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 | with medications. Resident’s needs and service plan showed documented ongoing changes since admission regarding their medications. The documentation showed each resident’s growing level of need for medication management. Facility was able to provide a Medication Administration Record (MAR) for R1, R2, R3, R4, and R5. The MAR documented medication name, time taken, dose, and staff initials. Interviews with R2, R3, and R5’s visitors indicated they did not have concerns with facility not meeting resident’s medication needs. Interviews with R4’s visitors could not be obtained. An outside resident advocate agency also stated there had been no concerns reported to them regarding medication not being administered as prescribed.
It was further alleged that staff did not assist residents with showering and incontinence care. Facility records showed that R1, R2, R3, R4, and R5 needed assistance with bathing. Facility records contained shower and skin monitoring logs for R1, R2, R3, R4, and R5. Records indicated what shift showers were completed on, staff initials, any refusals, if hospice did the shower, and notes regarding skin condition. Interviews with R1, R2, R3, and R5’s visitors indicated they did not have concerns with facility not meeting resident’s bathing needs. Interviews with R4’s visitors could not be obtained. An outside resident advocate agency also stated there had been no concerns reported to them regarding resident’s hygiene or bathing needs not being met.
It was further alleged that facility did not provide incontinence care. Facility maintained incontinence logs, which kept track of the size and time in which residents would have a bowel movement. Facility bowel movement logs for R1, R2, R3, R4, and R5 showed staff members would sign the log during each shift, even if there were no bowel movements. Interview with R1’s visitors indicated that they also saw R1 clean on visits. There were times during their visit where they had to wait for R1 because they were in the shower. Visitors also stated that they never noticed a bad smell from R1 or the facility. Interviews with R2, R3, and R5’s visitors indicated they did not have concerns with facility not meeting resident’s incontinence needs. Interviews with R4’s visitors could not be obtained. An outside resident advocate agency also stated there had been no concerns reported to them regarding resident’s toileting needs not being met.
It was further alleged that there were insufficient staff resulting in residents falling due to lack of supervision. Facility documents show that on June 5, 2022 there were sixty-two (62) residents in assisted living,
[Continued on LIC9099-C, Page 2 of 4] |