| 9140 |
CAREHAVEN OF PLEASANTS |
515191 |
PO BOX 625 |
BELMONT |
WV |
26134 |
2012-04-26 |
151 |
D |
0 |
1 |
JRXZ11 |
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on staff interview, resident interview, and record review, the facility failed to allow one (1) of thirty-three (33) residents the opportunity to exercise his resident rights, and gave the resident a thirty (30) day notice for refusing care and treatment. Resident identifier: #78. Facility census: 61. Findings include: a) Resident #78. Review of the medical record found several occasions when Resident #78 had refused care and treatment. No evidence could be found the facility investigated why the resident refused care and treatment. Resident #78 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. The admission [DIAGNOSES REDACTED]. During an interview with the resident, on 04/23/12 at 3:00 p.m., it was learned the resident did not like the type of solution used to treat his wounds. The resident stated, It's a bleach solution and [MEDICAL CONDITION] nose. The treatment was ordered twice a day. The resident stated he was not going to let the facility use Dakins solution twice a day. According to Employee #97, the treatment nurse, in an interview on 04/25/12 at 9:14 a.m., Resident #78 had voiced his opinion of the Dakins solution to her. She stated, He is non-compliant with a twice a day treatment. She further added she contacted the wound care center, but they would not change the treatment. Employee #97 was asked whether she had contacted the attending physician to get the treatment changed. She stated, He will not go against the wound care center. She stated at one time they had used a patch which only had to be changed every three (3) days, and the resident was more compliant with this treatment. No evidence could be found the physician was aware of Resident #78 having difficulty with the current treatment. No evidence could be found the facility alerted the physician to why Resident #78 was refusing treatments. The resident further stated, he had friends who worked at the facility, and he did not want them to provide his care. The resident stated, I went to school with some of them and some of them date my friends. During an interview, on the afternoon of 04/25/12, with Employee #83 (evening shift nurse), it was found Resident #78 had acquaintances who worked at the facility. She stated He does not want particular people taking care of him because he knew them. No evidence could be found the facility had made any attempts to provide care in a manner which maintained the resident's dignity. On 04/11/12, the facility issued Resident #78 a thirty (30) day notice stating they had no choice, but to give him a thirty (30) day notice related to his refusals of care and treatment. The letter further stated the facility would look for alternative placement that better suited the resident. During an interview with Employee #100 (administrator), on 04/24/12 at 5:57 p.m., he stated the facility had several meetings with Resident #78, but did not have documentation related to these meetings. He further added Resident #78 may have stated he did not want to go to another nursing home. 04/11/12 at 5:57 p.m., Employee #100 was asked for information related to education provided to Resident #78 on the risks and benefits of treatment. He stated, I'm sorry, it's not documented. On 04/24/12 at 3:37 p.m., Employee #78 (social worker/admission coordinator) was asked if he had met with Resident #78 related to his care and treatment. He stated, No, I have not had a lot of contact with him. He further added he was present when the facility gave Resident #78 a thirty (30) day notice for refusal of care. Review of the social worker notes identified only three (3) notes written from 02/14/12 through 04/23/12. On 02/29/12, Employee #78 wrote a note stating the following, Had been refusing care related to pain, but this has been corrected and he is participating more now. According to the social service note dated 02/29/12 Resident #78 was having no issues at that time. |
2016-02-01 |