Glen Ridge Nursing Care Center

Glen Ridge Nursing Care Center

MI Elder Abuse Free Legal ConsultationDid someone you love suffer elder abuse or neglect at Glen Ridge Nursing Care Center? Our lawyers can help.

Abuse of the elderly is not acceptable and we fight hard in these types of cases. If you suspect a nursing home or caregiver has caused harm to your loved one in someone elses’ care, contact our law firm today for a free legal consultation.

Talking to us does not obligate you to anything, but we may be able to tell you if you have a claim and the value of your case. If we accept your case, you pay no fee unless we recover for you.

About Glen Ridge Nursing Care Center

Glen Ridge Nursing Care CenterGlen Ridge Nursing Care Center is a for profit, 164-bed Medicare/Medicaid certified skilled nursing facility that provides services to the residents of Medford, Malden, Somerville, Arlington, Winchester, Everett,  Cambridge, Melrose, Belmont, Stoneham, Chelsea, Woburn, Revere, Boston, Watertown, and the other towns in and surrounding Middlesex County, Massachusetts.

Glen Ridge Nursing Care Center focuses on 24 hour care, respite care, hospice care and rehabilitation services.

Glen Ridge Nursing Care Center
120 Murray St,
Medford, MA 02155

Phone: (781) 391-0800
Website: http://www.genesishcc.com/glenridge

CMS Star Quality Rating

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid (CMS) rates all nursing homes that accept medicare or medicaid benefits. CMS created a 5 Star Quality Rating System—1 star is the lowest rating and 5 stars is the highest—that look at three areas.  As of 2017, Glen Ridge Nursing Care Center in Medford, Massachusetts received a rating of 1 out of 5 stars.

Performance Area Rating
Overall Rating 1 out of 5 (Much Below Average)
State Health Inspections 2 out of 5 (Below Average)
Staffing 3 out of 5 (Average)
Quality Measures 1 out of 5 (Much Below Average)

Fines and Penalties

Our Nursing Home Injury Lawyers inspected government records and discovered Glen Ridge Nursing Care Center committed the following offenses:

Failed to give the resident's representative the ability to exercise the resident's rights.

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure that the Health Care Proxy (HCP) was properly activated prior to consenting to treatment and care for two sampled residents (Resident #4 and #8 ) in a total sample of 24 Residents.

Findings include:

1. For Resident #4, the facility failed to ensure that the HCP had the authority to act on behalf of the resident in consenting to health care decisions. Resident #4 was admitted to the facility in 7/2016, with [DIAGNOSES REDACTED]. On 10/14/16, review of the Admission MDS (Minimum Data Set) assessment dated [DATE], indicated that the resident had a BIMS (Brief Interview Mental Status) of 13 indicating the resident was cognitively intact.

Further record review indicated that the resident had an acute hospitalized from [DATE] to 8/9/16, for a change in mental status and [MEDICAL CONDITION]. Review of the resident’s clinical record on 10/14/16, indicated that the resident’s daughter had verbally consented on 8/31/16, to an antipsychotic medication and to an antidepressant medication.

Further review of the clinical record indicated that there was no health care proxy document located in the medical record. There was no physician’s progress note or physician’s orders [REDACTED]. During interview on 10/19/16 at 5:30 P.M. with the Director of Nurses (DON), Surveyor #3 inquired about the status of the resident’s health care proxy and the resident’s decision making capacity.

On 10/20/16 at 7:55 A.M., the Director of Social Services indicated that an audit of HCP forms was done 10/17/16. She further indicated that for the most part the HCP forms come from the hospital. However, in this case, if the HCP form cannot be obtained from the hospital, then the facility would have the daughter bring it into the facility. In addition, the facility would have the physician document the resident’s decision making capacity and write an order to invoke the HCP.

Resident #4’s HCP had never been invoked. Therefore, the HCP did not have the authority to make medical decisions on behalf of Resident #4. 2. For Resident #8, the facility failed to ensure that the HCP had the authority to act on behalf of the resident in consenting to health care decisions.

Resident #8 was admitted to the facility in 5/2016, with [DIAGNOSES REDACTED]. On 10/13/16, review of the Admission MDS dated [DATE] and the Significant Change MDS dated [DATE], indicated that the resident had a BIMS (Brief Interview Mental Status) of 9 indicating the resident was moderately cognitively impaired. Review of the resident’s clinical record indicated that the resident’s HCP had consented on 5/22/16, to treatment with an antipsychotic medication.

Further review of the clinical record indicated that there was no physician’s progress note or physician’s orders [REDACTED]. During interview on 10/19/16 at 5:30 P.M. with the Director of Nurses (DON), Surveyor #3 inquired about the status of the resident’s health care proxy and the resident’s decision making capacity.

On 10/20/16 at 7:55 A.M., the Director of Social Services indicated that the resident’s HCP should have been activated as of 5/22/16. Resident #8’s HCP had not been invoked at the time the HCP signed consents. Therefore, the HCP did not have the authority to make medical decisions on behalf of Resident #4.

Failed to keep each resident's personal and medical records private and confidential.

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY**

Based on observation and staff and resident interview, the facility failed to promote care for Residents in a manner and in an environment that maintains or enhances each Resident’s privacy while performing a treatment on one sampled resident (Resident #9) out of a total sample of 24 Residents.

Findings include:

Resident #9 was admitted to the Facility in 5/2016, with [DIAGNOSES REDACTED]. During an observation on 10/14/16 at 9:40 A.M., Surveyor #1 observed Nurse #1 perform a dressing change on Resident #9. During the procedure, Surveyor #1 observed Nurse #1 position Resident #9 with his/her exposed buttocks to the open door without pulling the privacy curtain.

Failed to review or revise the resident's care plan after any major change in a resident's physical or mental health.

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY**

Based on record review and staff interview, the facility failed to conduct a significant change comprehensive Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment for 2 Sampled Residents (#12 and #14) out of a total sample of 24 residents within 14 calendar days after a significant change of condition was identified, as required.

Findings include:

A. For Resident #12, the facility failed to complete a timely significant change MDS assessment. Resident #12 was admitted to the facility in 12/2015, with [DIAGNOSES REDACTED].

A Quarterly MDS assessment with an assessment reference date (ARD) of 3/8/16, indicated that Resident #12 required the following assistance from staff to perform activities of daily living:

  • Bed Mobility – limited assist from one person
  • Transfer- limited assist from one person
  • Walk in Room- limited assist from one person
  • Walk in corridor- limited assist from one person
  • Locomotion on unit- limited assist from one person
  • Dressing- limited assist from one person
  • Toilet use- limited assist from one person
  • Bathing- extensive assist from one person

Certified Nurses Aides Daily Documentation Records dated 4/1/2016 through 4/30/2016, and 5/1/16 through 5/31/16, indicated that Resident #12 required the following assistance from staff to perform activities of daily living at the following levels:

  • Bed Mobility – Independent as of 5/6/16
  • Transfer- Independent as of 4/25/16
  • Walk in Room- Independent as of 4/25/16
  • Walk in corridor- Independent as of 4/22/16
  • Locomotion on unit- Independent 4/12/16
  • Dressing-Independent as of 5/16/16
  • Toilet use- Independent as of 4/25/16
  • Bathing- Independent as of 5/9/16

Based on a comparison of the above information, Resident #12 experienced a significant improvement in 8 areas without a significant change MDS Assessment completed within the required 14 days.

Review of the Certified Nursing Assistant flow sheets dated 6/2016 and 7/2016, indicated that the Resident’s improvement had been sustained, however, a significant change of status MDS was not started until 8/18/2016.

B. For Resident #14, the facility failed to complete a timely significant change MDS assessment. Resident #14 was admitted to the facility in 10/2013, with [DIAGNOSES REDACTED]. An annual MDS assessment with an assessment reference date (ARD) of 4/14/2016, indicated that Resident #14 required the following assistance from staff to perform activities of daily living:

1. Ambulation- independent.

2. Hygiene- limited assistance of one person.

A Quarterly MDS assessment with an ARD of 7/14/2016 indicated that Resident #14 required the following assistance from staff to perform activities of daily living:

1. Ambulation- activity did not occur. 2. Hygiene- extensive assist of one person. Based on a comparison of the above assessments, Resident #14 experienced a significant decline in 2 areas without a significant change assessment completed within the required 14 days.

Review of the Quarterly MDS assessment dated [DATE], indicated that the Resident’s decline had been sustained. However, no significant change of status MDS was completed between the two Quarterly assessments as required.

Review of the Long Term Care Facility Resident Assessment Instrument User’s Manual, Version 3.0, effective 10/01/2010, indicated that A significant change reassessment is generally indicated when a decline or improvement is consistently noted in 2 or more areas of improvement.

During an interview on 10/20/16 at 8:33 A.M., the MDS Coordinator said that a significant change assessment should have been completed on both Residents within the 14 days a significant change was identified, as required.

Failed to make sure that each resident gets a nutritional and well balanced diet, unless it is not possible to do so.

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY**

Based on record review and staff interviews, the facility failed to monitor weight parameters according to facility policy for 1 sampled Resident (Resident #11), out of a total sample of 24 residents.

Findings include:

For Resident #11, the facility failed to assess on-going weight loss. Review of the resident’s clinical record on 10/12/16, indicated the resident was admitted to the facility in 11/2015, with [DIAGNOSES REDACTED].

At the time of admission, the resident had dysphagia, difficulty swallowing, and received a puree diet with chopped meat. The resident was designated as an aspiration risk. The resident weighed 179.6 pounds (lbs.).

Review of the most recent quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, with an assessment reference date of 9/8/16, indicated the resident required extensive assistance for daily personal care. The MDS noted the resident had impairment of the upper extremity on one side. The resident was noted to receive extensive assistance with eating and had significant weight loss in the previous 6 months. Height and weight were recorded as 66 inches and 131 pounds.

Review of the facility policy for Weights and Heights, with an effective date of 6/1/01, indicated the following:

A. Patients are weighed upon admission and/or re-admission, then weekly for four weeks and monthly thereafter. Hospital weight will not serve as admission or re-admission weight.

B. Significant weight change is defined as 5% in one month and/or 10% in six months.

C. If a patient’s weight is less than or greater than five pounds from the previous weight, the patient will be re-weighed and the weight verified by licensed nurse to determine accuracy.

D. The purpose of the policy was to obtain a baseline weight and identify significant weight change as well as determine the possible causes of significant weight change. Review of the weight tracking sheet indicated that the resident was weighed as follows:

  • 4/15/16 167.4 pounds (lbs.)
  • 4/26/16 163.8 lbs. (obtained using a wheelchair)
  • 5/9/16 154.2 lbs. (obtained using a wheelchair)
  • 5/20/16 154.2 lbs. (Resident in hospital 5/19/16 – 6/1/16)
  • 6/1/16 149.0 lbs. (weight obtained in hospital)
  • 6/16/16 133.8 lbs.
  • 6/22/16 133.8 lbs. (obtained using a wheelchair)
  • 7/14/16 130.0 lbs.
  • 7/21/16 130.4 lbs.

According to the facility’s Weight and Height Policy, a significant weight change is defined as 5% in one month and/or 10% in six months. Further review of the weight tracking sheet in the resident’s record indicated that in less than a one month period, the resident lost 13.2 lbs. or 7.9% of body weight, which would be considered a significant weight loss. The resident weighed 167.4 lbs. on 4/15/16 and then weighed 154.2 lbs. on 5/9/16.

In addition, according to the facility’s policy, if a patient’s weight is less than or greater than five pounds from the previous weight, the patient will be re-weighed and the weight verified by licensed nurse to determine accuracy. On 4/26/16, the resident’s weight was noted to be 163.8 lbs. and the next documented weight on 5/9/16, was 154.2 lbs., a loss of 9.6 lbs, which indicated significant weight loss (more than 5%). The facility failed to obtain a reweigh to verify the accuracy of the resident’s weight loss, as per facility policy.

Review of the resident’s care plan indicated no new interventions were implemented to address the resident’s weight loss. The resident receives a consistent carbohydrate diet. Review of the resident’s meal intake amounts for 4/2016 to 5/2016, indicated that the resident consumed 75 percent to 100 percent of all meals. Further record review indicated that the resident was hospitalized from [DATE] to 6/1/16 (however the record reflected a weight recorded on 5/20/16 of 154.2 lbs )

According to the hospital discharge summary, the resident was diagnosed with [REDACTED]. The hospital’s patient care referral form dated 6/1/16, indicated that on the day of discharge from the hospital the resident weighed 149 lbs.

Review of a Nursing Assessment, dated 6/1/16, a weight upon re-admission was not obtained, as per facility policy.

The resident was not weighed until 6/16/16, which was 15 days after the resident returned from a 14 day hospitalization . On 6/16/16, the facility recorded a weight of 133.8 lbs, indicating a weight loss of 15.2 lbs. compared to the hospital discharge weight of 149 lbs. The facility failed to re-weigh the resident on 6/16/16, to determine the accuracy of the weight loss.

The next documented weight recorded was 6 days later, on 6/22/16, and the resident’s weight remained at 133.8 lbs.

The facility did not complete a Nutritional Assessment until 6/24/16, which was 23 days after re-admission to the facility and 8 days after the second significant weight loss (between 6/1/16 and 6/16/16) was documented. The Nutritional assessment indicated the resident’s weight loss was likely due to recent hospitalization and [MEDICAL CONDITION] and recommended that the resident’s diet be changed from consistent carbohydrate diet to a liberalized regular diet.

The resident had a physician’s order dated 6/24/16, which indicated a diet change, from a consistent carbohydrate to a house regular diet, (which adds approximately 280 calories per day).

Review of the care plan dated 6/24/16, indicated a nutritional risk careplan with the goal of (Resident Name) will maintain a stabilized weight of 130 lbs to 136 lbs during the next 90 days.) There were no additional interventions to address the weight loss and weight loss was not addressed in the care plan.

According to the 6/2016 and 7/2016 meal intake amounts, the resident continued to consume mostly 75 to 100 percent of all meals.

Further review of the clinical record indicated that the change in diet was not evaluated for effectiveness for 20 days (6/24/16 to 7/14/16) at which time another weight was obtained of 130 lbs. ( 3.8 lbs. weight loss.) In spite of the continued weight loss, no further interventions were implemented.

Weights obtained after 7/14/16 were acquired using various methods and changed, depending on the method used, with a fluctuating variance up and down of up to 10 lbs between the dates of 8/2/16, to 10/17/16.

On 10/17/2016, at 11:25 A.M. the Corporate Nurse said that the interventions on the careplan including (Monitor weights, Monitor intake at all meals, Provide diet as ordered, Offer Snacks, Supervise/cue/assist as needed with meals and Encourage Resident to consume all fluids during meals) were generic interventions used on every resident’s careplan and did not address the Resident’s weight loss specifically.

The Director of Nurses (DNS), in the room at the time, agreed that the careplan did not address the Resident’s weight loss and said she was also unable to locate the re-admission weight that should have been obtained upon the resident returning on 6/1/16 from a hospitalization , per facility policy. She also said that the facility failed to re-weigh the resident after the resident was documented as having 2 significant weight losses, per facility policy.

During an interview on 10/17/2016, at 2:00 P.M. the DNS went on to say that she was aware that the weights obtained by the total lift did not appear to be accurate. She said the scale might not be calibrated accurately because of the differences in weights obtained between the wheelchair and the total lift machine.

On 10/17/16, at 3:40 P.M. the Dietician said that the careplan interventions did not specifically address the weight loss. She said that the interventions she put in place were the interventions that she was taught by the facility to implement. The facility failed to monitor the resident’s weight, according to their policy and failed to adequately address weight loss for this Resident.

Failed to properly care for residents needing special services, including: injections, colostomy, ureostomy, ileostomy, tracheostomy care, tracheal suctioning, respiratory care, foot care, and prostheses

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY**

Based on record review and staff interview, the facility failed to follow protocol in providing the appropriate care and treatment of [REDACTED].#1 ) in a total sample of 24 Residents.

Findings include:

For Resident #1, the facility failed to document changing the catheter site dressing and the measurement of the external catheter length with each dressing change, and as needed, per the Facility’s Policy and the physician’s orders [REDACTED].

Resident #1 was admitted to the facility in 5/2012, with [DIAGNOSES REDACTED]. Resident #1 had a PICC line in place for antibiotic administration to treat generalized infection. Review of the Facility’s policy dated 7/1/12, titled Central Venous Catheter: Dressing Change, Licensed Nurses Providing Infusion Therapy in the Long Term Care Facility, Section on Procedures, Point 22, indicated that documentation in the medical record included, but is not limited to: date and time, site assessment, length of external catheter and reason for dressing change.

Review of two physician’s orders [REDACTED].

Review of the Medication Administration Record [REDACTED].

Unit Manager #2 and Nurse #2 were interviewed on 10/17/16 at 12:15 P.M. Unit Manager #1 and Nurse #2 said that when they transitioned to computerized medication administration records, they kept the sheet that the pharmacy provided to document midline catheter treatments in the narcotic book that was kept on the medication cart. When they looked for the record, they were unable to find the sheet. Unit Manager #2 was concerned since it was the original document that contained information and nurse’s signatures.

Failed to keep the rate of medication errors (wrong drug, wrong dose, wrong time) to less than 5%.

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY**

Based on record review and observation, the facility failed to ensure that it was free of a medication error rate of 5 percent or greater. One of two licensed nurses made errors while administering medications on 1 of 4 units. There were 3 errors which affected 1 Non-Sampled Resident (NS #1) out of 2 applicable residents with a total of 25 opportunities. The facility had an error rate of 12%.

Findings include:

For NS #1, the facility failed to administer his/her medications as ordered. The Medication Administration Record [REDACTED]. The Medication Administration Record [REDACTED]. The Medication Administration Record [REDACTED].

On 10/13/16 at 8:57 A.M., Nurse #3 administered Calcium 600 mg with Vitamin D, 1 tab (wrong medication), [MEDICATION NAME] Solution .02% ( Not ordered for time given) and omitted the eye drop [MEDICATION NAME] 0.5%.

When this was brought to the attention of Unit Manager #3 (U.M. #3) on 10/13/16, at 10:36 A.M., she said Nurse #3 should have administered the calcium as ordered, without the Vitamin D, as the Resident also had a separate order for Vitamin D. U.M. #3 also said the [MEDICATION NAME] Solution .02% had already been given at 6 A.M. and was not scheduled to be given again until noon. U.M. #3 said the eye drop [MEDICATION NAME] 0.5% should have been administered during the medication pass as it would have been within the scheduled time frame for administration. U.M. #3 said she would call the Resident’s doctor and inform him of the medication errors.

Failed to maintain drug records and properly mark/label drugs and other similar products according to accepted professional standards.

Based on observations and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure that out of date medications were removed from use and discarded on 2 of 4 nursing units, failed to date multidose vials of medications when opened for use on 2 of 4 nursing units, and failed to ensure that no items other than medications/vaccinations were stored in the medication refrigerator on 1 of 4 nursing units.

Findings include:

1. During an inspection of the Linden Unit medication room on 10/17/16, at 11:00 A.M., with Nurse #4, the following was observed:

  • A. 1 bottle of Latanoprost eye drops opened and without a date of when it was opened.
  • B. 2 Sysco brand vanilla ice cream individual size cups.

During an interview on 10/17/16 at 11:10 A.M.,Nurse #4 said that no food items were supposed to be kept in the medication refrigerators. She also said that all opened medications should have been labeled with the date they are opened.

2. During an inspection of the Maplewood medication room on 10/17/2016, at 11:21 A.M. with Unit Manager #2, the following was observed:

  • A. 2 Epinephrine Pens expired with an expiration date of 7/24/16.
  • B. 1 vial of Aplisol Tuberculin Protein open without a date of when it was opened.
  • C. 9 Anucort-HC Suppositories with expiration dates of 7/17/16.
  • D. 1 vial of Humulin R open and without a date of when it was opened.
  • E. 1 bottle of Latanoprost eye drops opened and without a date of when it was opened.
  • F. 7 tabs of the prescription medication Digoxin 0.125 Mg in the over the counter cabinet without a resident’s name on them.

During an interview on 10/17/2016, at 11:21 P.M., Unit Manager #2 said that she would discard all of the medication.

3. During an inspection of the Oakgrove medication room on 10/17/16, at 11:40 A.M., with Unit Manager #1 the following was observed:

  • A. 2 Compro suppositories expired with an expiration date of 5/2016.
  • B. 7 Compro suppositories expired with an expiration date of 10/9/16.
  • C. 1 bottle of Vancomycin 250 mg/5 ml suspension expired with an expiration date of 9/25/16.
  • D. 1 bottle of Vancomycin 250 mg/5 ml suspension expired with an expiration date of 9/23/16.
  • E. 1 bottle of Ocular Vitamins expired with an expiration date of 6/2016.

During an interview on 10/17/2016, at 11:45 A.M., Unit Manager #1 said that all expired medications are supposed to be destroyed and she would dispose of them immediately.

Failed to have a program that investigates, controls and keeps infection from spreading.

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY**

Based on observation, staff interviews and record review, the Facility failed to maintain an Infection Control program designed to prevent the development and transmission of disease and infection during two wound dressing observations for 2 sampled Residents (Resident #9 and Resident #10) out of 3 sampled residents with wounds in a total sample of 24 residents.

Findings include:

1) The facility failed to ensure that infection control standards were performed according to professional standards when providing wound treatment to Resident #9. Resident #9 was admitted to the Facility in 5/2016, with [DIAGNOSES REDACTED]. During an observation on 10/14/16 at 9:40 A.M., Surveyor #1 observed Nurse #1 perform a dressing change on Resident #9. During the procedure, Surveyor #1 observed Nurse #1 wipe the Resident’s overbed table with disinfectant and allow it to dry. While the table was drying, Nurse #1 took the dressing items from the treatment cart, place them down on the chest of drawers on which the television sat, which was not clean, then take the items and place them on the clean towel placed for the procedure, thereby contaminating the clean field. The treatment was held while Nurse #1 gave the Resident a pain medication. Nurse #1 put the unclean items back in the medication cart while she allowed time for the pain medication to take effect.

The treatment was resumed at 10:10 A.M. Nurse #1 obtained the dressing items from the treatment cart and placed them on the clean field. An open foil of Vaseline gauze without a label or date of opening was placed on the clean field. The treatment was again held due to an emergency at the facility. As Nurse #1 was rushing to replace the items back in the treatment cart, the open Vaseline gauze fell on the floor. Nurse #1 picked up the contaminated foil pack of Vaseline gauze and was going to put it in the treatment cart drawer, but Surveyor #1 stopped Nurse #1 and asked her to put it in the trash because it was dirty from falling on the floor.

The treatment was again resumed at 10:30 A.M. Nurse #1 was observed cutting a square of metahoney with scissors of which the blades were not cleaned with a disinfectant after cutting off the dirty dressing that was contaminated with exudate. The metahoney square was then placed directly on the open wound after cutting with the unclean scissor blades. Nurse #1 then proceeded to cut a Vaseline gauze with the same scissors that she did not clean the blades with disinfectant. Nurse #1 then placed two cotton tipped swabs to an open tube of Santyl, instead of placing a small amount of the ointment on a gauze and then obtaining the ointment with the cotton swabs to place on the open wound to prevent contamination Nurse #1 then put the open foil of Vaseline gauze back in the treatment cart for general use which is a potential source of contamination for another resident.

2) The facility failed to ensure that infection control standards and proper hand hygiene were performed according to professional standards when providing wound treatment to Resident #10.

Resident #10 was admitted to the Facility in 9/2016, with [DIAGNOSES REDACTED]. During an observation on 10/14/16 at 9:50 A.M., Surveyor #1 observed Nurse #1 wash her hands and don gloves and then gather supplies for the dressing change and place them on the clean surface. Without cleaning her hands again and donning new gloves, Nurse #1 reached into a packet of gauze with the dirty gloves and cleaned the wound two times. Nurse #1 then touched two cotton tipped swabs on the open tube of Santyl, which had a label on it that indicated it was Resident #9’s ointment.

The Director of Nursing (DON), Unit Manager #1 and the Corporate Nurse were interviewed on 10/17/16 at 3:30 P.M. Surveyor #1 presented the observations made during the two treatments. The DON said that she was surprised and had no explanation for the nurse’s actions because the DON had done a review with Nurse #1 the previous week and she performed the skill without error at that time. The DON said that partially used items were not to be placed back in the treatment cart for use on another resident. The DON said that the Facility does not reuse open dressing items for use at a later date and new supplies are obtained for each dressing change. Unit Manager #1 said that other resident’s medications should not be used on other residents.

Failed to keep accurate, complete and organized clinical records on each resident that meet professional standards.

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY**

Based on record review and staff interview, the facility failed to maintain clinical records in accordance with accepted professional standards and practices that were complete and accurately documented for 3 sampled residents (Residents #6, #15 and #21) in a total sample of 24.

Findings include:

1. For Resident #21, the facility failed to ensure the physician’s orders [REDACTED]. Review of the resident’s clinical record on 10/19/16, indicated the resident was admitted to the facility in 5/2014, with [DIAGNOSES REDACTED].

On 9/8/14, the resident’s physician activated the Health Care Proxy. The physician’s orders [REDACTED]. During interview with Unit Manager #4 on 10/19/16 at 10:30 A.M., Unit Manager #4 said the 10/2016 physician’s orders [REDACTED].

2. For Resident #15, the facility failed to ensure the physician’s orders [REDACTED]. Resident #15 was admitted to the facility during 05/2014, with [DIAGNOSES REDACTED]. Review of the resident’s clinical record on 10/19/16, indicated that the resident had a physician’s orders [REDACTED]. The physician’s orders [REDACTED]. On 10/20/16 at 11:30 A.M., Unit Manager #4 said she was unaware that the physician’s orders [REDACTED].

3. For Resident #6, the facility failed to ensure the physician’s orders [REDACTED]. Resident #6 was admitted to the facility in 8/2016, with a [DIAGNOSES REDACTED]. Review of the resident’s clinical record on 10/17/16, indicated that the resident had a physician’s orders [REDACTED]. The physician’s orders [REDACTED]. During interview with Unit Manager #4 on 10/17/16 at 11:00 A.M., Unit Manager #4 said the 10/2016 physician’s orders [REDACTED].

Glen Ridge Nursing Care Center, Nursing Home Neglect and Elder Abuse Lawyers

If someone you love has suffered neglect or elder abuse by a senior caregiver, nursing home, or other care facility, our lawyers may be able to help. Regardless of whether or not criminal charges are filed against an alleged abuser, you may still be able to pursue compensation in a civil claim. Compensation in elder abuse cases may be awarded if someone in the care of another suffers harm due to intentional or negligent actions (including failure to take action).

Abuse of the elderly is not acceptable and we fight hard in these types of cases. If you suspect a nursing home or caregiver has caused harm to your loved one in someone elses’ care, contact our law firm today for a free legal consultation. Talking to us does not obligate you to anything, but we may be able to tell you if you have a claim and the value of your case. If we accept your case, you pay no fee unless we recover for you.

Oftentimes, victims of abuse either cannot or will not speak up for themselves out of fear. If you notice any warning signs or symptoms of neglect of abuse an an elderly person, it is important you contact an elder abuse lawyer immediately. Not only are there statute of limitations on filing a claim, but the sooner we start helping you, the easier it will be to collect evidence and talk to any witnesses before important details are lost, hidden, or forgotten.

 

Boston Personal Injury Lawyers for Elder Abuse Cases

We offer a free, no-obligation legal consultation to help you understand your rights and the value of your case. Our personal injury law firm takes cases involving elder abuse and neglect. We offer legal service to clients in Massachusetts, Rhode Island and New Hampshire.


Sources:

Page Last Updated: November 18, 2017

Call Now Button