the management of this facility. The Administrator reports to and is accountable to the governing body. The governing body determines the process and frequency for communications and reports between itself and the Administrator. 3. The governing body is responsible and accountable for this facility's Quality Assurance and Performance improvement (QAPI) program. A review of the MDS [Minimum Data Set] Coordinator - Job Description revealed that the staff member was in charge of completing all MDSs and Care Area Assessments (CAAs), schedules and leads the Care Plan Conferences, transmit completed MDS assessments to the state in compliance with federal regulation, completes, or ensures that the Unit Nurses can complete special quarterly assessments, and writes all chronic nursing care plans for all residents in the facility and monitors acute nursing care plans. A review of the document titled, Job Description - Administrator revealed the Nursing Home Administrator Duties are planning, organizing, directing, and evaluating the overall operation of a nursing home facility. Developing and implementing policies and procedures. Ensuring compliance with state and federal regulations.

Based on record review, and interviews, the facility failed to ensure qualified staff was hired in a position to accurately encode, transmit, and implement assessments and care plans. The findings are: A facility review of the job description for Minimum Data Set Coordinator (MDS) revealed the staff member was in charge of completing all MDS and Care Area Assessments (CAAs), schedules, and leads the Care Plan Conferences, transmits completed MDS assessments to the state in compliance with federal regulations, completes, or ensures that the Unit Nurses can complete special quarterly assessments, and writes all chronic nursing care plans for all residents in the facility and monitors acute nursing care plans. On 09/23/2024 at 11:30 AM, the survey team confirmed with the Administrator that there had not been an MDS Coordinator at the facility. That the previous MDS Coordinator put in their two weeks and that their last day was 08/14/2024. On 09/24/24 at 10:09 AM, during an interview the Director of Nursing (DON) stated she had worked here for seven years and came back after the tornado and rebuild. About one year and ten months ago she was named the Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON). She stated she completes admissions, is the Infection Preventionist including rounding with wound Advanced Practice Registered Nurse (APRN). The DON stated she is helping complete the MDS and care plans since the MDS nurse left 8/14/2024. The MDS Consultant assists with advising her of the MDS tasks to complete because she isn't familiar with the MDS and completely how it works. When asked who was responsible for completing the resident assessments, the DON stated, The nurses on the floor complete them as they can complete them. On 09/24/2024 at 3:00 PM, during an interview the Administrator stated, We do have the DON and the MDS new hires starting in the next week or so and that should help us get caught up on anything we are behind on completing. He stated the previous MDS nurse that left 8/14/2024 was still learning MDS and the MDS Consultant was assisting her as needed via contract work. At this time the ADON is assigned those duties. When asked what other duties the ADON was assigned, he responded, Admissions, Infection Preventionist, assessments, ADON/DON duties, and MDS/care plans. When asked if he thought the workload was realistic for the ADON to be successful, he responded, Probably not something she could keep up for long term. On 09/26/2024 at 2:14 PM, during an interview the DON stated that she has had no training in MDS, and that normally a DON would be providing oversight but right now it is the MDS Consultant or the Administrator. On 09/27/2024 at 8:36 AM, a telephone interview was attempted by the state surveyor with the MDS Consultant with no response. On 09/27/2024 at 12:07 PM, a telephone interview was attempted by the state surveyor with the MDS Consultant with no response.

Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure an effective feedback system was in place for the Quality Assurance and Performance Improvement Plan (QAPI). The findings are: A review of the Quarterly QAPI Minutes revealed that admissions, staffing issues, facility issues (such as the Certified Nursing Assistants (CNAs) needing smaller linen carts), ongoing staff education, shower scheduling, improving transport, and staff scheduling had been discussed. The was no mention of falls, behaviors, Minimum Data Sets (MDS), care plans or other resident concerns identified during the survey had been discussed. A review of the Quality Assurance and Performance Improvement Plan (QAPI) Program stated, .1. Systems and reports demonstrating systematic identification, reporting investigation, analysis, and prevention of adverse events . A review of the QAPI Committee stated, Purpose: Review all facets of the facility's operations to ensure that care and services promote the environment needed to identify issues that may impede quality of life for the residents. Implement the plan of correction to rectify these areas of concern . A review of the Administrator Job Descriptions revealed the Nursing Home Administrator duties were planning, organizing, directing, and evaluating the overall operation of a nursing home facility. Developing and implementing policies and procedures. Ensuring compliance with state and federal regulations. On 09/26/2024 at 2:30 PM, during an interview, the Administrator stated that when an issue arises it is usually brought to my attention from observation, staff, family or resident concerns. Then stated that when a negative trend occurs usually it is known by communication or observation. The Administrator then stated that they try to work on all the issues that they can in the building. The Administrator stated that an issue is monitored for a week to a month. The Administrator stated that in the morning stand up resident concern issues such as falls are brought up. The Administrator stated that they have not reviewed behaviors or abuse/neglect issues during QAPI. The Administrator stated that feedback systems were usually done by doing routine meetings. Administrators stated that the current feedback system is not working, I have noticed with the concerns that are being brought to me this week. The Administrator then stated that for the last year we have been in admissions mode with our QAPI we need to make the switch to involve more resident concerns.