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 | This is an amended report.
Witness stated they could not provide any indication the facility was not changing R1. R1’s private caregiver stated that staff have sometimes asked them to help rotate R1 to avoid pressure injuries, but did not ask the private caregiver to help with incontinence care. Private caregiver also stated they did not notice any odors. Residents interviewed indicated staff were slow to respond to call buttons, and Former Wellness Director admitted the facility was working on this issue. However, no residents indicated their needs were not met. Based on the information obtained, there was insufficient evidence to prove the allegation occurred. Therefore, the allegation is deemed Unsubstantiated at this time.
On the allegation: Staff do not keep the facility free of odor. It was alleged the facility smelled like urine.
Two visitors interviewed stated they had not observed any odors. During LPA visits on 9/19/2023, 9/20/2023, 10/11/2023, 12/11/2023, 2/27/2024, 3/6/2024, 5/22/2024, 5/29/2024, and 9/6/2024, LPA did not observe any bad odors. All residents interviewed did not indicate any foul odors in their rooms or the common areas. One resident stated they noticed an odor in the hallway at times, but believed it was what staff were using to clean the carpets. Based on the information obtained, the allegation is deemed Unsubstantiated at this time.
On the allegation: Resident developed a pressure injury while in care. It was alleged R1 sustained a “wound” due to their briefs not being changed. It was noted that due to using a barrier cream and specialized mattress, the “sore” had gotten better. Upon interview with R1’s responsible party, they stated hospice did not refer to it as a bed sore (pressure injury), but it was a “wet mark” caused by irritation that becomes a rash. Hospice applied a salve and said it was “taken care of.” LPA interviewed R1’s hospice nurse, who confirmed it was not a pressure injury, it was moisture-associated skin damage. Hospice nurse stated it was very common due to moisture trapped inside a brief, and the moisture breaks the skin down. Hospice nurse indicated the skin damage was in the buttocks area between the cheeks, where moisture can get trapped as it is an area difficult to dry. Hospice nurse stated it has since healed. Former Wellness Director confirmed the facility noticed the red rash on R1 first and reported it to hospice. Former Wellness Director also instructed staff to increase checks on R1, as R1 was relying more on briefs than using the toilet or commode as their mobility decreased. Former Wellness Director stated she takes skin care very seriously. Based on the information obtained, the allegation is deemed Unsubstantiated at this time.
Exit interview, copy of report issued at the time of the visit.
|