cms_VI: 16

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
16 SEA VIEW NURSING HOME 485000 7500 BOLONGO BAY ST THOMAS VI 802 2013-09-13 325 D 0 1 IBTI11 **NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview and record review, it was determined that the facility failed to effectively monitor a resident's nutritional status in the presence of unplanned weight changes. This deficient practice was identified in 1 of 10 residents (Resident #1) reviewed for nutritional concerns. This was evidenced by the following: The resident's [DIAGNOSES REDACTED]. The Clinical records, identified the resident as alert and oriented x 3, and able to make needs known. Resident Assessment Instrument (RAI), dated 8/13/31, indicated the resident's weight as 143 pounds (lbs.) and had experienced no significant weight gain or loss. Review of the physician's orders [REDACTED]. In the Initial Nutritional Assessment, dated 8/6/13, the Registered Dietician documented the resident's weight as 143 lbs., requires partial assist with tray set-up, could feed self, and consuming 75% of meals; weight gain may be due to decrease activity since foot/leg problems. No significant nutritional risk. A review of the resident's monthly weights recorded in the unit's weight book indicates the following: Resident #1's weight was 143 pounds (lbs.) on 08/06/13. On 8/26/13, the resident's weight was recorded as 126 lbs., indicating a 17 lb. weight loss in 20 days. A re-weigh performed on 8/27/13, listed the weight as 126 lbs. There was no documented evidence that the physician was informed of the weight variance of 17 lbs. between 8/6/13 and 8/27/13. The Registered Dietician documented the resident's weight on a Dietary Progress Note dated 9/6/2013 as 125 lbs. and documented that the resident experienced a significant weight loss of 10 lbs. in a 30 day period, and 15 lbs. in a period of 180 days. Although the Registered Dietitian (RD) identified the resident's weight loss as unplanned, there was no documented evidence that the RD evaluated for factors contributing to the resident's weight loss. During an interview conducted on the afternoon of 9/11/13, the Registered Dietitian (RD) acknowledged that the resident experienced a 17 lbs. weight loss. She stated that on 08/27/13, the resident was changed from monthly weights to weekly weights. She further stated that after a discussion with the resident on 09/06/2013, she added Cocoa to the resident's diet. During a Quality of Life Assessment Resident Interview on 09/11/2013 at 6:30 PM resident #1 was asked about whether snacks are provided and she stated they don't give me a sandwich at night, I am a Diabetic and I am not the only one who ' s not receiving a snack at night. There was no documentation in the medical record that any member of the Interdisciplinary Care Team had identified, investigated, or appropriately addressed the resident's weight loss, or identified whether or not the resident's prescribed diet was adequate. This review reveals that the facility's staff waited 2 weeks before addressing the resident's significant weight loss. 2017-01-01