cms_WV: 9580
Data source: Big Local News · About: big-local-datasette
| rowid | facility_name | facility_id | address | city | state | zip | inspection_date | deficiency_tag | scope_severity | complaint | standard | eventid | inspection_text | filedate |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 9580 | TEAYS VALLEY CENTER | 515106 | 590 NORTH POPLAR FORK ROAD | HURRICANE | WV | 25526 | 2011-07-14 | 318 | D | 0 | 1 | L3JB11 | **NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, review of medical records, staff interview, and resident interview, the facility had not ensured a resident with limited range of motion (ROM) received services to increase ROM and / or to prevent further decrease in ROM. One (1) of forty-six (46) residents on the Stage II sample for care area reviews was found to have contractures with no plan to prevent a further decrease in ROM. Resident identifier: #22. Facility census: 114. Findings include: a) Resident #22 In Stage I of the quality indicator survey (QIS), the software selected this resident for a preliminary screening review for possible care area investigation. One (1) of the staff interview questions was whether the resident had contractures (a condition of fixed high resistance to passive stretch of a muscle). On 07/06/11 at 1:35 p.m., Employee #62, a unit charge nurse, said the resident had contractures of her feet. The nurse said the resident had developed foot drop while in the hospital before she had been admitted to the facility. The resident had been on a ventilator, and the contractures had developed at that time. She also stated the resident did not have splints / braces and had refused therapy. The resident was observed to have significant foot drop. Her admission minimum data set (MDS), with an assessment reference date (ARD) of 11/15/05, had noted limitations in ROM for both feet and legs and that she had full loss of voluntary movement of these extremities. She had subsequently improved in her functional abilities. Her annual MDS, with an ARD of 10/07/09, indicated she had limitation of ROM and partial loss of voluntary movement of one arm. She was coded as having limitation in ROM and partial loss of voluntary movement for both legs and feet. Her quarterly MDS, with an ARD of 06/01/11, indicated she had limitation in functional ROM on both sides of the upper and lower extremities. Section S of the assessment noted she had contractures of her shoulders and ankles on both sides. According to the resident, when interviewed at 8:45 a.m. on 07/13/11, they had tried braces and other things without success. She said the last time she had gone to a doctor in [MEDICAL CONDITION], he said he could fix her feet, but he would not do it if it was his mother. She said the doctor said there could be complications that could result in amputation. She said she had told him, Thank you, but I will keep my feet. When asked whether anyone ever came in and did ROM exercises with her, she said, No. She was sitting in a wheelchair with her fingers curled. When asked whether she could straighten her fingers, she held up her left hand and demonstrated that her left ring finger would not straighten. This was discussed with Employee #62 in the afternoon on 07/13/11. She said the resident had had a decline - that is why she (the resident) could no longer use her sliding board. They had physical therapy evaluate the resident for safe use of the board. The therapist had felt she no longer had the upper body strength to do this. Review of the physical therapy (PT) section of the resident's medical record noted a screening had been done on 04/20/11. This therapist noted the resident had been referred to PT for assessment of safe use of the sliding board vs use of the Hoyer lift. At that time, the therapist had noted, Offered therapy services to res (resident) so as to maintain use of sliding board, res. refused and has capacity. The note included the resident's daughter was asked to encourage the resident to comply with the use of the lift and to let them know if the resident wanted therapy for progression back to the use of the board. No further physical therapy documents were found in the resident's medical record. The resident's care plan did not reflect any plan to make efforts to prevent further contractures or note the services had been offered and declined. Review of the interdisciplinary progress notes, from 05/01/11 through 07/13/11, did not find any mention of the resident's contractures. | 2015-10-01 |