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 | Administrator’s interview revealed the facility had to wait for the delivery of the medications and schedule the residents for treatment. Outside source interviews disclosed the administrator made them aware treatment for R1 was scheduled for 10/02/22. Facility records confirmed R1’s was scheduled for prevention treatment on 10/02/22 at 7:30pm with a shower date of 10/03/22 at 7:30am, which was performed and documented by the facility. The residents were treated on different dates in order to accommodate everyone since a shower was required the following day after treatment was provided.
R1’s spouse was responsible for taking R1 to their medical appointments, which was confirmed by the spouse and facility staff. R1’s spouse’s interview revealed they took R1 to the Dermatologist and a skin scraping was performed, R1 was not positive for scabies. R1’s spouse indicated R1 was taken twice to the Dermatologist due to the rash. However, the spouse was unable to obtain a diagnosis for the rash and was told it may have been an allergic reaction. R1’s spouse stated R1 was receiving timely treatment, as they were taking R1 to their medical appointments and the facility was treating R1 with a prevention prescription. The facility kept open communication with the spouse, as they were the responsible party for R1. R1 was sent to the hospital for a fever on 10/05/22. On 10/10/10, R1 was transferred from the hospital to a Skilled Nursing Facility (SNF). R1 remained at the SNF through 12/28/22 and did not return to the facility once discharged. Outside source interviews revealed R1 was not receiving timely treatment from the onset of the rash through December 2022. However, R1 was provided timely treatment on 10/02/22 and was taken to the hospital for a fever on 10/05/22 and did not return to the facility. The SNF was responsible for R1 from 10/10/22 through 12/28/22, as R1 was under their care and supervision. Interviews with outside sources revealed R1 was not diagnoses with scabies at the SNF but had a skin condition.
It was also alleged staff do not respond to assist residents in a timely manner. It was reported there was one occasion, date unknown, where an outside source called for assistance and it took twenty (20) minutes for staff to respond. Also, the outside source had difficulty locating staff to gain and/or exit the memory care unit, which required a code, date was also unknown. Resident interviews confirmed staff assist residents in a timely manner. The administrator explained there are three (3) staff per hallway assigned in the memory care unit. Administrator stated the memory care unit is not large, therefore, staff can get to residents quickly and hear the residents call out for assistance. Continued on an LIC 9099C.
|