14
Inspections
22
Deficiencies
0
Actual Harm or Above
18
Occurrences
November 6, 2025
Last Inspection
S/S D/E/F Potential for harm
The most recent inspection of SEDGWICK COUNTY MEMORIAL NURSING HOME on record is dated November 6, 2025. Across 14 published inspections, state surveyors cited 22 deficiencies, none of which reached the actual-harm level.
Colorado publishes inspections on a rolling window, so older surveys may no longer appear. Citation codes 0000 and 9999 are the surveyor's opening and closing comments, not deficiencies, and are excluded from the counts above. Where the state required one, the facility's own plan of correction is shown beneath the finding it answers.
Provider Information
Status
Active
Facility Type
NF (Medicaid Only)
Administrator
Gardner, John
Owner
SEDGWICK COUNTY
Phone
(970) 463-6229
Payor Source
Medicaid, Private Pay
City
JULESBURG
ZIP
80737-1120
Inspections & Citations
14 inspections · 22 deficiencies11/6/2025Revisit: Licensure Complaint Survey · ID 1D748A-H2No deficiencies▼
0000Initial CommentsSurveyor note▼
Findings
A revisit survey was completed on 11/6/25 for all previous deficiencies cited on 9/10/25. The facility is in compliance with all regulations surveyed.
Plan of correction
The state did not require a plan of correction for this citation.
11/6/2025Revisit: Complaint, Recertification Survey · ID 1D1283-H2No deficiencies▼
0000Initial CommentsSurveyor note▼
Findings
A revisit survey was completed on 11/6/25 for all previous deficiencies cited on 9/10/25. The facility is in compliance with all regulations surveyed.
Plan of correction
The state did not require a plan of correction for this citation.
9/25/2025Recertification Survey · ID 1D1283-L16 deficiencies▼
0000INITIAL COMMENTSSurveyor note▼
Findings
INITIAL COMMENTS (ID Prefix Tag #K000) are informational only and a representation of the facility's general characteristics. This survey was conducted in accordance with the Federal Register at Section 42 CFR 483.70(a). This survey was conducted on September 25, 2025, for compliance with the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA 101) Life Safety Code (2012) Chapter 19 "Existing Health Care Occupancies." This structure is a one (1) story, Type V (000) construction. This original facility was constructed in 1961. The facility is licensed for 32 beds. The facility is protected throughout by a National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) 13 automatic wet-pipe fire sprinkler system. This facility is classified as fully sprinklered. The results of this survey were discussed with the Maintenance Director during the exit conference.
Plan of correction
The state did not require a plan of correction for this citation.
0211Means of Egress - General▼
Findings
The standard was not met, as evidenced by the following: Based on observation and staff interviews during the survey, it was determined that the facility failed to arrange the exit access so that exits are readily accessible at all times, as required by Life Safety Code 101 Section 19.2.2.2.4, 7.2.1.5.3. The doors of the Kitchen, Administrators, Social Service, and Restorative offices were equipped with locking and latching devices, requiring two operations for release. Life Safety Code 101 Section 19.2.2.2.4 Doors within the required means of egress shall not be equipped with a latch or lock that requires the use of a tool or key from the egress side, unless otherwise permitted by one of the following:(1) Locks complying with 19.2.2.2.5 shall be permitted. (2)*Delayed-egress locks complying with 7.2.1.6.1 shall be permitted. (3)*Access-controlled egress doors complying with 7.2.1.6.2. shall be permitted.(4) Elevator lobby exit access door locking in accordance with 7.2.1.6.3 shall be permitted. (5) Approved existing door-locking installations shall be permitted. If the means of egress are not correctly maintained throughout the facility, it could impact all residents, staff, and visitors during a fire emergency. The Maintenance Director acknowledged the critical issue concerning the inadequate locking arrangements.
Plan of correction · submitted by the facility
Tag Number: 0211Regulation Title: Means of Egress – General (18.2.1, 19.2.1, 7.1.10.1)Standard:Aisles, passageways, corridors, exit discharges, exit locations, and accesses are in accordance with Chapter 7, and the means of egress is continuously maintained free of all obstructions to full use in case of emergency, unless modified by 18/19.2.2 through 18/19.2.11. (18.2.1, 19.2.1, 7.1.10.1). Citation:Based on observation and staff interviews during the survey, it was determined that the facility failed to arrange the exit access so that exits are readily accessible at all times, as required by Life Safety Code 101 Section 19.2.2.2.4 and 7.2.1.5.3. The doors of the Kitchen, Administrator’s, Social Services, and Restorative offices were equipped with locking and latching devices requiring two operations for release. This condition could impact all occupants during a fire emergency. The Maintenance Director acknowledged the issue. Plan of Correction:Facility maintenance ordered compliant hardware and replaced all two-step thumb-locked knobs. The Kitchen, Administrator’s, Social Services, and Restorative office doors now have one-step egress hardware meeting Life Safety Code 101 §19.2.2.2.4 and §7.2.1.5.3. All remaining doors were checked to confirm no other locations required more than one operation from the egress side. Monitoring and Documentation:No additional monitoring required beyond standard preventive maintenance inspections. Responsible Party:Maintenance Director (Director of Facilities); Contact person is Lisa L. Culpepper, COO-CLO, 303-909-2143. Completion Date:October 29, 2025
0222Egress Doors▼
Findings
STANDARD was not met, as evidenced by the observation and staff interview. It was determined that the facility failed to arrange and maintain the means of egress per Life Safety Code Section 19.2 and Chapter 7. The Egress doors in the dining room contained delayed egress hardware. No signage was posted on the doors indicating how the delayed function worked. A readily visible, durable sign in letters not less than 1 inch. (25 mm) high and not less than 1/8 in. (3.2 mm) in stroke width on a contrasting background that reads as follows shall be located on the door leaf adjacent to the release device in the direction of egress: PUSH UNTIL ALARM SOUNDS DOOR CAN BE OPENED IN 15 SECONDS. If an exit discharge to the public way is unclear, this inadequate practice could affect all residents, staff, and visitors during an emergency. The Maintenance Director acknowledged the critical issue concerning the lack of signage on delayed locking arrangements.
Plan of correction · submitted by the facility
Tag Number: 0222Regulation Title: Egress DoorsStandard:Doors in a required means of egress shall not be equipped with a latch or lock that requires the use of a tool or key from the egress side unless using permitted special locking arrangements (clinical/security needs, special needs, delayed-egress per 7.2.1.6.1, access-controlled per 7.2.1.6.2, or elevator lobby per 7.2.1.6.3). Citation:The facility failed to arrange and maintain the means of egress per Life Safety Code Section 19.2 and Chapter 7. Dining-room egress doors had delayed-egress hardware without required signage indicating the delayed function (1-inch letters, 1/8-inch stroke, contrasting background, adjacent to release device). The Maintenance Director acknowledged the lack of signage. Plan of Correction:The facility was previously approved for an exception to the 30-second delay. Signs reflecting the cited delay period have been ordered and will be installed on all affected dining-room egress doors upon receipt to meet Life Safety Code requirements. Monitoring and Documentation:No additional monitoring required beyond the standard Life Safety door inspection checklist. Responsible Party:Maintenance Director (Director of Facilities); Contact person is Lisa L. Culpepper, COO-CLO, 303-909-2143. Completion Date:Within seven days of receipt of required signage; anticipated to be 11/26/2025.
0223Doors with Self-Closing Devices▼
Findings
STANDARD was not met, as evidenced by observation and staff interviews during the survey. It was determined that the facility failed to maintain sprinkler-protected areas by Life Safety Section 19.3.2.5. Doors were used as protective openings for hazardous areas requiring a one-hour separation between the main corridor and staff kitchen; the self-closing device was removed from the door. 2012 Life Safety Code 101-19.3.2.5.1 Cooking facilities shall be protected in accordance with 9.2.3, unless otherwise permitted by 19.3.2.5.2, 19.3.2.5.3, or 19.3.2.5.4. This deficient practice could affect all residents and staff in the main smoke compartment, including the kitchen, should there be smoke and heat transfer between the hazardous area and other portions of the building. The Maintenance Director acknowledged the issue concerning the lack of a self-closing device on the door.
Plan of correction · submitted by the facility
Tag Number: 0223Regulation Title: Doors with Self-Closing Devices (18.2.2.2.7, 18.2.2.2.8, 19.2.2.2.7, 19.2.2.2.8)Standard:Doors in exit passageways, stairway enclosures, horizontal exits, smoke barriers, or hazardous area enclosures are self-closing and kept closed, unless held open by listed release devices that automatically close upon activation of the fire alarm system, local smoke detection, automatic sprinklers (if installed), or loss of power. (18.2.2.2.7, 18.2.2.2.8, 19.2.2.2.7, 19.2.2.2.8)Citation:The facility failed to maintain sprinkler-protected areas per Section 19.3.2.5. A door serving an area identified as a staff kitchen required a one-hour separation; the self-closing device had been removed. This could affect residents and staff in the main smoke compartment. The Maintenance Director acknowledged the issue. Plan of Correction:The referenced room is a staff breakroom, not a cooking facility under §9.2.3; however, it contained a toaster, which is not permitted under §§19.3.2.5.2–.5.4. Per the inspector’s recommendation, the toaster was removed immediately, and staff were informed that heat-producing appliances are prohibited in the breakroom. Monitoring and Documentation:No dedicated monitoring required. Compliance will continue to be verified during normal environmental rounds. Responsible Party:Maintenance Director (Director of Facilities); Contact person is Lisa L. Culpepper, COO-CLO, 303-909-2143. Completion Date:October 29, 2025
0341Fire Alarm System - Installation▼
Findings
STANDARD is not met as evidenced by: Through observation and staff interview of the fire alarm system during the tour of the facility, the facility failed to install and maintain the fire alarm system with approved components, devices, or equipment per NFPA 101 Life Safety Code (2012 Edition), section 19.3.4.3.1 and NFPA 72, section 17.7.4.1. Located in the north corridor, the smoke detector is within 22 inches of the HVAC diffuser. NFPA 72, 29.11.3.48) Smoke alarms and smoke detectors shall not be installed within a 36 in. (910 mm) horizontal path from the supply registers of a forced air heating or cooling system and shall be installed outside of the direct airflow from those registers. Failure to maintain the fire alarm system has the potential to harm all occupants, staff, and visitors if the fire alarm system fails to operate as designed in the event of a fire. During the exit conference, the deficient items were discussed with the Maintenance Staff during the survey.
Plan of correction · submitted by the facility
Tag Number: 0341Regulation Title: Fire Alarm System – Installation (18.3.4.1, 19.3.4.1, 9.6, 9.6.1.8)Standard:A fire alarm system is installed with components approved for the purpose in accordance with NFPA 70 and NFPA 72 to provide effective warning of fire. Detection is installed at fire alarm control units and, for new occupancy, at power extenders and supervising station equipment. Transmission paths are monitored for integrity. (18.3.4.1, 19.3.4.1, 9.6, 9.6.1.8)Citation:The facility failed to install and maintain the fire alarm system with approved components per NFPA 101 (2012) §19.3.4.3.1 and NFPA 72 §17.7.4.1. In the north corridor, a smoke detector was within 22 inches of an HVAC diffuser; NFPA 72 requires =36 inches and outside direct airflow. Plan of Correction:The smoke detector was relocated to more than 36 inches from the HVAC diffuser and outside the direct airflow path, complying with NFPA 101 (2012) §19.3.4.3.1 and NFPA 72 §17.7.4.1. Monitoring and Documentation:No additional monitoring required beyond verification during the scheduled semiannual vendor inspection. Responsible Party:Maintenance Director (Director of Facilities); Contact person is Lisa L. Culpepper, COO-CLO, 303-909-2143. Completion Date:October 29, 2025
0353Sprinkler System - Maintenance and Testing▼
Findings
STANDARD not met, as evidenced during record review. It was determined that the facility failed to maintain the automatic sprinkler system per the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) Standard 25. An internal inspection of the piping and branch line conditions has not been conducted in the past 5 years. NFPA 25-2012 14.2.1.4. An inspection of piping and branch line conditions shall be conducted every 5 years by opening a flushing connection at the end of one main and by removing a sprinkler toward the end of one branch line for the purpose of inspecting for the presence of foreign organic and inorganic material. This deficiency could affect residents, staff, and visitors in all smoke compartments. The Administrator and the Maintenance Director acknowledged the deficiency in the automatic sprinkler system.
Plan of correction · submitted by the facility
Tag Number: 0353Regulation Title: Sprinkler System – Maintenance and Testing (NFPA 25; LSC 9.7.5, 9.7.7, 9.7.8)Standard:Automatic sprinkler and standpipe systems are inspected, tested, and maintained per NFPA 25. Records of design, maintenance, inspection, and testing are maintained and readily available. Citation:Record review determined that an internal inspection of sprinkler piping and branch line conditions has not been conducted in the past five years, contrary to NFPA 25-2012 §14.2.1.4. Plan of Correction:Following vendor acquisition by Pye-Barker Fire & Safety, service reminders were lost. SCHC-Nursing Home has requested Pye-Barker complete the required five-year internal inspection and has asked that scheduling be expedited to achieve full compliance with NFPA 25-2012 §14.2.1.4. Monitoring and Documentation:The Maintenance Director will record completion and enter the next five-year internal inspection due date in the maintenance calendar to ensure timely scheduling. Responsible Party:Maintenance Director (Director of Facilities); Contact person is Lisa L. Culpepper, COO-CLO, 303-909-2143. Completion Date:Pending completion by vendor (expedited scheduling requested)
0918Electrical Systems - Essential Electric Syste▼
Findings
STANDARD not met as evidenced by: Based on observation, staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to maintain emergency power systems in accordance with section 19.2.9.1 of the Life Safety Code and the referenced NFPA 110, Standard for Emergency and Standby Power Systems, 1999 edition, Chapter 3 and 5. 1. 1. The generator was not installed with a manual stop station located outside the room housing the prime mover. 2. 2. The generator lacks battery-powered lighting connected from the load side of the transfer switch as required when the prime mover is located outside the building. 3. 3. A new generator was installed and has not been commissioned. NFPA 110. 3-5.5.6 All Level I and Level 2 installations shall have a remote manual stop station of a type similar to a break-glass station located outside the room housing the prime mover, where so installed, or located elsewhere on the premises where the prime mover is located outside the building. NFPA 110-2010 Generators 7.3 Lighting. 7.3.1 The Level 1 or Level 2 EPS equipment location(s) shall be provided with battery-powered emergency lighting. NFPA 110-2010 Generators7.13.2.2. An onsite acceptance test shall be conducted as a final approval test for all EPSSs. This deficient practice has the potential to affect all residents throughout the facility in the event of power loss. The emergency generator deficiency item was discussed with the Maintenance Director during the survey.
Plan of correction · submitted by the facility
Tag Number: 0918Regulation Title: Electrical Systems – Essential Electric System Maintenance and Testing (NFPA 99 §§6.4.4, 6.5.4, 6.6.4; NFPA 110; NFPA 111; NFPA 70 §700.10)Standard:The generator or other alternate power source and associated equipment is capable of supplying service within 10 seconds. Maintenance and testing of the generator and transfer switches are performed in accordance with NFPA 110; stored-energy sources per NFPA 111; main and feeder breakers inspected per NFPA 70 §700.10. Citation:The facility failed to maintain emergency power systems per LSC §19.2.9.1 and NFPA 110. Deficiencies: (1) No remote manual stop outside the generator room; (2) No battery-powered emergency lighting at EPS location powered from the load side of the transfer switch; (3) New generator not commissioned. Plan of Correction:(1) Remote Manual Stop: Quotes requested on an expedited basis; vendors will prioritize installation to meet NFPA 110 §3-5.5.6 requirements. (2) EPS Lighting: Quotes being obtained for code-required battery-powered emergency lighting at EPS location(s) from the load side of the transfer switch; installation to be scheduled. (3) Commissioning: The facility is coordinating with the generator vendor to conduct the onsite acceptance test per NFPA 110 §7.13.2.2. Monitoring and Documentation:The Maintenance Director will calendar vendor completion verification and ensure the next annual generator service and documentation review occur as scheduled. Responsible Party:Maintenance Director (Director of Facilities); Contact person: Lisa L. Culpepper, COO-CLO, 303-909-2143. Completion Date:Pending vendor installation and commissioning (expedited scheduling requested); anticipated to be completed 11/21/2025.
9/10/2025Licensure Complaint Survey · ID 1D748A-H11 deficiency▼
0000Initial CommentsSurveyor note▼
Findings
A survey, prompted by complaint #CO2620394 was completed 9/7/25 to 9/10/25. One deficiency was cited.
Plan of correction
The state did not require a plan of correction for this citation.
0704Res Care - Accident Prevention and Attention▼
Findings
Based on record review and interviews, the facility failed to ensure one (#7) of four residents reviewed for accidents out of 18 sample residents remained free of accidents. Resident #7, who was identified as a high fall risk, sustained a fall on 2/27/25 resulting in bruising to her forehead. The facility failed to review the resident’s care plan after the fall to determine if the resident’s fall interventions were effective or if new interventions were needed to prevent further falls. Additionally, documentation failed to indicate the resident was assessed by a registered nurse (RN) following the fall. On 5/31/25, Resident #7 sustained another fall which resulted in a hospitalization for a hip fracture. Again, documentation failed to indicate the resident was assessed by a RN following the fall. Upon Resident #7’s return to the facility on 6/18/25, the facility again failed to review the resident’s care plan after the fall to determine if the resident’s fall interventions were effective or if new interventions were needed to prevent further falls. Specifically, the facility failed to:-Review Resident #7’s fall interventions for effectiveness and implement new fall interventions if needed following the resident’s falls in order to prevent a fall with major injury; and,-Ensure Resident #7 was assessed by a RN following her falls on 2/27/25 and 5/31/25. Findings include:I. Facility policy and procedureThe Fall policy and procedure, undated, was provided by the director of nursing (DON) on 9/10/25 at 8:55 a.m. It read in pertinent part, "The purpose of this policy is to ensure the facility has a process to make appropriate care decisions for persons that have fallen and may have obtained an injury. The policy will be followed to ensure processes are set up upon admission to prevent harm from falls."Each resident will be evaluated on their fall risk level upon admission and have appropriate interventions implemented and reassessed quarterly and with changes in status. Assessment for elimination or alternate interventions to prevent falls and injuries from falls will be conducted quarterly and with changes. "The risk assessment will be completed by a nurse or designee on admission and at the time of any new fall and quarterly thereafter. Update the care plan, communicate interventions and initiate neurological assessments."II. Resident #7A. Resident statusResident #7, age greater than 65, was admitted on 4/10/23 and readmitted on 6/18/25. According to the September 2025 computerized physician orders (CPO), diagnoses included unspecified dementia, age related osteoporosis (increased risk of fracture), chronic respiratory failure with hypoxia (low oxygen), chronic fatigue and urinary incontinence. The 6/18/25 facility assessment revealed the resident had severe cognitive impairment with a brief interview for mental status (BIMS) score of five out of 15. She used a walker and a wheelchair. She was dependent on staff assistance for bathing, upper/lower body dressing, putting on/off footwear and personal hygiene. She required maximal assistance with toileting hygiene, oral hygiene, sit to stand, chair to chair transfers, toilet transfers and shower transfers. She was always incontinent of urine. The assessment indicated the resident had a fall prior to admission and a fracture related fall at the facility. B. Record reviewResident #7’s fall care plan, initiated 4/10/23 and revised 7/1/25, revealed the resident was at a high risk for falls related to gait imbalance, poor safety awareness and history of fracture. The interventions included determining and addressing causative factors of falls (initiated 9/24/24), keeping walkways free of clutter (initiated 2/7/25), providing activities that promoted exercise and strength building where possible (initiated 10/13/23), encouraging participation in group exercise (initiated 10/13/23) and encouraging ambulation (initiated 10/23/23).-There was no documentation to indicate the facility reviewed Resident #7’s fall care plan after the resident’s falls on 2/27/25 and 5/31/25 (which resulted in a fracture) in order to determine if the fall interventions were effective or if new fall interventions were needed in order to prevent further falls for the resident. A nursing progress note, dated 2/27/25 at 9:36 a.m., revealed Resident #7 had a fall which was reported from the prior shift and bruising was noted on the resident's forehead. The resident complained of dizziness when standing, which had resolved. The unwitnessed fall incident report, dated 2/27/25 and documented by a licensed practical nurse (LPN), revealed a staff member entered Resident #7’s room and she was sitting in her recliner. The resident told the certified nurse aide (CNA) that the chair moved on her and that she hit her head on the bed frame. Resident #7 was observed by the CNA to have swelling and a mark to the right side of her forehead. The CNA immediately informed the nurse. The resident's walker was noted to be directly in front of her dresser. She denied having to get up from the floor and she was unsure what happened. The bed frame was at approximately waist height on the resident. No injuries were noted to the resident other than the right side of her forehead, which had an approximate 2.5 centimeter (cm) area of redness and swelling.-The incident report failed to include documentation to indicate that the resident was assessed by a RN after the fall. -Additionally, the incident report failed to document if new fall interventions were implemented to prevent further falls for the resident. A nursing progress note, dated 6/4/25 at 11:18 p.m., revealed the note was a late entry documentation for a fall that occurred on 5/31/25 at 5:00 a.m. The note documented Resident #7 had an unwitnessed fall with injury to her right hip area and a small skin tear with a lime-sized bruise/hematoma above her pinky finger. The nurse was walking past the resident’s room and heard a thud on the other side of the door. The resident was found sitting on the floor facing away from the door with her right leg bent at the knee and her right ankle under her left leg. She was unable to perform range of motion and expressed extreme pain in her right hip. Emergency medical services (EMS) were notified and the resident was transported to the hospital. A 6/5/25 hospital note revealed Resident #7 required surgical repair of a closed right hip fracture. The unwitnessed fall incident report, dated 5/31/25 at 4:05 a.m. and documented by a LPN, revealed Resident #7 was unable to give a description of the fall. The nurse documented the resident had an unwitnessed fall with injury to her right hip area and a small skin tear with a lime-sized bruise/hematoma above her pinky finger. The nurse was walking past the resident’s room and heard a thud on the other side of the door. The resident was found sitting on the floor facing away from the door with her right leg bent at the knee and her right ankle under her left leg. She was unable to perform range of motion and expressed extreme pain in her right hip. EMS were notified and the resident was transported to the hospital. The predisposing physiological factors included confusion, incontinence and gait imbalance. The resident was ambulating without assistance with a walker. -The incident report failed to include documentation to indicate that the resident was assessed by a RN after the fall.-Additionally, the incident report failed to document if new fall interventions were implemented to prevent further falls for the resident. III. Staff interviewsCNA #1 was interviewed on 9/8/25 at 4:38 p.m. CNA #1 said when a resident had a fall she would notify the nurse. She said the nurse would complete the assessment and if there was no injury, the staff would get the resident up and check on them frequently. She said residents who were a high fall risk had a green leaf on the door frame to identify they were a fall risk. She said she did not know what interventions were put into place to prevent Resident #7 from falling. She said she would just remind the resident to use her call light. LPN #2 was interviewed on 9/8/25 at 4:41 p.m. LPN #2 said if a resident had a fall the nurse would assess the resident for injuries, range of motion and take their vital signs. She said if the nurse suspected any kind of injury, an ambulance was called to transport the resident to the hospital. She said if the resident did not have an injury, the staff would get the resident up off the floor and contact the DON, the physician and the resident’s representative. She said there were not many RNs that worked in the facility so the LPNs would assess the resident after a fall. She said she was not aware that a RN was required to assess residents after a fall. She said Resident #7 did not have any new fall interventions initiated after her last two falls (on 2/27/25 and 5/31/25). The DON was interviewed on 9/8/25 at 4:51 p.m. The DON said if she was in the facility at the time of a resident fall, she would accompany the LPN to assess the resident for injuries. She said on the night shift, the LPNs assessed the resident after a fall and if there were no injuries, the LPN would text her to let her know about the fall. She said if the resident sustained an injury, the LPN would call the physician and the physician would make the decision of what treatment needed to be ordered. She said she was not aware that a RN was required to assess a resident after a fall. The DON said following a fall, she and the social services director (SSD) would meet and try to put interventions in place after each fall and track the interventions. However, Resident #7's previous interventions were not tracked for their effectiveness. The DON said Resident #7 was not a frequent faller, but when she did fall, she sustained injuries. She said she was not sure why the facility did not put interventions in place after the resident’s falls on 2/27/25 and 5/31/25.
Plan of correction · submitted by the facility
CMS Tag: F0704 – Resident Care – Accident Prevention and Attention Plan of Correction Immediate Actions Taken for the Resident Found to Have Been Affected Include: • Resident #7 was assessed by nursing staff upon return from the hospital following her hip fracture, and her physician and responsible party were notified. • An RN (registered nurse) assessment was completed and documented for Resident #7 following the surveyor’s findings. • Resident #7’s care plan was immediately reviewed and updated to include additional individualized fall prevention interventions (increased supervision during transfers, use of chair and bed alarms, and toileting assistance every two hours). • All staff caring for Resident #7 were notified of the updated fall interventions and reminded to document implementation. • Staff directly involved in Resident #7’s care were re-educated on the requirement that a RN must complete and document post-fall assessments for every resident fall. Identifying Other Potentially Affected Residents: • The DON (director of nursing) or designee conducted an audit of all residents who experienced a fall in the past 90 days to verify that post-fall assessments were completed and documented by a RN. • All fall-related incident reports were reviewed to confirm that interventions were evaluated and updated in the residents’ care plans following each fall. • Any missing RN assessments or care plan revisions were corrected promptly, with physician and family notified as needed. • All current residents identified as high fall risk had their care plans reviewed to ensure interventions were current, individualized, and effective. Systemic Changes to Prevent Recurrence: • The facility’s Fall Management Policy was revised to clearly state that a RN must assess every resident after a fall, regardless of shift or apparent severity, and that the assessment must be documented in the resident’s record. • A standardized Post-Fall Assessment Tool was implemented, requiring RN completion, including neurological checks, vital signs, range of motion, and injury evaluation. • Care plan update procedures were revised to require documentation of intervention review and revision after every fall, including evidence of IDT (interdisciplinary team) input. • All licensed staff were educated on the revised fall policy, post-fall assessment requirements, and care plan update procedures. • The facility implemented a mandatory RN “on-call” procedure to ensure availability for timely fall assessments during all shifts. • Quarterly fall risk training for CNAs (certified nurse aides) and nurses will emphasize identification of fall risk residents, communication of risks, and interventions to prevent falls. Monitoring Corrective Actions: • The DON or designee will audit all fall incidents weekly for eight weeks to ensure RN assessments are completed, documented, and care plans updated appropriately. • Thereafter, audits will continue monthly for four months, with results reviewed in QAPI. • The QAPI Committee will monitor fall data, review trends, and evaluate the effectiveness of interventions, with results reported to the Governing Body quarterly. • Any identified noncompliance will result in immediate re-education and corrective action. • Resident/family feedback on fall prevention efforts will be gathered through care plan meetings and satisfaction surveys. • A QAPI Performance Improvement Project (PIP) will be initiated to monitor compliance with fall assessment and care planning requirements, with updates provided in QAA meetings. Date of Completed Corrective Action: The facility commits to completing the above corrective actions by October 4, 2025, with ongoing monitoring and oversight to ensure sustained com
9/10/2025Complaint, Recertification Survey · ID 1D1283-H17 deficiencies▼
0000Initial CommentsSurveyor note2 building records▼
Findings · record 1 of 2
A recertification survey with complaint #CO2561635 and #CO2606651 was completed on 9/7/25 to 9/10/25. Six deficiencies were cited.
Findings · record 2 of 2
An Emergency Preparedness survey was conducted from 9/7/25 to 9/10/25. One deficiency was cited.
Plan of correction
The state did not require a plan of correction for this citation.
0004Develop EP Plan, Review and Update Annually▼
Findings
Based on record review and interviews, the facility failed to have an annual review of the complete emergency preparedness plan (EPP). Specifically, the facility failed to complete an annual review of the EPP to ensure their EP program was updated per regulatory requirements. Findings include:I. Record reviewThe EP program binder was reviewed with the chief executive officer (CEO) on 9/10/25 at 1:08 p.m. Review of the EP binder revealed the following:-The EP program was last reviewed by the facility in June 2024.-The EP binder failed to include an updated list with all of the staff names and their contact information.-The EP policy and procedures, including the evacuation policy and procedure, were last updated 7/1/24.-The emergency medical services (EMS) contact information was last updated in 2023.-The facility failed to show documented proof that the facility's EP plan was reviewed, maintained and updated in the last 12 months. -There was no dated document to indicate that the facility had reviewed and updated their EP program annually. II. Staff interviewThe CEO was interviewed on 9/10/25 at 1:08 p.m. The CEO said the facility’s EP program and policies were supposed to be updated annually and with any changes. He said he did not realize it had been a full year since the previous review and the current EP program was outdated. He said he was not aware that all the contents of the EP plan needed to be reviewed and updated annually. He said the facility had a digital system that should trigger an alert when the EP plan and policies needed to be reviewed. He said he would have to investigate why all the contents of the EP program did not trigger for review.
Plan of correction · submitted by the facility
CMS Tag: 0004 – Emergency Operations PlanningPlan of Correction: Immediate Actions Taken for the Deficiency Identified Include:• Initiated an expedited review and update of the facility’s Emergency Operations Plan, incorporating an all-hazards approach consistent with Federal, State, and local requirements.• Ensured that current contact numbers for emergency agencies, community partners, and key facility leadership were updated and verified.• Distributed updated plan sections to all department heads, and staff were notified of interim guidance until full training could occur. Identifying Other Potentially Affected Residents/Areas:• Conducted a review of all facility service lines (acute care, long-term care, clinics, and ancillary departments) to identify gaps in emergency preparedness planning.• Reviewed prior training records, drills, and after-action reports to identify if deficiencies in the outdated plan may have affected readiness.• Surveyed staff knowledge on their roles during emergencies and identified additional education needs.• Reviewed the risk/vulnerability assessment to ensure all resident care areas are adequately addressed, including vulnerable populations such as those dependent on ventilators, dialysis, or with mobility limitations. Systemic Changes to Prevent Recurrence:• The facility Administrator and Emergency Preparedness Coordinator will ensure the Emergency Operations Plan (EOP) is formally reviewed and updated at least annually, or more frequently if regulatory requirements change.• A standing agenda item for the quarterly Quality Assurance and Performance Improvement (QAPI) meeting will include review of emergency preparedness compliance, including timeliness of plan review and update.• Department leaders will receive training on their role in reviewing and contributing to the EOP, including hazard vulnerability analysis, communication planning, and continuity of operations.• A revised policy will be implemented requiring documentation of plan review, approval, and staff dissemination.• Established a cross-departmental Emergency Preparedness Committee that meets quarterly to oversee drills, hazard vulnerability updates, and EOP revisions. Monitoring Corrective Actions:• The Emergency Preparedness Coordinator or designee will maintain a log of all EOP revisions, including dates of review, approvals, and updates. This log will be audited quarterly by the Administrator.• Annual emergency preparedness training for all staff will include review of the current EOP, with sign-in sheets maintained.• The facility will conduct at least two drills/exercises annually, one of which will include coordination with local emergency response agencies. After-action reports will be documented, reviewed by the Emergency Preparedness Committee, and incorporated into EOP updates.• Quarterly QAPI reports will include findings on EOP compliance, training, and drills, with results reported to the Governing Body.• Deficiency tracking and follow-up monitoring will continue for no less than 12 months to ensure sustained compliance. Date of Completed Corrective Action:The facility commits to completing the above corrective actions by October 4, 2025, with ongoing monitoring and evaluation to ensure sustained compliance with CMS Tag 0004 requirements for Emergency Operations Planning.
0658Services Provided Meet Professional Standards▼
Findings
Based on observations, record review and interviews, the facility failed to provide nursing services according to accepted professional standards of clinical practice for two (#17 and #18) out of 18 residents reviewed out of 18 sample residents. Specifically, the facility: -Failed to transcribe physician's orders into the electronic medical record (EMR) correctly for Resident #17 and Resident #18; and,-Failed to notify a provider when Resident #17 had a change in condition and obtain a physician’s order to hold a routinely scheduled medication Findings include: I. Failure to transcribe physician’s orders into the EMR correctly A. Professional reference According to the National Institutes of Health (NIH), National Library of Medicine, Hypoglycemia (Nursing) (12/26/22), retrieved on 9/16/25 from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK568695/#:~:text=It%20is%20the%20nurse's%20responsibility,possible%20side%20effects%20of%20hypoglycemia,“Hypoglycemia is often defined by a plasma glucose concentration below 70 milligram (mg)/ deciliter (dl); however, signs and symptoms may not occur until plasma glucose concentrations drop below 55 mg/dl. It is the nurse's responsibility to assess for signs and symptoms of hypoglycemia and to report any abnormal findings. It is also the nurse's responsibility to assess that medications are taken as prescribed and report any possible side effects of hypoglycemia.”B. Resident #171. Resident status Resident #17, age less than 65, was admitted on 7/2/21. According to the September 2025 computerized physician orders (CPO), diagnoses included multiple sclerosis (autoimmune disease that affects the central nervous systems), type 1 diabetes and neuromuscular dysfunction of the bladder. The 6/30/25 minimum data set (MDS) assessment documented the resident had severe cognitive impairment with a brief interview for mental status score (BIMS) score of three out of 15. 2. Observations and interviews On 9/8/25 at 11:40 a.m. licensed practical nurse (LPN) #1 was preparing Resident #17’s medications for administration. LPN #1 checked Resident #17’s blood sugar while he was in the dining room eating lunch. LPN #1 said the resident’s blood sugar was 316 milligrams per deciliter (mg/dl). LPN #1 checked the physician’s orders for sliding scale insulin and realized the physician’s order did not reflect a blood sugar of 316 mg/dl. LPN #1 said Resident #17 came back from the hospital yesterday (9/7/25) with a new physician’s order for Humalog and she had not transcribed it into the EMR correctly. She notified the director of nursing (DON) of the error and called the provider on call to clarify the order. 3. Record review A review of Resident #17’s September 2025 CPO revealed the following physician’s order: Humalog Kwikpen Solution pen-injector 100 units/milliliter (ml), inject as per sliding scale: if 136-180 mg/dl = 2 units, 181-225 mg/dl = 4 units, 226-270 mg/dl = 6 units, 271-315 mg/dl = 8 units, 321-360 mg/dl = 10 units. Blood sugar 50-70 mg/dl: give four ounces of juice or one cup of milk. Notify the on-call physician if the blood sugar is above 400 mg/dl, subcutaneously with meals for type 1 diabetes mellitus with other diabetic neurological complications, ordered 9/7/25 and discontinued 9/8/25.-The physician’s order failed to include a blood sugar ranging from 316-320 mg/dl. C. Resident 18A. Resident status Resident #18, age less than 65, was admitted on 5/27/25 and discharged on 6/7/25. According to the June 2025 CPO, diagnoses included malignant neoplasm of the uterus (uterine cancer), acute kidney failure and hypertension (high blood pressure). The 5/27/25 MDS assessment documented the resident had moderate cognitive impairment with a BIMS score of 10 out of 15. B. Record review A review of Resident #18’s September 2025 CPO revealed the following physician’s orders: Morphine sulfate oral solution 100 mg/5 milliliters (ml), give 0.25 ml by mouth every four hours as needed for pain/restlessness, ordered 6/4/25 and discontinued 6/6/25. Morphine sulfate oral solution 100mg/5ml, give 2.5 ml by mouth every two hours as needed for pain/restlessness, ordered 6/6/25 and discontinued 6/9/25. -LPN #1 entered the order for Morphine as 2.5 ml instead of 0.25 ml (see interviews below). C. Staff interviews The DON and the chief executive officer (CEO) were interviewed together on 9/10/25 at 10:30 a.m. The DON said LPN #1 came to her when entering the morphine order into the computer. The DON said that LPN #1 did not check off the final check mark to complete an order to be able to push it through and make it an active order. The DON said she checked off the final checkmark in the order to make it an active order without double checking the order. She said the order should have been morphine sulfate, 0.25 ml every two hours, but instead was transcribed to 2.5 ml every two hours. The DON said every nurse checking off a physician's order should double check that the order matched exactly what was prescribed. The DON said there was an automated note that came after she signed off on the incorrect order that she did not see saying that the order was outside the recommended dose. The DON said that the next nurse on night shift brought it to the DON’s attention, saying the order was incorrect. The DON said that the nurse confirmed she was going to correct the order. The DON said the order never was corrected and she did not know where the breakdown came from. The DON said she reviewed the controlled substance count sheet and confirmed that the dose of 0.25 ml was given each time. The DON said she confirmed the final count of the medication left was the correct amount. III. Failure to notify a physician when Resident #17 had a change in condition and obtain a physician's order to hold a routinely scheduled medicationA. Resident #171. Record review The 6/21/25 nursing progress note documented Resident #17’s fasting blood sugar was low today. It was 53 mg/dl at breakfast and the nurse did not give Lantus. The blood sugar was within normal limits at lunch of 91mg/dl. This was on the provider note (see interview below). A review of Resident #17’s September 2025 CPO revealed the following physician's order: Lantus subcutaneous solution, 100 units/ml (long acting insulin), inject 18 units subcutaneously in the morning related to type one diabetes mellitus with other neurological complications, ordered 1/24/25 and discontinued 6/24/25. 2. Staff interviews The DON and the CEO were interviewed together on 9/10/25 at 10:30 a.m. The DON said if a resident’s blood sugar was outside of the normal limits, she would expect the provider on call to be notified right away. She said the provider note that the nurse was referring to in the progress note was a once daily note that was sent to the provider from the DON. The DON said this was a list of non-urgent items such as needing a stool softener. The DON said blood sugars outside of the normal limits should not be put on this list and should instead be called into the provider right away. LPN #2 was interviewed on 9/10/25 at 3:00 p.m. She said she would always notify the provider, the DON and the medical power of attorney (POA) right away if a resident experienced a change in condition. She said if she had a scheduled medication due and was unable to administer it to the resident, she would notify the DON and the provider.
Plan of correction · submitted by the facility
CMS Tag: F0658 – Services Provided Meet Professional StandardsPlan of Correction: Immediate Actions Taken for the Residents Found to Have Been Affected Include:• Resident #17’s Humalog order was corrected in the EMR (electronic medical record) to accurately reflect the physician’s intended sliding scale insulin dosing.• Resident #17’s Lantus order and related administration parameters were reviewed with the attending physician; staff were re-educated that any low blood sugar or deviation from normal limits requires immediate provider notification, not delayed reporting.• Resident #18’s morphine order was corrected in the EMR to reflect the physician’s prescribed 0.25 ml every two hours, not 2.5 ml. The DON (director of nursing) confirmed through controlled substance count sheets that no incorrect doses were administered.• All affected residents were clinically reassessed, including blood sugar monitoring for Resident #17 and pain management review for Resident #18, to ensure safety and that no harm occurred.• The DON immediately re-educated the nursing staff on the requirement to double check all physician orders against the written prescription prior to finalizing in the EMR.Identifying Other Potentially Affected Residents:• The DON or designee conducted an audit of all active physician orders for all residents to confirm accuracy of transcription into the EMR.• Medication Administration Records (MARs) for the last 30 days were reviewed for discrepancies between physician orders and EMR transcription.• All residents who had orders for insulin or other high-risk medications (including controlled substances) were prioritized in the review.• Any identified discrepancies were corrected immediately, and physicians were notified as needed for clarification.• Staff were re-instructed on the chain of communication when a resident experiences a change in condition, emphasizing the need for immediate provider notification when withholding or altering any routinely scheduled medication. Systemic Changes to Prevent Recurrence:• A policy revision was completed to require a dual nurse verification process for all new physician orders, particularly for high-alert medications (e.g., insulin, anticoagulants, opioids). Both nurses must independently verify that the order entered in the EMR matches the physician’s written or verbal order.• All nursing staff will be re-educated on standards of practice related to medication transcription, medication administration, and immediate provider notification when a resident experiences a change in condition.• The DON or designee will implement a standardized “Physician Order Entry Checklist” that must be completed before activating new orders in the EMR.• The EMR alert system for “dose outside recommended range” will be reviewed with all licensed nurses to ensure staff understand how to respond appropriately.• Monthly in-service education will be conducted for three months, focusing on safe medication practices, accurate transcription, and communication standards.• Changes in condition communication guidelines will be reissued, and staff competency testing will be performed to verify understanding. Monitoring Corrective Actions:• The DON or designee will audit 10% of new physician orders weekly for eight weeks, then monthly for four months, to ensure accurate transcription into the EMR. Results will be reported to QAPI.• All insulin administration records will be reviewed weekly for eight weeks to ensure that provider notification occurs for any abnormal blood sugar results or withheld doses.• Controlled substance order entries and MARs will be reviewed weekly for eight weeks to ensure accuracy in transcription and administration.• A QAPI Performance Improvement Project (PIP) will be initiated to track compliance with professional standards of practice in physician order transcription, medication administration, and communication of changes in condition. Results will be presented at monthly QAA meetings. Competency check-offs for all licensed nurses on safe order transcription and provider notification requirements will be completed within 30 days.• Corrective action monitoring will continue for at least six months, with expansion or extension if additional errors are identified. Date of Completed Corrective Action:The facility commits to completing the above corrective actions by October 4, 2025, with ongoing monitoring and oversight to ensure sustained compliance with F0658 requirements regarding nursing services meeting professional standards of quality.
Plan of correction · submitted by the facility
CMS Tag: F0658 – Services Provided Meet Professional StandardsPlan of Correction:Immediate Actions Taken for the Residents Found to Have Been Affected Include:• Resident #17’s Humalog order was corrected in the EMR (electronic medical record) to accurately reflect the physician’s intended sliding scale insulin dosing.• Resident #17’s Lantus order and related administration parameters were reviewed with the attending physician; staff were re-educated that any low blood sugar or deviation from normal limits requires immediate provider notification, not delayed reporting.• Resident #18’s morphine order was corrected in the EMR to reflect the physician’s prescribed 0.25 ml every two hours, not 2.5 ml. The DON (director of nursing) confirmed through controlled substance count sheets that no incorrect doses were administered.• All affected residents were clinically reassessed, including blood sugar monitoring for Resident #17 and pain management review for Resident #18, to ensure safety and that no harm occurred.• The DON immediately re-educated the nursing staff on the requirement to double check all physician orders against the written prescription prior to finalizing in the EMR.Identifying Other Potentially Affected Residents:• The DON or designee conducted an audit of all active physician orders for all residents to confirm accuracy of transcription into the EMR.• Medication Administration Records (MARs) for the last 30 days were reviewed for discrepancies between physician orders and EMR transcription.• All residents who had orders for insulin or other high-risk medications (including controlled substances) were prioritized in the review.• Any identified discrepancies were corrected immediately, and physicians were notified as needed for clarification.• Staff were re-instructed on the chain of communication when a resident experiences a change in condition, emphasizing the need for immediate provider notification when withholding or altering any routinely scheduled medication. Systemic Changes to Prevent Recurrence:• A policy revision was completed to require a dual nurse verification process for all new physician orders, particularly for high-alert medications (e.g., insulin, anticoagulants, opioids). Both nurses must independently verify that the order entered in the EMR matches the physician’s written or verbal order.• All nursing staff will be re-educated on standards of practice related to medication transcription, medication administration, and immediate provider notification when a resident experiences a change in condition.• The DON or designee will implement a standardized “Physician Order Entry Checklist” that must be completed before activating new orders in the EMR.• The EMR alert system for “dose outside recommended range” will be reviewed with all licensed nurses to ensure staff understand how to respond appropriately.• Monthly in-service education will be conducted for three months, focusing on safe medication practices, accurate transcription, and communication standards.• Changes in condition communication guidelines will be reissued, and staff competency testing will be performed to verify understanding. Monitoring Corrective Actions:• The DON or designee will audit 10% of new physician orders weekly for eight weeks, then monthly for four months, to ensure accurate transcription into the EMR. Results will be reported to QAPI.• All insulin administration records will be reviewed weekly for eight weeks to ensure that provider notification occurs for any abnormal blood sugar results or withheld doses.• Controlled substance order entries and MARs will be reviewed weekly for eight weeks to ensure accuracy in transcription and administration.• A QAPI Performance Improvement Project (PIP) will be initiated to track compliance with professional standards of practice in physician order transcription, medication administration, and communication of changes in condition. Results will be presented at monthly QAA meetings.•• Competency check-offs for all licensed nurses on safe order transcription and provider notification requirements will be completed within 30 days.• Corrective action monitoring will continue for at least six months, with expansion or extension if additional errors are identified. Date of Completed Corrective Action:The facility commits to completing the above corrective actions by October 4, 2025, with ongoing monitoring and oversight to ensure sustained compliance with F0658 requirements regarding nursing services meeting professional standards of quality.
0689Free of Accident Hazards/Supervision/Devices▼
Findings
Based on record review and interviews, the facility failed to ensure one (#7) of four residents reviewed for accidents out of 18 sample residents remained free of accidents. Resident #7, who was identified as a high fall risk, sustained a fall on 2/27/25 resulting in bruising to her forehead. The facility failed to review the resident’s care plan after the fall to determine if the resident’s fall interventions were effective or if new interventions were needed to prevent further falls. Additionally, documentation failed to indicate the resident was assessed by a registered nurse (RN) following the fall. On 5/31/25, Resident #7 sustained another fall which resulted in a hospitalization for a hip fracture. Again, documentation failed to indicate the resident was assessed by a RN following the fall. Upon Resident #7’s return to the facility on 6/18/25, the facility again failed to review the resident’s care plan after the fall to determine if the resident’s fall interventions were effective or if new interventions were needed to prevent further falls. Specifically, the facility failed to:-Review Resident #7’s fall interventions for effectiveness and implement new fall interventions if needed following the resident’s falls in order to prevent a fall with major injury; and,-Ensure Resident #7 was assessed by a RN following her falls on 2/27/25 and 5/31/25. Findings include:I. Facility policy and procedureThe Fall policy and procedure, undated, was provided by the director of nursing (DON) on 9/10/25 at 8:55 a.m. It read in pertinent part, "The purpose of this policy is to ensure the facility has a process to make appropriate care decisions for persons that have fallen and may have obtained an injury. The policy will be followed to ensure processes are set up upon admission to prevent harm from falls."Each resident will be evaluated on their fall risk level upon admission and have appropriate interventions implemented and reassessed quarterly and with changes in status. Assessment for elimination or alternate interventions to prevent falls and injuries from falls will be conducted quarterly and with changes. "The risk assessment will be completed by a nurse or designee on admission and at the time of any new fall and quarterly thereafter. Update the care plan, communicate interventions and initiate neurological assessments."II. Resident #7A. Resident statusResident #7, age greater than 65, was admitted on 4/10/23 and readmitted on 6/18/25. According to the September 2025 computerized physician orders (CPO), diagnoses included unspecified dementia, age related osteoporosis (increased risk of fracture), chronic respiratory failure with hypoxia (low oxygen), chronic fatigue and urinary incontinence. The 6/18/25 minimum data set (MDS) assessment revealed the resident had severe cognitive impairment with a brief interview for mental status (BIMS) score of five out of 15. She used a walker and a wheelchair. She was dependent on staff assistance for bathing, upper/lower body dressing, putting on/off footwear and personal hygiene. She required maximal assistance with toileting hygiene, oral hygiene, sit to stand, chair to chair transfers, toilet transfers and shower transfers. She was always incontinent of urine. The assessment indicated the resident had a fall prior to admission and a fracture related fall at the facility. B. Record reviewResident #7’s fall care plan, initiated 4/10/23 and revised 7/1/25, revealed the resident was at a high risk for falls related to gait imbalance, poor safety awareness and history of fracture. The interventions included determining and addressing causative factors of falls (initiated 9/24/24), keeping walkways free of clutter (initiated 2/7/25), providing activities that promoted exercise and strength building where possible (initiated 10/13/23), encouraging participation in group exercise (initiated 10/13/23) and encouraging ambulation (initiated 10/23/23).-There was no documentation to indicate the facility reviewed Resident #7’s fall care plan after the resident’s falls on 2/27/25 and 5/31/25 (which resulted in a fracture) in order to determine if the fall interventions were effective or if new fall interventions were needed in order to prevent further falls for the resident. A nursing progress note, dated 2/27/25 at 9:36 a.m., revealed Resident #7 had a fall which was reported from the prior shift and bruising was noted on the resident's forehead. The resident complained of dizziness when standing, which had resolved. The unwitnessed fall incident report, dated 2/27/25 and documented by a licensed practical nurse (LPN), revealed a staff member entered Resident #7’s room and she was sitting in her recliner. The resident told the certified nurse aide (CNA) that the chair moved on her and that she hit her head on the bed frame. Resident #7 was observed by the CNA to have swelling and a mark to the right side of her forehead. The CNA immediately informed the nurse. The resident's walker was noted to be directly in front of her dresser. She denied having to get up from the floor and she was unsure what happened. The bed frame was at approximately waist height on the resident. No injuries were noted to the resident other than the right side of her forehead, which had an approximate 2.5 centimeter (cm) area of redness and swelling.-The incident report failed to include documentation to indicate that the resident was assessed by a RN after the fall. -Additionally, the incident report failed to document if new fall interventions were implemented to prevent further falls for the resident. A nursing progress note, dated 6/4/25 at 11:18 p.m., revealed the note was a late entry documentation for a fall that occurred on 5/31/25 at 5:00 a.m. The note documented Resident #7 had an unwitnessed fall with injury to her right hip area and a small skin tear with a lime-sized bruise/hematoma above her pinky finger. The nurse was walking past the resident’s room and heard a thud on the other side of the door. The resident was found sitting on the floor facing away from the door with her right leg bent at the knee and her right ankle under her left leg. She was unable to perform range of motion and expressed extreme pain in her right hip. Emergency medical services (EMS) were notified and the resident was transported to the hospital. A 6/5/25 hospital note revealed Resident #7 required surgical repair of a closed right hip fracture. The unwitnessed fall incident report, dated 5/31/25 at 4:05 a.m. and documented by a LPN, revealed Resident #7 was unable to give a description of the fall. The nurse documented the resident had an unwitnessed fall with injury to her right hip area and a small skin tear with a lime-sized bruise/hematoma above her pinky finger. The nurse was walking past the resident’s room and heard a thud on the other side of the door. The resident was found sitting on the floor facing away from the door with her right leg bent at the knee and her right ankle under her left leg. She was unable to perform range of motion and expressed extreme pain in her right hip. EMS were notified and the resident was transported to the hospital. The predisposing physiological factors included confusion, incontinence and gait imbalance. The resident was ambulating without assistance with a walker. -The incident report failed to include documentation to indicate that the resident was assessed by a RN after the fall.-Additionally, the incident report failed to document if new fall interventions were implemented to prevent further falls for the resident. III. Staff interviewsCNA #1 was interviewed on 9/8/25 at 4:38 p.m. CNA #1 said when a resident had a fall she would notify the nurse. She said the nurse would complete the assessment and if there was no injury, the staff would get the resident up and check on them frequently. She said residents who were a high fall risk had a green leaf on the door frame to identify they were a fall risk. She said she did not know what interventions were put into place to prevent Resident #7 from falling. She said she would just remind the resident to use her call light. LPN #2 was interviewed on 9/8/25 at 4:41 p.m. LPN #2 said if a resident had a fall the nurse would assess the resident for injuries, range of motion and take their vital signs. She said if the nurse suspected any kind of injury, an ambulance was called to transport the resident to the hospital. She said if the resident did not have an injury, the staff would get the resident up off the floor and contact the DON, the physician and the resident’s representative. She said there were not many RNs that worked in the facility so the LPNs would assess the resident after a fall. She said she was not aware that a RN was required to assess residents after a fall. She said Resident #7 did not have any new fall interventions initiated after her last two falls (on 2/27/25 and 5/31/25). The DON was interviewed on 9/8/25 at 4:51 p.m. The DON said if she was in the facility at the time of a resident fall, she would accompany the LPN to assess the resident for injuries. She said on the night shift, the LPNs assessed the resident after a fall and if there were no injuries, the LPN would text her to let her know about the fall. She said if the resident sustained an injury, the LPN would call the physician and the physician would make the decision of what treatment needed to be ordered. She said she was not aware that a RN was required to assess a resident after a fall. Cross reference F727 for failure to have a RN in the facility for at least eight consecutive hours, seven days a week. The DON said following a fall, she and the social services director (SSD) would meet and try to put interventions in place after each fall and track the interventions. However, Resident #7's previous interventions were not tracked for their effectiveness. The DON said Resident #7 was not a frequent faller, but when she did fall, she sustained injuries. She said she was not sure why the facility did not put interventions in place after the resident’s falls on 2/27/25 and 5/31/25.
Plan of correction · submitted by the facility
CMS Tag: F689 –Free of Accident Hazards/Supervision/Devices Immediate Actions taken for the resident found to have been affected include: Reassess all affected residents using the Morse Fall ScaleEnsure all residents identified as “at risk” for falls had safety measures, as well as resident specific interventions, added to their care plans. Ensure the safety measures and resident specific interventions that were added to the care plans were also reflected on the Kardex so that the CNA’s (certified nurse aides) had access to this informationAddendum: Corrective action for resident 7: Care plan reviewed and updated to ensure all fall prevention intervention are appropriate. Including increased supervision during transfers, use of chair/bed alarms, toileting every two hours, adding to restorative program to assist in safe transfers. Identifying Other Potentially Affected Residents The DON or designee will audit all resident records to ensure the Morse Fall Scale is completed and that risk factors, safety measures, and resident specific interventions are reflected on the care plan and updated on the Kardex. All residents with existing pressure alarms on beds or chairs will be reassessed for continued need. If any resident continues to require such safety devices, a risk-benefit explanation with the resident and/or their representative will be documented. Chart audits will be performed to ensure provider orders for safety devices are in place. Conduct a thorough investigation to identify the root causes of the deficiency. Analyze staffing patterns, resident needs, and any systemic issues contributing to inadequate supervision. Provide additional training to staff members on supervision protocols, resident rights, and effective communication. Ensure all staff members understand their roles and responsibilities in providing adequate supervision. Instruct the CNAs to review the updated Kardex prior to their next shift. Implement immediate measures to address any imminent risks to resident safety. Ensure adequate staff supervision in areas identified as deficient. Conduct additional staff training on the importance of adequate supervision and recognizing signs of resident distress or need for assistance. Systemic Changes to Prevent Recurrence The DON will educate all staff on facility Fall Prevention Program guidelines, following care plan/Kardex interventions, and all facility fall related policies. The DON or designee will audit new admissions the day after admission to ensure the Fall Risk Assessment Tool has been completed and that risk factors, safety measures, and resident specific interventions are reflected on the care plan as well as updated on the Kardex. The DON will review all falls within one working day for three months to ensure an RCA (root cause analysis) has been conducted and that resident-specific interventions are reflected in the care plan and updated on the Kardex. The DON or designee will review all falls at the daily stand-up meeting with the IDT for three months to ensure appropriate individualized fall interventions are implemented, the resident’s care plan has been reviewed and revised, and the Kardex has been updated. Fall tracker will be initiated to monitor for trends in falls. A QAPI PIP will be initiated to report on the above monitoring and auditing procedures. All findings from the PIP will be presented at the monthly QAA meeting. Monitoring/auditing and reporting will continue for at least three months. Addendum Ensure RN assessment will be completed post fall: All licensed staff completed education acknowledging RN assessment needed for all falls. Mandatory RN "on call " procedure to ensure availability for timely fall assessments during all shifts. Monitoring Corrective Actions Implement enhanced monitoring and oversight mechanisms to ensure ongoing compliance with supervision requirements. Establish regular audits or checks to verify that adequate supervision is being provided consistently. Communicatewith residents and their families about the corrective actions being taken to address the deficiency. Encourage open communication channels for residents and families to report any concerns regarding supervision. Establish a feedback loop process, by way of feedback cards or some other formal mechanism to track any family or resident reports concerning supervision. Establish a quality assurance process to regularly review and evaluate the effectiveness of the corrective actions. Continuously monitor and adjust the plan as needed to ensure sustained compliance with F689 requirements. Maintain thorough documentation of all corrective actions taken, including staff training records, monitoring reports, and any communication with residents and families. Report progress on the implementation of the plan of correction to CMS as required. Conduct regular follow-up evaluations to assess the effectiveness of the corrective actions. Make any necessary adjustments to the plan based on feedback and ongoing monitoring results. Date of Completed Corrective Action: The facility commits to completing the above corrective actions by October 4th, 2025, with ongoing monitoring and evaluation to ensure sustained compliance with regulations regarding nutrition and hydration status maintenance.
0727RN 8 Hrs/7 days/Wk, Full Time DON▼
Findings
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to use the services of a registered nurse (RN) for at least eight consecutive hours a day, seven days a week. Specifically, the facility failed to use the services of a RN for at least eight consecutive hours a day for seven days a week. Findings include: I. Facility policy and procedure The Staffing policy, undated, was received from the director of nursing (DON) on 9/10/25. It documented in pertinent part, “It is the policy of this facility to employ appropriately qualified staff that shall consist of registered nurses (RN) and licensed practical nurses (LPN), who maintain current licensure or certification in the state of Colorado, and also certified nurse aides. Adequate coverage shall be determined by routine staffing schedules with additional staffing needs to be determined at the discretion of the charge nurse, the DON or the nursing home administrator (NHA).”II. Record review A review of the facility’s April 2025, May 2025 and June 2025 nursing schedules revealed there was not a RN scheduled in the facility on for 4/12/25, 4/13/25, 4/27/25, 5/11/25, 5/25/25, 5/26/25, 6/17/25, 6/21/25, 6/22/25, 6/28/25 and 6/29/25. On 9/9/25 a review of emails sent back and forth from the facility’s chief executive officer (CEO) to The Center for Medicare and Medicaid (CMS) revealed the facility had made attempts to reach out for a federal staffing waiver and failed to get a response from CMS on how to obtain a waiver. III. Staff interviews The DON was interviewed on 9/9/25 at 2:45 p.m. The DON said there was no RN in the building on the dates of 4/12/25, 4/13/25, 4/27/25, 5/11/25, 5/25/25, 5/26/25, 6/17/25, 6/21/25, 6/22/25, 6/28/25 and 6/29/25. The DON said she was on-call for those dates and there was also an on-call physician a block away from the facility, at the hospital. She said if a resident required an assessment to be completed by a RN, she was available over the phone to assist the LPN who was present in the building. The chief executive officer (CEO) and the DON were interviewed together on 9/10/25 at 10:30 a.m. The CEO said for as long as he was aware of, there had been no RN coverage seven days a week for eight consecutive hours each day at the facility. The CEO said the facility was actively trying to recruit and hire RNs to work at the facility. He said they had the job posted on several online job sites, had an advertisement on social media and in the local newspaper. He said the facility offered sign-on bonuses, they covered 80% of health insurance premiums and offered shift differentials for pay to try to get RNs hired. The CEO said agency RNs required up to 100 dollars/hour to cover shifts at the facility and if the facility were to rely on agency RNs, the facility would be at risk of closing. The CEO said the facility was not aware the state staffing waiver they were approved for did not cover the federal regulations until last year. He said since then, the facility had actively been seeking out a way to obtain a federal staffing waiver but that the federal agency (CMS) had not been able to offer a solution to them.
Plan of correction · submitted by the facility
CMS Tag: F727 – RN 8Hrs/7days/Wk, Full Time DON Plan of Correction:Immediate actions(s) taken for the resident(s) found to have been affected include:- No residents were found to be affected. The RN (registered nurse) Director of Nursing is present for 40 hours per week for at least 8 consecutive hours and as needed when LPN (licensed practical nurse) staff require further assessment of any resident. There is always a licensed nurse present in the building. RN coverage waiver that is currently in place. At time of POC full time RN has accepted position as day shift charge nurse. Identification of other residents having the potential to be affected was accomplished by:- The facility determined that all residents could be affected. Actions taken/systems put into place to reduce the risk of future occurrence include:Conduct a thorough review of staffing requirements outlined by CMS and other regulatory bodies. Determine the specific staffing requirements for registered nurses and ensure compliance with applicable regulations. Assess current staffing levels and schedules to identify any gaps in nursing coverage. Determine if adjustments are needed to ensure adequate coverage of registered nurses seven days a week. How the corrective action(s) will be monitored to ensure the practice will not recur:Provide ongoing training and education for nursing staff to ensure competency in providing quality care to residents. Emphasize the importance of continuity of care and effective communication among nursing staff across shifts. Implement systems for monitoring nursing staffing levels and schedules to ensure compliance with regulatory requirements. Conduct regular audits or reviews to assess the effectiveness of staffing adjustments and identify any areas for improvement. Conduct regular audits or reviews to monitor compliance with staffing requirements and assess the impact of staffing adjustments on resident care. Document and track outcomes, including improvements in staffing levels and resident outcomes. Date of Completed Corrective Action:The facility commits to completing the above corrective actions by October 4th, 2025, with ongoing monitoring and evaluation to ensure sustained compliance with staffing requirements.
0760Residents are Free of Significant Med Errors▼
Findings
Based on observations, record review and interviews, the facility failed to ensure that residents were free from significant medication errors for one (#17) of one resident reviewed for significant medication errors out of 18 sample residents. Specifically, the facility failed to ensure that Resident #17 was administered the correct dose of insulin by properly priming the insulin pen before insulin administration. Findings include: I. Facility policy and procedureThe Medication Administration policy and procedure, revised 3/1/19, was received from the director of nursing (DON) on 9/10/25 at 8:55 a.m. It documented in pertinent part, “The purpose of this policy is to administer medication as ordered by the resident’s physician in a timely manner and with the highest degree of efficiency and safety to the resident.”II. Manufacturer’s recommendationsAccording to the Humalog (insulin lispro, which is a prefilled quick acting insulin pen) medication package insert (2022), retrieved on 9/15/25 from chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/label/2025/020563s214,205747s038lbl.pdf, "Humalog KwikPen is a disposable single-patient-use prefilled pen containing 300 units of Humalog. You can give yourself more than one dose from the pen. Each turn (click) of the dose knob dials one unit of insulin. Pull the pen cap straight off. Wipe the rubber seal with an alcohol swab. Check the liquid in the pen. Humalog should look clear and colorless. Do not use it if it is cloudy, colored, or has particles or clumps in it. Push the capped needle straight onto the pen and twist the needle on until it is tight. Pull off the outer needle shield. Do not throw it away. Pull off the inner needle shield and throw it away. Priming your pen means removing the air from the needle and cartridge that may collect during normal use and ensures that the pen is working correctly. If you do not prime before each injection, you may get too much or too little insulin. To prime your pen, turn the dose knob to select two units. Hold your pen with the needle pointing up. Tap the cartridge holder gently to collect air bubbles at the top. Continue holding your pen with the needle pointing up. Push the dose knob in until it stops, and “0” is seen in the dose window. Hold the dose knob in and count to five slowly. You should see insulin at the tip of the needle. If you do not see insulin, repeat priming, no more than four times.”III. Resident #17A. Resident status Resident #17, age less than 65, was admitted on 7/2/21. According to the September 2025 computerized physician orders (CPO), diagnoses included multiple sclerosis (autoimmune disease that affects the central nervous systems), type 1 diabetes and neuromuscular dysfunction of the bladder. The 6/30/25 minimum data set (MDS) assessment documented the resident had severe cognitive impairment with a brief interview for mental status score (BIMS) score of three out of 15. The MDS assessment indicated the resident was on daily injection medication for diabetes. B. Observation and interview On 9/8/25 at 11:40 a.m. licensed practical nurse (LPN) #1 was preparing Resident #17’s medications for administration. LPN #1 checked Resident #17’s blood sugar while he was in the dining room eating lunch. LPN #1 said the resident’s blood sugar was 316 milligrams per deciliter (mg/dl). LPN #1 removed Resident #17’s Humalog insulin pen from the medication cart. She attached a needle to the end of the rubber stopper. She dialed the pen to 10 units of insulin. She went to Resident #17 in the dining room, wiped his left upper arm with an alcohol swab and administered the insulin to Resident #17. -LPN #1 failed to prime the Lantus insulin pen prior to drawing up the 10 units of insulin. LPN #1 said she was told by another nurse when she received orientation that the only time insulin pens were primed at the facility was when they were opened for the first time. She said she had been anurse at other facilities and they always primed the insulin pens prior to each administration of insulin. LPN #1 said she had not clarified the information she received from the other nurse regarding priming insulin pens with the DON. C. Record review A review of Resident #17’s September 2025 CPO revealed the following physician’s order: Humalog Kwikpen Solution pen-injector 100 units/milliliter (ml), inject as per sliding scale: if 136180 mg/dl = 2 units, 181-225 mg/dl= 4 units, 226-270 mg/dl = 6 units, 271-315 mg/dl = 8 units, 316-360 mg/dl = 10 units. Blood sugar 50-70 mg/dl: give four ounces of juice or one cup of milk. Notify the on-call physician if the blood sugar is above 400 mg/dl, subcutaneously with meals for type 1 diabetes mellitus with other diabetic neurological complications, ordered 9/8/25. IV. Additional staff interviewThe DON was interviewed on 9/8/25 at 1:32 p.m. The DON said she had not worked on the floor in a while but she knew that insulin pens had to be primed to one or two units prior to dialing up the insulin dose on the pen and administering the dose of insulin. She said it was important to prime insulin pens to ensure the resident was administered the full correct dose of insulin. She said she was not aware of any nurses at the facility who were not priming the insulin pens prior to administration.-However, LPN #1 failed to prime Resident #17’s insulin prior to administering the resident’s insulin (see observation above).
Plan of correction · submitted by the facility
CMS Tag: F0760 – Residents are Free from Medication ErrorsPlan of CorrectionImmediate Actions Taken for the Resident Found to Have Been Affected Include:• Resident #17 was reassessed immediately following the observed insulin administration to confirm no adverse effects from the potential medication error.• The physician was notified of the medication administration without priming and no new orders were issued. Resident remained clinically stable.• LPN #1 received immediate re-education on manufacturer instructions for safe use of insulin pens, including the requirement to prime prior to each administration.• All insulin pens in active use were reviewed and confirmed to be appropriately labeled, intact, and in compliance with manufacturer guidelines. Identifying Other Potentially Affected Residents:• The DON or designee conducted an immediate audit of all residents receiving insulin pens to verify that nurses were priming prior to administration. Direct observation was used to confirm technique.• All residents on insulin or other injectable medications requiring specific administration techniques (e.g., anticoagulants, GLP-1 agonists) were identified and reviewed to ensure correct practice.• All licensed nurses were interviewed to clarify their understanding of priming requirements and other key manufacturer instructions. Any knowledge gaps were corrected through just-in-time education. Systemic Changes to Prevent Recurrence:• A facility policy titled “Safe Use of Insulin Pens and Injectable Medications” was revised to specifically state that insulin pens must be primed before each injection per manufacturer guidelines.• All licensed nurses will complete a mandatory competency check-off on insulin pen administration technique, including priming, dose dialing, injection, and disposal of sharps.• Orientation materials for new nursing staff were updated to include explicit instructions on insulin pen priming and other high-risk medication protocols, eliminating reliance on informal peer instruction.• The DON will implement an annual skills fair requiring demonstration of insulin administration technique to reinforce proper practice.• The EMR order entry system will include a “high-risk medication” flag for insulin, prompting nurses to review policy and procedure prior to administration. Monitoring Corrective Actions:• The DON or designee will directly observe at least five insulin administrations per week for eight weeks, then monthly for four months, documenting whether priming and administration are performed correctly.• Quarterly random audits of medication administration practices will be conducted, focusing on high-risk medications, with results reported at QAPI meetings.• Nursing staff who demonstrate noncompliance with insulin pen administration protocols will be removed from medication pass duties until re-education and re-demonstration of competency are completed.• Survey findings and corrective actions will be shared with nursing staff during shift huddles and staff meetings to reinforce accountability and transparency.• A QAPI Performance Improvement Project (PIP) will be initiated to monitor compliance with manufacturer instructions for all high-risk medications, with findings presented monthly at QAA Committee meetings. Date of Completed Corrective Action:The facility commits to completing the above corrective actions by October 4, 2025, with ongoing monitoring and oversight to ensure sustained compliance with F0760 requirements for keeping residents free from significant medication errors.
0761Label/Store Drugs and Biologicals▼
Findings
Based on observations, record review and interviews, the facility failed to ensure proper storage of medications in one of one medication carts and one of one medication storage rooms. Specifically, the facility failed to: -Ensure medications were labeled with the date they were opened; and,-Ensure expired medications were removed and discarded from medication carts. Findings include: I. Professional referencePharMerica (1/12/25) Abridged List of Medications with Shortened Expirations Dates, was retrieved on 9/15/25 from chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://pharmerica.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/PMC-DYK-Meds-with-Shortened-Expiration-Dates_012025_FINAL.pdf. it revealed in pertinent part, “Once certain products are opened and in use, they must be used within a specific timeframe to avoid reduced stability, sterility and potentially reduced efficacy. Product-specific storage and expiration details can be found in the drug product’s package insert under the ‘How Supplied/Storage & Handling’ section. A drug product’s beyond use date (BUD) is the manufacturer supplied expiration date or the shortened date after opening whichever comes first. These in-use medications should be labeled such that the date opened is noted, clearly visible and securely attached to a part of the package to not be discarded. This date is to be referenced when auditing to clear medications prior to expiration.”The Pharmcare USA’s (4/9/23) Medication Disposal Practices in Assisted Living and Long Term Care, was retrieved on 9/15/25 from https://pharmcareusa.com/education/medication-disposal-practices-in-assisted-living-ltc/#:~:text=As%20an%20experienced%20healthcare%20professional,a%20legal%20and%20ethical%20obligation. It revealed in pertinent part, “When medications are not disposed of correctly, they can pose serious threats to both human health and the environment. Improper disposal can lead to accidental ingestions, overdose and even death.”II. Failed to ensure medications were labeled with the date they were openedA. Observations and staff interviews On 9/9/25 at 9:15 a.m., the Main medication cart was observed with licensed practical nurse (LPN) #2. The following items were found: -An open inhaler of Trelegy 200 micrograms (mcg)/62.5 mcg/25 mcg (long term maintenance inhaler for asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease) was labeled with a resident’s name and dosage information, but no open date. -An open inhaler of Advair Diskus (long term maintenance inhaler for asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease) 250 mcg/50 mcg was labeled with a resident’s name, but no open date. LPN #2 said she thought the resident the Trelegy inhaler was prescribed for was admitted from assisted living and the medication came with her unlabeled. LPN #2 said she would dispose of the Trelegy inhaler and the Advair Diskus and ensure the residents who used them had a new one. III. Failed to ensure expired medications were removed and discarded from medication cartsA. Observations and staff interviews On 9/9/25 at 9:15 a.m., the Main medication cart was observed with LPN #2. The following items were found: -An open bottle of house stock Ibuprofen tablets 200 milligrams (mg) had an expiration date, verified with LPN #2, of August 2025. -An open bottle of house stock Senokot tablets 8.6 mg had an expiration date, verified with LPN #2, of August 2025.-A bag containing Bisacodyl rectal suppositories 10 mg, labeled with a specific resident’s name, had an expiration date, verified with LPN #2, of 3/19/25. -An open bottle of Loteprednol-Tobramycin eye drops 0.5-0.3%, labeled with a specific resident’s name, had an open date of 6/24/25 and expired 30 days after opening, verified with LPN #2. LPN #2 said she would dispose of the expired medications. She said night shift nurses were responsible for disposing of expired medications when they did medication change over with the pharmacy every two weeks. IV. Additional staff interview The director of nursing (DON) was interviewed on 9/9/25 at 10:30 a.m. The DON said the pharmacist conducted a monthly audit of the medication cart and the medication storage room. She said the night shift nurses were expected to audit the medication cart every two weeks when they changed over the medications with the pharmacy. The DON said labeling medications with the date the medication was opened was important so the nurses knew when medications should be disposed of. The DON said the importance of discarding expired medications was to ensure the residents were not receiving expired medications that could be too potent or not potent enough.
Plan of correction · submitted by the facility
CMS Tag: F761- Label/ Storage Drugs and BiologicalsPlan of Correction: Immediate Action (s) taken for the resident (s) found to have been affected include:All identified medications were pulled from medication cart and prepared for destruction per policy. Identification of other resident having the potential to be affected was accomplished by:The facility determined that all residents could be affected. Actions taken/system put into place to reduce the risk of future occurrence include:Education to all qualified personal on proper medication storage procedures. Medication cart, room, fridge audit to be completed weekly by night shift staff with monthly audit completed by DON or designee. Education provided to all licensed staff regarding neon labels available for indicating open date and date of expiration. How the corrective action (s) will be monitored to ensure the practice will not reoccur:Ongoing compliance will be monitor through QAPI. DON or designees will monitor audit compliance for completion with audit tools turned in by responsible staff weekly for 4 weeks, monthly for 4 months. Date of Completed Corrective Action: The facility commits to completing the above corrective actions by October 4th, 2025 with ongoing monitoring and evaluation to ensure sustained compliance with regulations regarding the labeling and storage of drugs and biologicals.
0880Infection Prevention & Control▼
Findings
Based on observations, record review and interviews the facility failed to maintain an infection control program designed to provide a safe, sanitary and comfortable environment to help prevent the development and transmission of communicable diseases and infections for one of one units. Specifically the facility failed to:-Ensure an effective process to identify residents who required enhanced barrier precautions (EBP); -Ensure staff were aware of which residents required EBP; -Ensure staff donned (put on) appropriate personal protective equipment (PPE) when providing direct care to residents who required EBP; and,-Ensure staff sanitized the rubber stop on an insulin pen before administering to Resident #17. II. Failure to sanitize the rubber seal on an insulin penA. Manufacturer’s recommendationsAccording to the Humalog (insulin lispro, which is a prefilled quick acting insulin pen) medication package insert (2022), retrieved on 9/16/25 from chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/label/2025/020563s214,205747s038lbl.pdf, "Humalog KwikPen is a disposable single-patient-use prefilled pen containing 300 units of Humalog. You can give yourself more than one dose from the pen. Each turn (click) of the dose knob dials one unit of insulin. Pull the pen cap straight off. Wipe the rubber seal with an alcohol swab. Check the liquid in the pen. Humalog should look clear and colorless. Do not use it if it is cloudy, colored, or has particles or clumps in it. Push the capped needle straight onto the pen and twist the needle on until it is tight. Pull off the outer needle shield. Do not throw it away. Pull off the inner needle shield and throw it away. Priming your pen means removing the air from the needle and cartridge that may collect during normal use and ensures that the pen is working correctly. If you do not prime before each injection, you may get too much or too little insulin. To prime your pen, turn the dose knob to select two units. Hold your pen with the needle pointing up. Tap the cartridge holder gently to collect air bubbles at the top. Continue holding your pen with the needle pointing up. Push the dose knob in until it stops, and “0” is seen in the dose window. Hold the dose knob in and count to five slowly. You should see insulin at the tip of the needle. If you do not see insulin, repeat priming, no more than four times.”B. Observation and interview On 9/8/25 at 11:40 a.m. LPN #1 was preparing Resident #17’s medications for administration. LPN #1 removed Resident #17’s Humalog insulin pen from the medication cart. She attached a needle to the end of the rubber seal. She dialed the pen to 10 units of insulin. She went to Resident #17 in the dining room, wiped his left upper arm with an alcohol swab and administered the insulin to Resident #17. -LPN #1 failed to sanitize the rubber seal on the end of the insulin pen prior to attaching the needle to it. LPN #1 said she was told by another nurse when she received orientation that the only time insulin pens were primed at the facility was when they were opened for the first time. She said she had been a nurse at other facilities and they always primed the insulin pens prior to each administration of insulin. LPN #1 said she had not clarified the information she received from the other nurse regarding priming insulin pens with the DON. C. Additional staff interviewsThe DON was interviewed on 9/8/25 at 1:32 p.m. The DON said while preparing to administer an insulin pen, the nurse should wipe the rubber seal with an alcohol wipe, prime the pen, and then prepare to administer it to the resident. The DON said the importance of sanitizing the rubber seal is to ensure the nurse was not putting a clean needle onto a dirty surface, causing risk for infection.
Plan of correction · submitted by the facility
CMS Tag: F880- Infection Prevention & ControlPlan of Correction:Immediate action (s) taken for the resident found to have been affected include:-Education provided to licensed staff members regarding preparation and administration of insulin pens.- Review of policies to ensure alignment with current CDC guidelines, CMS regulations and best infection control practices. Identification of other residents having the potential to be affected: -Facility determined that all resident receiving insulin could be affected. Actions taken/systems put into place to reduce the risk of future occurrences include:- Providing ongoing training and education for all applicable staff members on infection prevention principles including enhanced barrier precautions and infection control practices.- Conducting regular competency assessments to ensure staff proficiency in infection control practices.-Providing written materials and signage through the facility to reinforce key infection control messages. How the corrective action will be monitored to ensure the practice will not recur:- DON or designee will review all residents or new admission referrals for potential for implementation for enhanced barrier precautions.- If need for enhanced barrier precautions are needed on new admission communication with staff will begin prior to admission.-Education and training on enhanced barrier precautions and proper PPE (personal protective equipment) use on hire, annually and PRN (as needed). -DON or designee will document and track improvement in staff adherence to infection control practices by monitoring adherence daily for one week, weekly for 4 weeks and monthly for three months. Date of compliance:The facility commits to completing the above corrective action by October 4th, 2025.
5/28/2025Complaint Survey · ID Y07Q11No deficiencies▼
0000INITIAL COMMENTSSurveyor note▼
Findings
A survey prompted by Incident #39858 and Incident #40081 was conducted on 5/28/25. No deficiencies were cited.
Plan of correction
The state did not require a plan of correction for this citation.
3/27/2025Complaint Survey · ID UTQX11No deficiencies▼
0000INITIAL COMMENTSSurveyor note▼
Findings
A survey prompted by Incident #39451 was conducted on 3/27/25. No deficiencies were cited.
Plan of correction
The state did not require a plan of correction for this citation.
8/5/2024Complaint Survey · ID 5YPV11No deficiencies▼
0000INITIAL COMMENTSSurveyor note▼
Findings
A complaint survey, prompted by #CO36948 was conducted on 8/5/24. No deficiencies were cited.
Plan of correction
The state did not require a plan of correction for this citation.
3/13/2024Revisit: Federal Monitoring Survey Survey · ID G4C012No deficiencies▼
0000INITIAL COMMENTSSurveyor note▼
Findings
A revisit survey was completed on on 3/13/24 for all previous deficiencies cited on 1/25/24. The facility is in compliance with all regulations surveyed.
Plan of correction
The state did not require a plan of correction for this citation.
3/13/2024Revisit: Complaint, Recertification Survey · ID JZHZ12No deficiencies▼
0000INITIAL COMMENTSSurveyor note▼
Findings
A revisit survey was completed on 3/13/24 for all previous deficiencies cited on 12/13/23. The facility is in compliance with all regulations surveyed.
Plan of correction
The state did not require a plan of correction for this citation.
Reportable Occurrences
18 records5/6/2026Neglect · ID 26020199005Reported on time: Yes▼
Occurrence summary
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS:On 5/6/26, the healthcare entity investigated a reportable event. The facility acted appropriately to protect their clients by taking immediate protective actions, investigating the event, and implementing a plan to help prevent a future recurrence. The healthcare entity reported neglect of a client. The client was found to have a pressure wound on the bottom of their foot. During the course of the investigation, the healthcare entity assessed the client, conducted interviews, and reviewed records. The client denied pain associated with the wound and at the time was orthopedic boot on the foot due to previous surgery. Record review showed there was some confusion amongst staff regarding how often the boot should be removed, but staff did not reach out to the medical provider for clarification of orders. The facility determined skin assessments were not completed to full capacity with special regards to a diabetic client wearing a medical device. Additionally, one staff member identified the wound and reported to their superior staff who did not complete thorough follow up. The facility educated staff regarding skin checks and splint care including competency demonstration, revised the skin check policy to include more detailed documentation, and scheduled follow up appointments with the medical provider. The event was substantiated. This public occurrence summary was provided in accordance with 25-1-124, C.R.S., and was based on the report and investigation provided by the licensed healthcare entity. Department investigation of this occurrence was conducted off-site. The healthcare entity occurrence report was submitted within the required timeframe.
Publication
Sent to facility 7/17/2026 · released to the public 7/24/2026.
3/9/2026Sexual Abuse · ID 26020199004Reported on time: Yes▼
Occurrence summary
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS:On 3/9/26, the healthcare entity investigated a reportable event. The facility acted appropriately to protect their clients by taking immediate protective actions, investigating the event, and implementing a plan to help prevent a future recurrence. The healthcare entity reported sexual abuse of a client. Staff witnessed client (B) at client (A)’s bedside touching client (A)’s private parts. During the course of the investigation, the healthcare entity separated the clients prior to notifying law enforcement, assessed the client, conducted interviews, and reviewed records. Client (B) could not recall the event due to cognitive impairment. Record review showed client (B) had experienced an increase in aggressive behaviors in recent days. Client (A) did not sustain visible injuries and reported they did not consent to being touched by client (B). The facility offered victim support services, and started one to one monitoring for client (B) until their discharge to a new facility. The event was substantiated. This public occurrence summary was provided in accordance with 25-1-124, C.R.S., and was based on the report and investigation provided by the licensed healthcare entity. Department investigation of this occurrence was conducted off-site. The healthcare entity occurrence report was submitted within the required timeframe.
Publication
Sent to facility 6/5/2026 · released to the public 6/12/2026.
3/8/2026Verbal Abuse · ID 26020199003Reported on time: Yes▼
Occurrence summary
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS:On 3/9/26, the healthcare entity investigated a reportable event. The facility acted appropriately to protect their clients by taking immediate protective actions, investigating the event, and implementing a plan to help prevent a future recurrence. The healthcare entity reported verbal abuse of a client. Staff witnessed client (B) approached client (A) with a threatening gesture and verbal threats . During the course of the investigation, the healthcare entity separated the clients prior to notifying law enforcement, conducted interviews, and reviewed records. Record review showed increasing behavioral concerns for client (B) with various unsuccessful interventions. The facility assisted client (B) to seek alternative placement. The event was substantiated. This public occurrence summary was provided in accordance with 25-1-124, C.R.S., and was based on the report and investigation provided by the licensed healthcare entity. Department investigation of this occurrence was conducted off-site. The healthcare entity occurrence report was submitted within the required timeframe.
Publication
Sent to facility 6/4/2026 · released to the public 6/11/2026.
3/3/2026Physical Abuse · ID 26020199001Reported on time: Yes▼
Occurrence summary
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS:On 3/3/26, the healthcare entity investigated a reportable event. The facility acted appropriately to protect their clients by taking immediate protective actions, investigating the event, and implementing a plan to help prevent a future recurrence. The healthcare entity reported physical abuse of a client. Staff observed client (B) push client (A) causing them to fall to the ground. During the course of the investigation, the healthcare entity separated the clients prior to notifying law enforcement, assessed the client, and conducted interviews. Client (A) sustained a skin tear to the arm and pain in their leg which was treated by staff. The event occurred due to client (B)’s confusion regarding the room they had entered and when client (A) tried to redirect client (B) they became physically aggressive. The facility implemented a room change, a medication adjustment, and issued notification of involuntary discharge to client (B). The event was substantiated. This public occurrence summary was provided in accordance with 25-1-124, C.R.S., and was based on the report and investigation provided by the licensed healthcare entity. Department investigation of this occurrence was conducted off-site. The healthcare entity occurrence report was submitted within the required timeframe.
Publication
Sent to facility 6/1/2026 · released to the public 6/8/2026.
12/5/2025Sexual Abuse · ID 25020199012Reported on time: Yes▼
Occurrence summary
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS:On 12/5/25, the healthcare entity investigated a reportable event. The facility acted appropriately to protect their clients by taking immediate protective actions, investigating the event, and implementing a plan to help prevent a future recurrence. The healthcare entity reported sexual abuse of a client. The client alleged a male staff member got into her bed, laid on top of her, and took pictures of her. During the course of the investigation, the healthcare entity suspended staff, notified law enforcement, conducted interviews, and assessed the client. The client did not have any visible injuries or signs of harm and upon interview the client could not recall the allegations. Staff denied the allegations and reported he had not been in the client’s room since the day of admission to help them move items, and does not have any reason to go into the room. The client's record review showed a history of delusions. The facility implemented a two person care model, updated the care plan, and educated staff. The event was not substantiated. This public occurrence summary was provided in accordance with 25-1-124, C.R.S., and was based on the report and investigation provided by the licensed healthcare entity. Department investigation of this occurrence was conducted off-site. The healthcare entity occurrence report was submitted within the required timeframe.
Publication
Sent to facility 4/3/2026 · released to the public 4/10/2026.
10/15/2025Physical Abuse · ID 25020199011Reported on time: Yes▼
Occurrence summary
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS:On 10/16/25, the healthcare entity investigated a reportable event. The facility acted appropriately to protect their clients by taking immediate protective actions, investigating the event, and implementing a plan to help prevent a future recurrence. The healthcare entity reported physical abuse of a client. The client reported to their medical provider that staff #1 hit them in the side and threatened to evict them if they didn’t take their pills. During the course of the investigation, the healthcare entity notified law enforcement, suspended staff , assessed the client, and conducted interviews. The client had no visible injuries and gave varying accounts of what occurred. Record review and interviews revealed the client has a history of nightmares that seem realistic to the client. Staff denied allegations and indicated the client has been fixated on medications, requiring frequent education about their medications. The facility implemented a two person care model for the client and educated staff. The event was not substantiated. This public occurrence summary was provided in accordance with 25-1-124, C.R.S., and was based on the report and investigation provided by the licensed healthcare entity. Department investigation of this occurrence was conducted off-site. The healthcare entity occurrence report was submitted within the required timeframe.
Publication
Sent to facility 2/24/2026 · released to the public 3/3/2026.
10/15/2025Equipment Misuse · ID 25020199010Reported on time: Yes▼
Occurrence summary
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS:On 10/15/25, the healthcare entity investigated a reportable event. The facility acted appropriately to protect their clients by taking immediate protective actions, investigating the event, and implementing a plan to help prevent a future recurrence. The healthcare entity reported equipment misuse. The client was being transferred in a Hoyer lift and one strap slipped off the lift causing the client to fall to the ground. During the course of the investigation, the healthcare entity assessed the condition of the equipment, conducted interviews, and assessed the client. The client was sent to the hospital and treated for a small laceration to the back of the head. Inspection of the equipment indicated no malfunction or abnormalities. The facility determined the strap that fell, was placed on the Hoyer lift but not pushed far enough to latch onto the hook, and therefore slipped off during the transfer. The facility completed staff education which included competency checks, implemented a periodic audit plan, and inquired about alternative parts that could be added to the lift to reduce the likelihood of recurrence. The event was substantiated. This public occurrence summary was provided in accordance with 25-1-124, C.R.S., and was based on the report and investigation provided by the licensed healthcare entity. Department investigation of this occurrence was conducted off-site. The healthcare entity occurrence report was submitted within the required timeframe.
Publication
Sent to facility 1/20/2026 · released to the public 1/27/2026.
9/11/2025Physical Abuse · ID 25020199008Reported on time: Yes▼
Occurrence summary
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS:On 9/11/25, the healthcare entity investigated a reportable event. The facility acted appropriately to protect their clients by taking immediate protective actions, investigating the event, and implementing a plan to help prevent a future recurrence. The healthcare entity reported physical abuse of a client. Client (B) alleged client (A) came into their room and hit their walkers against each other causing one walker to hit their leg. During the course of the investigation, the healthcare entity notified law enforcement, conducted interviews, and assessed the client. Client (B) did not sustain a visible injury. The facility offered a room change, educated clients, started increased safety monitoring, and requested medication reviews. The event was not substantiated. These two clients have been identified in another occurrence case, please see case ID 25020199007 for additional information. This public occurrence summary was provided in accordance with 25-1-124, C.R.S., and was based on the report and investigation provided by the licensed healthcare entity. Department investigation of this occurrence was conducted off-site. The healthcare entity occurrence report was submitted within the required timeframe.
Publication
Sent to facility 12/16/2025 · released to the public 12/23/2025.
6/4/2025Physical Abuse · ID 25020199007Reported on time: Yes▼
Occurrence summary
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS:On 6/4/25, the healthcare entity investigated a reportable event. The facility acted appropriately to protect their clients by taking immediate protective actions, investigating the event, and implementing a plan to help prevent a future recurrence. The healthcare entity reported physical abuse of a client. Reportedly, client (A) wandered into client (B)’s room and hit client (A) in the legs multiple times with their walker. During the course of the investigation, the healthcare entity notified law enforcement, conducted interviews, and reviewed medical records. Client (B) who gave several different accounts of what happened and where the physical contact was made, did not sustain any visible injuries. Due to cognitive impairment, client (A) could not recall the event. The facility added signage to client (B)’s room to deter anyone from entering, educated clients, completed a medication review, and educated staff. The event was not substantiated. This public occurrence summary was provided in accordance with 25-1-124, C.R.S., and was based on the report and investigation provided by the licensed healthcare entity. Department investigation of this occurrence was conducted off-site. The healthcare entity occurrence report was submitted within the required timeframe.
Publication
Sent to facility 9/29/2025 · released to the public 10/6/2025.
4/25/2025Missing Person · ID 25020199006Reported on time: Yes▼
Occurrence summary
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS: On 4/25/25, the healthcare entity investigated a reportable event of a missing person. An at risk client was observed on the sidewalk outside of he facility. During the course of the investigation, the healthcare entity reviewed the video footage and assessed the condition of the wander guard. The client was not harmed or injured during the 5 minutes they were missing. The facility determined that the wander guard had been working prior to this event but malfunctioned on the specific exit door that the client used. The facility stopped use of the malfunctioning door until a technician could fix it, referred the client for a secure unit, and continued wander guard checks. The event was substantiatedThis public occurrence summary was provided in accordance with 25-1-124, C.R.S., and was based on the report and investigation provided by the licensed healthcare entity. The department review of the occurrence investigation was conducted off-site. The healthcare entity occurrence report was submitted within the required timeframe. In addition, this event has been identified for further investigation by the Department. An onsite investigation was conducted by a representative from the State agency. For results of that on-site investigation, please reference https://cdphe.colorado.gov/find-and-compare-facilities, specifically the inspection dated 5/28/25, Event ID Y07Q11.
Publication
Sent to facility 7/11/2025 · released to the public 7/18/2025.