Based on policy review, observation and interview, the hospital failed to ensure staff implemented measures for the prevention of infections and communicable diseases for 1 of 4 (Observation #2) hand hygiene observations and 1 of 1 (Observation #1) blood glucose monitoring observation. The findings included: 1. Review of the hospital's Hand Hygiene - Hand-Washing policy revealed, ...Hands shall be washed before and after each patient contact (even if gloves are worn)... Review of the hospital's Bedside Blood Glucose policy revealed, ...PROCEDURE: (FOR PATIENT PREPERATION [preparation] AND SPECIMEN COLLECTION)...Tester Preparation - Wash hands and put on disposable gloves prior to testing...EQUIPMENT AND MATERIALS...Preparation...Clean the meter with a cloth that has been dampened with a 10% bleach solution or disinfectant Sani-wipe. Immediately follow with a water-dampened cloth to remove all cleaning residue... 2. Observations in Pre-Operative Room #9 on 2/26/19 at 8:23 AM revealed Nurse #1 taped down Outpatient #5's intravenous tubing, typed on the computer and then obtained the glucometer from a case with her bare hands. Nurse #1 then donned gloves without performing hand hygiene and pricked Outpatient #5's finger with a lancet to perform blood glucose monitoring. Nurse #1 disposed of the lancet in the sharps container, removed her gloves and documented the result of the blood glucose monitoring in the computer. Nurse #1 did not perform hand hygiene during this process. Nurse #1 placed the glucometer back in the case, took the case to the surgery medication room, and placed the glucometer in a docking station in the medication room. Nurse #1 did not clean the glucometer at any time during this process. 3. During an interview in the hallway by the surgery nurses' station on 2/26/19 at 8:53 AM, the Quality Standards and Regulatory Compliance Coordinator confirmed Nurse #1 did not perform hand hygiene before she donned gloves for blood glucose monitoring and did not clean the glucometer before or after using the glucometer for Outpatient #5. The Quality Standards and Regulatory Compliance Coordinator stated Nurse #1 should have performed hand hygiene prior to donning gloves and should have cleaned the glucometer with the Sani-wipes in the room before and after use. During an interview in the surgery medication room on 2/26/19 at 8:56 AM, Nurse #1 stated staff cleaned the glucometer once a day in the evening. Nurse #1 stated the surgery staff in the pre-operative area had one glucometer which was used for all patients who needed blood glucose monitoring. Nurse #1 confirmed she did not clean the glucometer before or after use for Outpatient #5.
Based on observations, the facility failed to maintain the sprinkler system. The finding included: Observation on 02/26/2019 at 7:52 AM, revealed the rear loading dock had storage (cardboard boxes, wood pallets, etc) underneath the canopy and was not sprinklered. NFPA 101, 19.3.5.1 (2012 Edition), NFPA 101,9.7.1.1 (2012 Edition) NFPA 13, 8.15.7.5 (2010 Edition) The plant operations director, manager and assistant administrator were present when this deficiency was identified, and was later acknowledged during the exit conference by the administrative staff on 02/27/2019.
Based on observations, the facility failed to maintain the cross corridor doors. The findings included: 1. Observation on 02/26/2019 at 9:43 AM, revealed the stairwell door by 220 had an undercut of over 3/4 inch. NFPA 101, 19.2.2.2.1 (2012 Edition), NFPA 101, 7.2.1.15.2 (2012 Edition) NFPA 80, 4.8.4.1 (2010 Edition) 2. Observations on 02/26/2019 between 10:45 AM - 4:00 PM, revealed that the 1 1/2 hour rated cross corridor doors by room 234 and throughout the first floor of the facility had the bottom latching hardware on the doors removed, and were missing the latching hardware in the floor. NFPA 101, 19.2.2.2.1 (2012 Edition), NFPA 101, 7.2.1.15.2 (2012 Edition), NFPA 80, 6.5.2 (2010 Edition) 3. Observation on 02/26/2019 at 2:30 PM, revealed the OB Assessment doors were missing the astragals. NFPA 101, 19.2.2.2.1 (2012 Edition), NFPA 101, 7.2.1.15.2 (2012 Edition), NFPA 80, 6.4.7 (2010 Edition) The plant operations director, manager, and the assistant administrator were present when these deficiencies were identified, and were later acknowledged during the exit conference by the hospital administration on 02/27/2019.
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY**
Based on policy review, medical record review and interview, the hospital failed to keep a current nursing care plan for 1 of 5 (Patient #3) sampled patients. The findings included: 1. Review of the hospital's NE1 [Wound Assessment Tool] Wound Assessment policy revealed, ...PURPOSE...To increase documentation accuracy and consistency for skin and wound documentation. To provide guidelines for skin and wound digital image documentation for the medical record. To provide guidelines for appropriate implementation of the NE1 Wound Assessment Tool...DEFINITION...A standardized, evidence based skin and wound assessment tool used to assess patients who have been admitted with or develop skin break down...The NE1 Tool can also be used for other types of skin and wound problems for correct identification and assessment for level of tissue damage and healing progression or regression...POLICY...The admitting physician should be contacted for any patient with a wound to receive a wound care consult...Patient's nurse or wound care team member takes a digital image of skin breakdown that is caused by pressure...occurrence...prior to discharge (beginning with stage 1 pressure ulcers... 2. Medical record review for Patient #3 revealed an admission date of [DATE] with diagnoses which included Chronic Liver Disease, Liver Cirrhosis with Hepatic [DIAGNOSES REDACTED] and Ascites, Severe Hyponatremia, Metabolic [DIAGNOSES REDACTED], Alcohol Abuse and Withdrawal, Moderate Protein Calorie Malnutrition, Anascara and History of Bipolar Disorder. A nurse's note dated 10/6/17 at 12:00 PM revealed, ...Excoriation Posterior Buttock bilateral...Tissue type-worst: Purple/maroon/deep red... A nurse's note dated 10/27/17 at 4:00 AM revealed, ...Excoriation Posterior Buttock bilateral...Tissue type-worst: Pink/red/[DIAGNOSES REDACTED]/intact... The same wound was documented in the nurses' notes at least once each shift from 10/6/17 through 10/27/17. There was no documentation of the size of the area of the wound or whether the wound progressed or regressed. There were no photographs of the wound in the medical record. There was no documentation the physician or the wound care team was notified of the wound. A nurse's note dated 10/6/17 at 12:00 PM and 4:00 PM and 10/8/17 at 8:00 PM revealed, ...Cleansed/applied: Prot [protective] barrier crm [cream]/oint [ointment]/wip [wipes]... A nurse's note dated 10/11/17 at 8:00 AM revealed, ...Cleansed/applied: POWDER... There were no other treatment interventions documented for the wound. Review of Patient #3's medical record from Hospital #2 dated 10/27/17 at 3:15 PM revealed documentation of 6 wounds: ...Admission Wound Assessment...Location (Anatomical Site): R [right] hip [box checked] Pressure Injury...DPTI [deep pressure tissue injury]...Site (cm) [centimeters] (LxW) [length by width]: 3x3... Location (Anatomical Site): R heel...Pressure Injury...DPTI...Site (cm) (LxW): 4x4...location (Anatomical Site): L [left] heel...Pressure Injury...DPTI...[LxW documented on Pressure Ulcer Data Collection Tool was 4x4]... Location (Anatomical Site): R ear...Pressure Injury...DPTI...Site (cm) (LxW): 1x0.5... Location (Anatomical Site): R back...Pressure Injury...DPTI...[LxW documented on Pressure Ulcer Data Collection Tool was 2x2]...Location (Anatomical Site): gluteals...Pressure Injury: Stg [Stage] II c [with] DPTI...Site (cm) (LxW): 2x3 (Stg II) - 10x8 (DPTI)... There was no documentation of the wounds to the right hip, right and left heel, right ear or right back by Hospital #1. There was no documentation of an assessment of a Stage II wound to the gluteals by Hospital #1. 3. During an interview in the Senior Clinical Analysist Office on 6/26/18 at 9:47 AM, the Risk Manager confirmed the four treatments noted above were the only documented treatments in the medical record for Patient #3. The Risk Manager confirmed the only wound documented in the medical record for Patient #3 was the excoriation of the buttocks. The Risk Manager confirmed there was no documentation of the progression or regression of the wound, no documentation the physician or wound care team had been notified and no photographs of the wound.
INTAKE # Based on facility policy, record review and interview, it was determined the facility failed to provide the patient/family with written notification of the facility's investigation into the grievance, steps to resolve the grievance, including the contact representative from the hospital for 1 of 2 (Patient #4) grievances reviewed. The findings included: 1. Review of the facility policy, COMPLAINT AND GRIEVANCE RESOLUTION:PATIENT AND FAMILY revealed, ...PURPOSE: To establish a process for timely referral, prompt review, investigation and resolution of patient grievances and complaints...DEFINITIONS...A verbal complaint is a grievance if it cannot be resolved at the time of the complaint by staff present, if it is postponed for later resolution, if it is referred to other staff for later resolution, if it requires investigation, and/or if it requires further actions for resolution...C. Grievance Resolution Process 1. Grievances may be received written, verbally, via electronic mail or facsimile, or by telephone to any department...2. Upon receipt of a grievance, Director of Quality/Risk shall confer with the appropriate department manager to review, investigate and resolve with the patient and/or patient representative within seven days of receipt of the grievance with exception of complaints that endanger the patient...4. Regardless of the nature of the grievance, the substance of each grievance must be addressed while identifying, investigating, and resolving any deeper systematic problems...5. In resolution of the grievance, a written notice of the decision must be provided to the complainant that contains the name of the facility contact person, the steps taken on behalf of the patient to investigate the grievance, the results of the grievance investigation, and the date of completion...D. Tracking, Trending, and Analysis of Data 1. A grievance /complaint log within the [name of system] will be maintained by the Director of Quality/Risk. The documentation in the log will include date of complaint, location, summary of issue, how the issue was addressed, date resolved and response to complainant, and the individual responding to the grievance...2. Documentation of the resolution process will include:...Pertinent investigational information, Resolution/follow-up including written response for grievances, Signature of person addressing complaint/grievance... 2. Review of the grievance for patient #4 revealed a Physician Related complaint. The description of events documented, PTS [patient's] MOTHER CALLED VERY UPSET WITH SON'S TREATMENT AND DISCHARGE FORM ED TODAY FOLLOWING A MVA [motor vehicle accident]. AT TIME OF CALL PATIENT WAS IN ROUTE TO [another hospital] SEEKING FURTHER TX . THE COMPLAINT WAS DIRECTED MAINLY TO [physician]. PATIENT'S MOTHER REPORTED THAT [physician] SPENT LESS THAN 3 MIN [minutes] WITH PATIENT, DID NOT COMPLETELY ASSESS HIM AND SENT HIM HOME WITH AN ORDER TO FOLLOW UP WITH AN EYE DOCTOR. THE PATIENT HAS A HISTORY OF MULTIPLE CONCUSSIONS AND WAS EXPERIENCING BLURRED VISION AND UNRELENTING HEADACHE, NAUSEA AND AT TIME OF CALL INCREASING LUQ [left upper quadrant] PAIN. The follow up section documented that the Nursing Supervisor was notified on 4/22/14 at 1840. There was nothing documented in the section ...PT/FAMILY NOTIFIED, DATE, TIME, METHOD OF NOTIFICATION, NOTIFIED BY... The REVIEWED BY MANAGER section documented ...WILL NEED TO REVIEW RECORD AND SEND FOR REVIEW... The grievance did not document an investigation into the allegations, follow-up and written notification to the patient/family regarding resolution. In an interview in the Quality Conference room on 10/20/14 at 11:50 AM, the Quality Standards Coordinator verified the incident would be considered a grievance because it did not fit the policy definition of a complaint. At 11:57 AM, the Quality Standards Coordinator stated she was unable to locate any additional documentation regarding follow-up/written notification to the patient.
DISCLAIMER: The CMS violation information provided by HCA Vs. America on https://hcavsamerica.org/ is for general informational purposes only. The data and findings displayed on this page(s) originated from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) and can be found at https://www.cms.gov/Medicare/Provider-Enrollment-and-Certification/CertificationandComplianc/Hospitals HCA Vs. America makes no representation or warranty of any kind, express or implied, regarding the accuracy, validly, availability of any information on this website and is simply reporting information that is publicly available by CMS.