cms_WV: 7414
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 7414 | CAREHAVEN OF PLEASANTS | 515191 | 506 RIVERVIEW ROAD | BELMONT | WV | 26134 | 2013-08-29 | 225 | B | 0 | 1 | 2QIM11 | **NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, a review of the facility's complaint files, and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure all allegations of abuse/neglect were immediately reported to the appropriate State agencies. Allegations of neglect were made in a letter provided to the facility which expressed concerns regarding the lack of services provided to residents. This letter alleged neglect had occurred for three (3) residents. The alleged neglect issues (lack of care for a medical condition for Resident #5, ineffective pain control for Resident #30, and lack of treatment for [REDACTED].#84) were investigated by the facility, but the facility failed to report these allegations to the required State agencies. This was true for three (3) of twenty-five (25 ) residents who were reviewed in Stage 2 of the survey. Resident identifiers: #5, #30, and #84. Facility Census: 60. Findings include: a) Resident #5 It was identified during a review of the facility's abuse and neglect files, a letter, dated 08/21/13, had been written to the facility alleging this resident had suffered from lack of care from a medical condition ([MEDICAL CONDITION]) that was not being treated. It was identified in the medical record and in the facility's investigation, this resident had received multiple treatments since his admission and prior to his admission for his condition. The physician had visited and examined this resident two (2) times each month. The reasons for the decision to not provide treatments were explained in the medical record and this resident was alert and oriented and chose what treatments he would and would not have done. There was no evidence this allegation of neglect, exemplified by a lack of treatment, was reported to the required State agencies. b) Resident #30 It was identified in a letter received by the facility, dated 08/21/13, Resident #30 was dying and experiencing a lot of pain. It was alleged that her pain control was not effective and she often yelled out in agony. Observations were made of this resident multiple times from 08/26/13 to 08/29/13. She was not observed yelling or exhibiting any signs of discomfort. The medical record was reviewed and it was identified that Hospice had been offered and refused. The resident received her pain medication as scheduled and also had as needed (PRN) medication for pain. The resident's pain was always reassessed and the pain mediation was recorded as being effective. The facility's complaint investigation files indicated the issue of this resident's pain control not being effective was investigated and was not substantiated. There was no evidence the allegation regarding this resident's inadequate pain control was reported as an allegation of neglect to the required State agencies. c) Resident # 84 It was brought to the attention of the facility, in a letter dated 08/21/13, Resident #84's physician had been contacted and orders obtained for a urinalysis. The letter stated the resident had been exhibiting a change in orientation and increased behaviors. An allegation was made the facility did not get this urinalysis during day shift when it was ordered, but instead passed it on to the midnight shift nurse, and this resulted in a delay in treatment for [REDACTED]. A review of the medical record, and a review of the facility's investigation records, revealed a urinalysis was done for this resident on 08/14/13. This test came back negative and indicated she did not have a urinary tract infection and there was no treatment indicated or provided. The allegation the facility did not promptly treat infections was investigated by the facility, but was not reported to the State agencies as an allegation of neglect. d) The Administrator (Employee # 89) and the Director of Nursing (Employee # 88) were interviewed together on 08/27/13 at 11:00 a.m. regarding these allegations. They verified they were aware of the allegations and provided the investigation conducted by the facility. The Director of Nursing stated she did not feel these had to be reported to the State agencies because the nurse had indicated in the letter she sent she had reported these issues to the State. | 2017-05-01 |