cms_GA: 1124

In collaboration with The Seattle Times, Big Local News is providing full-text nursing home deficiencies from Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS). These files contain the full narrative details of each nursing home deficiency cited regulators. The files include deficiencies from Standard Surveys (routine inspections) and from Complaint Surveys. Complete data begins January 2011 (although some earlier inspections do show up). Individual states are provides as CSV files. A very large (4.5GB) national file is also provided as a zipped archive. New data will be updated on a monthly basis. For additional documentation, please see the README.

Data source: Big Local News · About: big-local-datasette

This data as json, copyable

rowid facility_name facility_id address city state zip inspection_date deficiency_tag scope_severity complaint standard eventid inspection_text filedate
1124 RIVERSIDE HEALTH CARE CENTER 115375 5100 WEST ST NW COVINGTON GA 30014 2017-08-17 226 E 0 1 I6YR11 Based on record review, interview, and review of the facility's Abuse Prevention policy, the facility failed to develop policies and procedures in specific detail to assure allegations of abuse, neglect, injuries of unknown source, misappropriation, and/or exploitation were reported to the State Survey Agency (SSA) within required time frames. The reporting portion of the policy was not developed in sufficient detail to assure compliance with federal regulations regarding reporting for suspicion of a crime. The failure to assure the reporting component was developed impacted two (Resident (R) #42 and R#95) of three residents reviewed for abuse. Findings include: Review of the current Abuse Prevention policy, dated 9/13/16 provided by the Administrator on 8/14/17 revealed the reporting component of the policy failed to include specific information about the required time frames for reporting allegations. The prevention component noted that allegations were to be reported immediately to State Agencies, but failed to define the term immediately or provide the specific timeframes required by regulation (within no more than two hours for allegations of abuse or reports of serious bodily injury, and within no more than 24 hours for all other allegations). The policy failed to denote the specific State Agencies to whom the report was to be made and also did not address reporting suspicions of a crime. Review of this policy revealed it, also, was not developed to include current requirements about reporting abuse and neglect. Review of the policy revealed The report of the Initial Investigation will be telephoned or faxed to the State Complaint Investigation and Referral Unit within 24-hours of the incident. The policy did not address the (YEAR) changes to federal regulation which defined that allegations of abuse, as well as any allegation with serious bodily injury, were to be reported in no more than two hours. The policy also did not address the (YEAR) regulatory changes which required policies and procedures to include specific, required elements to ensure reporting of crimes occurring in federally-funded long-term care facilities were in accordance with section 1150B of the Social Security Act. Interview with the Administrator on 8/17/16 at 1:55 p.m. revealed she had been the Interim Administrator since 6/1/17, and was currently serving as the facility's abuse coordinator. She was unaware of the required time frames for reporting allegations of abuse/neglect/injuries of unknown source, misappropriation, and exploitation, stating she had within three days to report the allegation to the State. Further interview with the Administrator revealed she did not know which agencies in the State to report any of the allegations that were received. The Administrator revealed, although she had been employed at the facility since 1993, she was not involved in the development of the abuse policy and did not know what it said about time frames. After a review of this policy, the Administrator confirmed it did not provide specific information about the required time frames. The Administrator acknowledged she was unaware of the changes to the federal regulations in (YEAR) which defined specific time frames that allegations were to be reported to the SS[NAME] The Administrator stated she was aware suspicions of crime needed to be reported because the previous Administrator, who was serving as her consultant, told her so. However, after review of the policy, she confirmed the requirements for reporting suspicion of a crime were not addressed in the current policy. The former Administrator was interviewed on 8/17/17 at 3:08 p.m. and confirmed he was serving as a consultant to the current Administrator. He stated the abuse policy provided to the survey team on 8/14/17 was an abbreviated version of the official policy, and was just used for staff training. He provided an additional policy, titled, Detection and Prevention of Resident Abuse and Neglect. Although this policy was undated, interview with the former Administrator revealed it was last revised in 2001. 1. Review of facility investigation records revealed an allegation that R#42 was abused by a staff member on 8/5/17 and was not reported to the State Survey Agency (SSA) until 8/7/17 (cross reference to F225). 2. Review of facility investigation records revealed the facility was aware R#95 sustained an injury of unknown source on 1/12/17; however, it was not reported to the SSA until 1/16/17 (cross reference to F225). 3. The former Administrator on 8/17/17 at 3:08 p.m. revealed he was aware of the (YEAR) changes to the federal regulations and confirmed the facility's policy had not been revised to include current, accurate information. He stated, It should have been, and added, even though the policy was not updated, We were following the current guidance. The Administrator stated he was unaware staff were not following the current regulations, as neither of the investigations regarding R#42 or R#95 were reported timely. The former Administrator stated, although the policy had not been updated, staff had access to the correct time frames because there was a poster from the state agency posted on the wall across from his office with this information. Observation on 8/17/17 at 3:20 revealed the poster the former Administrator referenced did not include the 2 hour/24 hour differentiated time frames for reporting allegations. The former Administrator, who was present during this observation confirmed, although the poster included allegations were to be reported immediately, the poster did not provide the specific information as to the time frame for each type of report. 2020-09-01