cms_UT: 95

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
95 PIONEER CARE CENTER 465020 815 SOUTH 200 WEST BRIGHAM CITY UT 84302 2018-06-21 773 E 0 1 EUNP11 **NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, it was determined for 2 of 31 sample residents that the facility did not promptly notify the ordering physician, physician assistant, nurse practitioner, or clinical nurse specialist of laboratory results that fall outside of clinic reference ranges in accordance with facility policies and procedures for notify of a practitioner or per the ordering physician's orders [REDACTED]. Resident identifiers: 4 and 15. Findings include: 1. Resident 4 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with [DIAGNOSES REDACTED]. Resident 4's medical record was reviewed on 6/20/18. A laboratory result form revealed that a CMP (comprehensive metabolic panel) was completed on 6/11/18. There was a hand written note at the bottom which documented, 6/18/18 noted (and) faxed to MD (Medical Doctor). On 6/21/18 at 12:14 PM, an interview was conducted with the Director of Nursing (DON). The DON confirmed that resident 4's physician was not notified timely of the laboratory results. 2. Resident 15 was admitted on [DATE], discharged on [DATE], readmitted on [DATE] and discharged on [DATE], readmitted on [DATE] and discharged on [DATE] with [DIAGNOSES REDACTED]. Resident 15's medical record was reviewed on 6/21/18. Resident 15 had a laboratory results form dated 6/5/18 at 6:23 PM. Resident 15's PT ([MEDICATION NAME]) was 42.8 seconds with a reference range of 8.8-11.5. Resident 15's INR (International Normalization Ratio) was 4.4 with a reference range of 1.5-3.5. There was a written note signed by a nurse that documented, Faxed, noted (and) left message with MD 6/6/18 at 1810 (6:10 PM). An additional written note signed by a nurse with no date documented, Hold [MEDICATION NAME] re(check) PT/INR (on) 6/9/18. On 6/20/18 at 9:18 AM, an interview was conducted with the Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON). The ADON stated that she monitored the laboratory orders and results. The ADON stated that the physicians response to laboratory results was poor. The ADON stated that if a physician did not respond to laboratory results then nursing staff notified the Medical Director. On 6/20/18 at 9:30 AM, an interview was conducted with Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) 1. LPN 1 stated that when she received laboratory results she called the physician that provided the order. LPN 1 stated that she wished they (physicians) responded sooner. LPN 1 stated that she had to call physicians multiple times and still did not get a response. LPN 1 stated that she would notify the Medical Director if unable to get a response from a physician. LPN 1 stated that she left the laboratory results in the Medical Directors inbox at the facility for the Medical Director to review when he was at the facility. 2020-09-01