cms_VT: 94

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
94 THE PINES AT RUTLAND CENTER FOR NURSING AND REHABI 475018 99 ALLEN STREET RUTLAND VT 5701 2017-10-10 152 D 1 0 7SD111 **NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** > Based on observation, interviews and record review the facility failed to adequately consider a choice made by the resident's representative on the formal side rail assessment for the use side rails on a bed for safety for one applicable resident (Resident #1). Findings include: Per record review, Record #1 has a [DIAGNOSES REDACTED]. S/he relies on his/her representative to make decisions regarding his/her care. S/he has had two documented falls at the facility on 4/30/17 and 5/7/17; and per a facility incident report dated 9/23/17, on 9/15/17, during the overnight shift, Resident #1 was found with his/her body askew and head resting on bedside mat. Per observation during the survey on 10/9/17 & 10/10/17, the resident had a bariatric bed with an air mattress and the bed did not have side rails. Per telephone interview on 10/5/17 at 9:48 AM with the resident's representative, s/he stated that s/he wanted Resident #1 to have padded side rails on his/her bed for safety. S/he stated that Resident #1 has already had two or three falls in the facility; and that when Resident #1 was in another facility, s/he had a bed with padded side rails and had no falls. During interviews on 10/9/17 and 10/10/17 with the Administrator and Director of Nursing, they confirmed that the resident's representative did want side rails used for Resident #1's safety. They stated that Resident #1 was not a candidate for side rails as the side rails posed more of a risk for Resident #1's safety. They stated that the facility has implemented multiple interventions to ensure that the Resident #1 is safe without the use of side rails. On 5/1/17, the facility evaluated Resident #1 for the use of side rails. The side rail evaluation inaccurately identified that the resident (in this case the legal representative) did not express a desire for siderails, stating, 1. Has the resident expressed a desire to have Side rails while in bed for their own safety and comfort? 'N' Interdisciplinary Team Recommendation: Side rails will not be used at this time. Per the previously stated interview, the resident's representative had repeatedly expressed a desire for the resident to have side rails while in bed for his/her own safety. There was also no evidence in the medical record that Resident #1 had been re-evaluated for the use of side rails since 5/1/17, which was prior to the second and third incidents. Per interview with the Unit Manager on 10/10/17 at approximately 12:59 PM, s/he confirmed that the resident had not been re-evaluated for the use of side rails since 5/1/17 and that the resident's representative had desired that side rails be used for Resident #1's safety. 2020-09-01