1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32 | 10/13/2019. S4 noticed a different dressing on R1’s skin tear and thought someone must have changed it. However, per review of the facility’s progress note of R1, there was no documentation of wound treatment to R1 on 10/13/2019 and 10/14/2019. No further treatment was documented on the chart until 10/17/19 that states “R1 noted with seeping to the skin tear on the left shin, provided wound care due to bandage being soiled, will continue to monitor”, No further documentation of wound was noted until 10/30/19, when Staff #3 (S3) documented a skin tear on R1’s left lower shin of “unknown origin”.
S3, who is an LVN, provided wound treatment and notified R1’s physician. R1’s physician returned orders on 10/31/19 for wound treatment and a wound consult. There was no further charting or other documentation to show that any wound treatment, dressing change or wound consultation was provided to R1 between 10/30/19 and the evening of 11/06/19 when R1’s family member discovered the poor condition of the dressing on the left shin’s wound. On 11/17/19 progress notes indicated that Ceftin mg was prescribed to R1 by the physician and was seen by a wound consultant from Omni Wound Physicians. The first dose of antibiotics was given. There was a lapse of care between 10/14/19 – 11/7/19. Progress notes revealed that facility staff and Omni Wound Physicians continued the wound care for R1 on 11/7/19. The Administrator (S1) confirmed in an interview that there was a lack of follow-up during the period of time from the kick on 10/13/19 until the wound documentation on 10/30/19. S4 revealed that S4 went to the scene on the day of the incident on 10/13/19 and treated R1’s skin tear but he did not provide a follow-up treatment because S4 did not work on the 4th floor where R1’s room was located. S3 admitted that S3’s first knowledge of R1’s shin wound was on 10/30/19, and then S3 wrote the incident report. S2 stated that S2 was notified by a facility nurse on 11/6/19 about R1’s shin wound. S2 stated on 11/7/19, the physician’s orders were being implemented for R1 and S2 believed the wound care was being done daily. S5 stated R1’s family member approached S5 on 11/6/19 and showed S5 a photo of R1’s wound and S5 agreed that R1’s wound looked infected. Based upon the evidence gathered and interviews conducted and records reviewed, the preponderance of evidence standard has been met: Staff failed to seek timely medical attention for R1’s left shin wound; therefore the above allegation of staff did not seek medical treatment for resident in a timely manner is found to be SUBSTANTIATED.
Regarding Allegations #3 & 4 Staff Did Not Properly Care for Resident and Resident’s Wound: IB’s investigation revealed an internal incident report documented on 10/13/19 treatment was rendered, wound cleansed, skin replaced back to its original wound area (measured 8x8x0.12 cm), medication was applied, covered with Telfa, 4x4 gauze, wrapped with Kerlix, and secured with tape. A progress note dated 10/17/19,
Report Continued in LIC 9099-C
|