cms_SC: 9983
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 9983 | LAUREL BAYE HEALTHCARE GREENVILLE | 425042 | 661 RUTHERFORD RD | GREENVILLE | SC | 29609 | 2010-07-21 | 221 | D | 0 | 1 | 2B2D11 | **NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** On the days of the survey, based on observations, record reviews, and interviews, the facility failed to assure that one of two sampled residents reviewed for restraints was free from any physical restraint not required to treat the resident's medical symptoms. Resident # 20 was observed using a concave mattress. There was no evidence provided that a restraint assessment was completed, nor consent obtained for the use of the mattress. The findings included: The facility admitted Resident # 3 with [DIAGNOSES REDACTED]. During the initial tour of the building on 7/19/10, Resident # 3 was identified as using a concave mattress. A mattress with elevated sides was observed on the resident's bed. Record review conducted on 7/21/10 revealed a physician order [REDACTED]." An Occupation Screen dated 7/6/09 stated: "Resident suffered fall attempting to tx(transfer) out of bed. Res. (Resident) has low bed c (with) rails. Pt. (patient) would benefit from concave mattress as reminder to not attempt to tx. unassisted,..." The Director of Rehabilitation also stated the resident fell again on 7/15, proving that the mattress did not "prevent" the resident from getting out of bed. However, s/he verified that the facility had not considered the concept that a concave mattress could meet the definition of a restraint and no initial or subsequent restraint evaluation or consent had been obtained for its use. After the resident fell on [DATE], no subsequent evaluation was conducted related to the safety of continuing the device. A general review of the resident's physical capabilities from 7/09- 7/10 revealed the resident's ability to transfer and ambulate had fluctuated during the past year. The resident's ambulation capability reached approximately 150 feet with minimum assist and rolling walker and the ability to transfer with minimum assist with contact guarding (8/22/09 therapy discharge notes). On 7/21/10 at 9:30AM, an interview with Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) # 1 was conducted. The CNA verified s/he was assigned to the resident. The CNA stated s/he was a "floater" and did not always work the same unit but had cared for the resident previously. The CNA stated the resident stood and pivoted to transfer from the bed to the chair and was able to ambulate with a rolling walker. When asked if the resident napped in the afternoon, the CNA stated the resident usually "stayed up." S/he further explained if the resident was put back to bed and was not tired, s/he "would attempt to get out of bed." Review of the medical record revealed no restraint assessment nor consent for the use of the mattress. On 7/21/10 when the facility was asked for the policy and procedure for the use of restraints, the Director of Nursing stated there was no policy - "We follow the regulation." A copy of the last in-service on restraints was requested and revealed the staff was educated on 2/4/10 that the definition of a restraint was "...any manual method or physical or mechanical device, material, or equipment attached or adjacent to the resident's body that the individual cannot remove easily which restricts freedom of movement or normal access to one's body." | 2014-08-01 |