Barnes Care, 56 West Highway 61

MDH’s finding, as written: “No further action required.”

Rule cited: “(b) Each assisted living facility shall develop and maintain fire safety and evacuation plans. [...]”

Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to provide written notice with required content to the resident, legal representative, and designated representative for one of one resident (R1) reviewed for a hospitalization.

MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to provide written notice with required content to the resident, legal representative, and designated representative for one of one resident (R1) reviewed for a hospitalization. [...]”

Rule cited: “(a) A facility may remove a resident from the facility in an emergency if necessary due to a resident's urgent medical needs or an imminent risk the resident poses to the health or safety of another facility resident or facility staff member. [...]”

Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure the service plan included the required content for one of two residents (R7).

MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to ensure the service plan included the required content for one of two residents (R7). This practice resulted in a level two violation (a violation that did not harm a resident's health or safety but had the potential to have harmed a resident's health or safety, but was not likely to cause serious injury, impairment, or death), and was issued at an isolated scope (when one or a limited number of residents are affected or one or a [...]”

Rule cited: “(f) The service plan must include: (1) a description of the services to be provided, the fees for services, and the frequency of each service, according to the resident's current assessment and resident preferences; (2) the identification of staff or [...]”

Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to date time-sensitive medications with opened or expiration dates for R3, R6.

MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee failed to date time-sensitive medications with opened or expiration dates for R3, R6. This practice resulted in a level two violation (a violation that did not harm a resident's health or safety but had the potential to have harmed a resident's health or safety, but was not likely to cause serious injury, impairment, or death) and was issued at a pattern scope (when more than a limited number of residents are affected, more than a [...]”

Rule cited: “An assisted living facility must store all prescription medications in securely locked and substantially constructed compartments according to the manufacturer's directions and permit only authorized personnel to have access.”

Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to provide care and services according to acceptable health care, medical or nursing standards for one of one resident (R5) who utilized a consumer transfer pole.

MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee failed to provide care and services according to acceptable health care, medical or nursing standards for one of one resident (R5) who utilized a consumer transfer pole. [...]”

Rule cited: “(a) Residents have the right to care and assisted living services that are appropriate based on the resident's needs and according to an up-to-date service plan subject to accepted health care standards.”

Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to provide a smoke alarm in a resident's sleeping room.

MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation and interview, the licensee failed to provide a smoke alarm in a resident's sleeping room. This had the potential to directly affect all residents, staff, and visitors. [...]”

Rule cited: “(a) Each assisted living facility must comply with the State Fire Code in Minnesota Rules, chapter 7511, and: (1) for dwellings or sleeping units, as defined in the State Fire Code: (i) provide smoke alarms in each room used for sleeping purposes; (ii) [...]”

Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to install and maintain the portable fire extinguishers as required by statute.

MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation and interview, the licensee failed to install and maintain the portable fire extinguishers as required by statute. This deficient condition had the potential to affect all residents, staff, and visitors. [...]”

Rule cited: “(2) install and maintain portable fire extinguishers in accordance with the State Fire Code; (3) install portable fire extinguishers having a minimum 2-A:10-B:C rating within Group R-3 occupancies, as defined by the State Fire Code, located so that the travel [...]”

Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to provide the physical environment in a continuous state of good repair and operation with regard to the health, safety, and well-being of the residents.

MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation and interview, the licensee failed to provide the physical environment in a continuous state of good repair and operation with regard to the health, safety, and well-being of the residents. This had the potential to directly affect all residents, staff, and visitors. [...]”

Rule cited: “(4) keep the physical environment, including walls, floors, ceiling, all furnishings, grounds, systems, and equipment in a continuous state of good repair and operation with regard to the health, safety, comfort, and well-being of the residents in accordance [...]”

Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to develop fire safety and evacuation plans with the required content, and provide required training and drills.

MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, record review, and interview, the licensee failed to develop fire safety and evacuation plans with the required content, and provide required training and drills. This had the potential to directly affect all residents, staff, and visitors. [...]”

Rule cited: “(b) Each assisted living facility shall develop and maintain fire safety and evacuation plans. [...]”

Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to offer one of one resident (R1) the opportunity to identify a or decline a designated representative.

MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to offer one of one resident (R1) the opportunity to identify a or decline a designated representative. This practice resulted in a level one violation (a violation that has no potential to cause more than a minimal impact on the resident and does not affect health or safety), and was issued at an isolated scope (when one or a limited number of residents are affected or one or a limited number of staff are involved or the situation has [...]”

Rule cited: “(a) Before or at the time of execution of an assisted living contract, an assisted living facility must offer the resident the opportunity to identify a designated representative in writing in the contract and must provide the following verbatim notice on a [...]”

Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to provide written notice with required content to the resident, legal representative, and designated representative, and failed to provide the notification to the Office of Ombudsman for Long-Term Care (OOLTC) when the resident did not return from the emergency relocation within four days for one of one resident (R1) reviewed for a hospitalization.

MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to provide written notice with required content to the resident, legal representative, and designated representative, and failed to provide the notification to the Office of Ombudsman for Long-Term Care (OOLTC) when the resident did not return from the emergency relocation within four days for one of one resident (R1) reviewed for a hospitalization. [...]”

Rule cited: “(a) A facility may remove a resident from the facility in an emergency if necessary due to a resident's urgent medical needs or an imminent risk the resident poses to the health or safety of another facility resident or facility staff member. [...]”

Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure a background study was submitted and clearance was received in affiliation with the assisted living license for one of two employees (unlicensed personnel (ULP)-D).

MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee failed to ensure a background study was submitted and clearance was received in affiliation with the assisted living license for one of two employees (unlicensed personnel (ULP)-D). [...]”

Rule cited: “(a) Employees, contractors, and regularly scheduled volunteers of the facility are subject to the background study required by section 144.057 and may be disqualified under chapter 245C. [...]”

Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure training and competency evaluations included all the required training for one of two (unlicensed personnel (ULP)-D).

MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee failed to ensure training and competency evaluations included all the required training for one of two (unlicensed personnel (ULP)-D). [...]”

Rule cited: “(a) Training and competency evaluations for all unlicensed personnel must include the following: (1) documentation requirements for all services provided; (2) reports of changes in the resident's condition to the supervisor designated by the facility; (3) [...]”

Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure an employee received all of the required annual training content for each 12 months of employment for one of one employee licensed assisted living director (LALD)-A.

MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to ensure an employee received all of the required annual training content for each 12 months of employment for one of one employee licensed assisted living director (LALD)-A. [...]”

Rule cited: “(a) All staff that perform direct services must complete at least eight hours of annual training for each 12 months of employment. [...]”

Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure one of three employees (licensed assisted living director (LALD)-A), received the required two hours of dementia care annual training.

MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to ensure one of three employees (licensed assisted living director (LALD)-A), received the required two hours of dementia care annual training. [...]”

Rule cited: “(a) All assisted living facilities must meet the following training requirements: (1) supervisors of direct-care staff must have at least eight hours of initial training on topics specified under paragraph (b) within 120 working hours of the employment start [...]”

Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure dementia training included all the required content for one of two employees (unlicensed personnel (ULP)-D.)

MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee failed to ensure dementia training included all the required content for one of two employees (unlicensed personnel (ULP)-D.) This practice resulted in a level two violation (a violation that did not harm a resident's health or safety but had the potential to have harmed a resident's health or safety, but was not likely to cause serious injury, impairment, or death), and was issued at an isolated scope (when one or a limited [...]”

Rule cited: “(5) new employees may satisfy the initial training requirements by producing written proof of previously completed required training within the past 18 months. [...]”

Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure a registered nurse (RN) conducted assessments with a uniform assessment tool that included all required assessment area content for one of one resident (R1).

MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee failed to ensure a registered nurse (RN) conducted assessments with a uniform assessment tool that included all required assessment area content for one of one resident (R1). [...]”

Rule cited: “(c) Resident reassessment and monitoring must be conducted no more than 14 calendar days after initiation of services. [...]”

Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure the service plan included the required content for one of two residents (R1).

MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee failed to ensure the service plan included the required content for one of two residents (R1). This practice resulted in a level two violation (a violation that did not harm a resident's health or safety but had the potential to have harmed a resident's health or safety, but was not likely to cause serious injury, impairment, or death), and was issued at an isolated scope (when one or a limited number of residents are affected or [...]”

Rule cited: “(f) The service plan must include: (1) a description of the services to be provided, the fees for services, and the frequency of each service, according to the resident's current assessment and resident preferences; (2) the identification of staff or [...]”

Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure the registered nurse (RN) developed written procedures with all the required content for unlicensed personnel (ULP) providing medications for residents having unplanned time away when the licensed nurse was not available.

MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee failed to ensure the registered nurse (RN) developed written procedures with all the required content for unlicensed personnel (ULP) providing medications for residents having unplanned time away when the licensed nurse was not available. [...]”

Rule cited: “(2) for unplanned time away, when the pharmacy is not able to provide the medications, a licensed nurse or unlicensed personnel shall provide medications in amounts and dosages needed for the length of the anticipated absence, not to exceed seven calendar [...]”

Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure medications were maintained bearing the original prescription labels for resident (R1).

MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee failed to ensure medications were maintained bearing the original prescription labels for resident (R1). In addition, the licensee failed to date time-sensitive medications with opened or expiration dates for R6. [...]”

Rule cited: “An assisted living facility must store all prescription medications in securely locked and substantially constructed compartments according to the manufacturer's directions and permit only authorized personnel to have access.”

Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to document in the resident's record the required content on disposition of the medications for one of one resident (R4) upon discharge.

MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to document in the resident's record the required content on disposition of the medications for one of one resident (R4) upon discharge. [...]”

Rule cited: “(a) Any current medications being managed by the assisted living facility must be provided to the resident when the resident's service plan ends or medication management services are no longer part of the service plan. [...]”

Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to develop and implement a treatment or therapy management plan to include all required content for one of one resident (R1) who had treatments managed by the facility.

MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee failed to develop and implement a treatment or therapy management plan to include all required content for one of one resident (R1) who had treatments managed by the facility. [...]”

Rule cited: “For each resident receiving management of ordered or prescribed treatments or therapy services, the assisted living facility must prepare and include in the service plan a written statement of the treatment or therapy services that will be provided to the [...]”

Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure instructions,

MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee failed to ensure instructions, specified in writing for each resident, and documented those instructions in the resident's record for one of one resident (R1) who had treatments managed by the facility. [...]”

Rule cited: “Ordered or prescribed treatments or therapies must be administered by a nurse, physician, or other licensed health professional authorized to perform the treatment or therapy, or may be delegated or assigned to unlicensed personnel by the licensed health [...]”

Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure written or electronically recorded orders were obtained for one of one resident (R1) who had treatments managed by the provider.

MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee failed to ensure written or electronically recorded orders were obtained for one of one resident (R1) who had treatments managed by the provider. [...]”

Rule cited: “There must be an up-to-date written or electronically recorded order from an authorized prescriber for all treatments and therapies. [...]”

Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to provide care and services according to acceptable health care, medical or nursing standards for three of three residents (R1, R2, R3) who utilized bed rails.

MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee failed to provide care and services according to acceptable health care, medical or nursing standards for three of three residents (R1, R2, R3) who utilized bed rails. [...]”

Rule cited: “(a) Residents have the right to care and assisted living services that are appropriate based on the resident's needs and according to an up-to-date service plan subject to accepted health care standards.”