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 | While resident was out at the hospital, there was an annotation on 3/14/21 that resident needed PeriGuard ointment applied topically to the bilateral buttock area every day for prophylaxis (intended to prevent disease). A website search of PeriGuard ointment reveals that the ointment is a protectant that helps relieve and prevent rashes and irritation due to wetness from incontinence. According to records, the facility had PeriGuard as an active order for R1 since 1/29/21. There is no documentation to indicate whether ointment was applied to R1. R1 was discharged and returned to the facility on 3/16/2021. On 3/17/21, it was noted that R1 was not at baseline and was unable ambulate on own. On 3/22/21, a new order from a medical professional for R1 was received. The physician ordered home health nurse (HHN) services for a coccyx pressure injury wound for R1. Although the order was received on 3/22/21, R1 was sent to the hospital for a condition unrelated to the pressure injury. Documentation for R2 indicated R2 needed assistance with incontinence care, bathing, grooming, and medications. Interviews with outside sources did not support the allegation that the facility did not meet the residents’ assessed needs. Staff and outside sources were inconsistent with their interviews regarding R1 but confirmed that R2 was receiving staff assistance when requested. Interviews with staff revealed that any changes in resident R2’s condition were properly documented, and staff ensured assessments were completed. Records for R2 were current and complete; however, records for R1 were not current and a reappraisal was not conducted after R1’s change of condition. Based on evidence obtained during the investigation, there is sufficient evidence to support that staff did not meet the assessed needs for R1.
It was also alleged that the facility did not complete the pre-admission appraisal for R1. In review of resident records, it was determined that the facility did not have a completed pre-admission appraisal for the resident. The undated form had R1’s name, physical disabilities, and ambulatory status and was signed by staff. The two-page document was incomplete and much of the content had been left blank. During interviews with outside sources, they assumed that questions that were being asked by facility staff regarding R1 were part of the pre-admission appraisal. In interview statements, staff acknowledged that the pre-admission appraisal was not completed as required by regulations. Evidence obtained during the investigation supported the allegation that staff did not complete a pre-admission appraisal for R1. |