Benedictine Living Community |

Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure training and competency was completed for one of two unlicensed personnel (ULP-E) to include all required content.

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

Rule cited: “(a) Unlicensed personnel providing assisted living services must have: (1) successfully completed a training and competency evaluation appropriate to the services provided by the facility and the topics listed in section 144G.61, subdivision 2, paragraph (a); [...]”

Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure training and competency was completed for two of two unlicensed personnel (ULP-E and ULP-F) to include all required content.

MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee failed to ensure training and competency was completed for two of two unlicensed personnel (ULP-E and ULP-F) to include all required content. [...]”

Rule cited: “(b) Unlicensed personnel performing delegated nursing tasks in an assisted living facility must: (1) have successfully completed training and demonstrated competency by successfully completing a written or oral test of the topics in section 144G.61, [...]”

Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure the registered nurse (RN) conducted timely ongoing nursing assessments for one of four residents (R2).

MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to ensure the registered nurse (RN) conducted timely ongoing nursing assessments for one of four residents (R2). [...]”

Rule cited: “(a) Residents who are not receiving any assisted living services shall not be required to undergo an initial nursing assessment. [...]”

Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure a written service plan was revised to reflect the current services provided for one of four residents (R2).

MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee failed to ensure a written service plan was revised to reflect the current services provided for one of four residents (R2). [...]”

Rule cited: “(a) No later than 14 calendar days after the date that services are first provided, an assisted living facility shall finalize a current written service plan. [...]”

Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure two of four residents (R1 and R2) who self-administered medications were assessed for self-administration of medications.

MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee failed to ensure two of four residents (R1 and R2) who self-administered medications were assessed for self-administration of medications. [...]”

Rule cited: “A registered nurse, advanced practice registered nurse, or qualified staff delegated the task by a registered nurse must monitor and reassess the resident's medication management services as needed under subdivision 2 when the resident presents with symptoms [...]”

Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to develop an individualized medication management plan with the required content for four of four residents (R1, R2, R3 and R4).

MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee failed to develop an individualized medication management plan with the required content for four of four residents (R1, R2, R3 and R4). [...]”

Rule cited: “(a) For each resident receiving medication management services, a registered nurse, advanced practice registered nurse, or qualified staff delegated the task by a registered nurse must prepare and include in the service plan a written statement of the [...]”

Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure the registered nurse documented resident-specific instructions for two of five residents (R1 and R3) whose medication administration was delegated to unlicensed personnel (ULP).

MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee failed to ensure the registered nurse documented resident-specific instructions for two of five residents (R1 and R3) whose medication administration was delegated to unlicensed personnel (ULP). [...]”

Rule cited: “When administration of medications is delegated to unlicensed personnel, the assisted living facility must ensure that the registered nurse has: (1) instructed the unlicensed personnel in the proper methods to administer the medications, and the unlicensed [...]”

Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure medications were administered as ordered for one of five residents (R1) who received medication management services.

MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee failed to ensure medications were administered as ordered for one of five residents (R1) who received medication management services. [...]”

Rule cited: “Each medication administered by the assisted living facility staff must be documented in the resident's record. The documentation must include the signature and title of the person who administered the medication. [...]”

Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure documentation of medication set up included all 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 documentation of medication set up included all the required content for one of two residents (R1). [...]”

Rule cited: “Documentation of dates of medication setup, name of medication, quantity of dose, times to be administered, route of administration, and name of person completing medication setup must be done at the time of setup.”

Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure the registered nurse (RN) developed training and competencies for one of two unlicensed personnel (ULP)-F providing medications to residents for unplanned time away from home when the licensed nurse was not available.

MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to ensure the registered nurse (RN) developed training and competencies for one of two unlicensed personnel (ULP)-F providing medications to residents for unplanned time away from home 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 all medications were securely locked in substantially constructed compartments and permitted only authorized personnel to have access.

MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee failed to ensure all medications were securely locked in substantially constructed compartments and permitted only authorized personnel to have access. This had the potential to affect all residents. [...]”

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 ensure time sensitive medications had an opened date for two of two residents (R2 and R6).

MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee failed to ensure time sensitive medications had an opened date for two of two residents (R2 and 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 an isolated scope (when one or a limited number of residents are [...]”

Rule cited: “A prescription drug, prior to being set up for immediate or later administration, must be kept in the original container in which it was dispensed by the pharmacy bearing the original prescription label with legible information including the expiration or [...]”

Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to develop and implement a treatment or therapy management plan to include all required content for one of four residents (R2) with treatments.

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 four residents (R2) with treatments. [...]”

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 treatment or therapies were administered as prescribed, or to document the reason they were not provided, for two of four residents (R2 and R4).

MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee failed to ensure treatment or therapies were administered as prescribed, or to document the reason they were not provided, for two of four residents (R2 and R4). [...]”

Rule cited: “Each treatment or therapy administered by an assisted living facility must be in the resident record. [...]”

Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure up-to-date written or electronically recorded orders were maintained for two of four residents (R1 and R2) receiving treatments.

MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee failed to ensure up-to-date written or electronically recorded orders were maintained for two of four residents (R1 and R2) receiving treatments. [...]”

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 ensure the physical environment of the facility was maintained in compliance with the requirements of Minnesota Statute 144G.

MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee failed to ensure the physical environment of the facility was maintained in compliance with the requirements of Minnesota Statute 144G. [...]”

Rule cited: “An assisted living facility with dementia care must meet the requirements of section 144G.45 and the following additional requirements: (1) an assessment of safety risks must be performed on and around the property. [...]”

Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure one of one unlicensed personnel (ULP)-E administered medication according to policy and accepted standards of practice during insulin administration.

MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee failed to ensure one of one unlicensed personnel (ULP)-E administered medication according to policy and accepted standards of practice during insulin administration. [...]”

Rule cited: “(b) Residents have the right to receive health care and other assisted living services with continuity from people who are properly trained and competent to perform their duties and in sufficient numbers to adequately provide the services agreed to in the [...]”

Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to provide privacy for one of three residents (R6) during insulin administration.

MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee failed to provide privacy for one of three residents (R6) during insulin administration. 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 [...]”

Rule cited: “(a) Residents have the right to consideration of their privacy, individuality, and cultural identity as related to their social, religious, and psychological well-being. [...]”