Birchview Gardens Assisted Liv

Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to execute a written assisted living contract with the required content for five of five residents (R1, R2, R3, R6, R10).

MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to execute a written assisted living contract with the required content for five of five residents (R1, R2, R3, R6, R10). [...]”

Rule cited: “(c) The contract must include: (1) a disclosure of the category of assisted living facility license held by the facility and, if the facility is not an assisted living facility with dementia care, a disclosure that it does not hold an assisted living facility [...]”

Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to execute a written assisted living contract with the required content for five of five residents (R1, R2, R3, R6, R10).

MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to execute a written assisted living contract with the required content for five of five residents (R1, R2, R3, R6, R10). [...]”

Rule cited: “(d) The contract must include a description of the facility's complaint resolution process available to residents, including the name and contact information of the person representing the facility who is designated to handle and resolve complaints. [...]”

Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to execute a written assisted living contract with the required content for five of five residents (R1, R2, R3, R6, R10).

MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to execute a written assisted living contract with the required content for five of five residents (R1, R2, R3, R6, R10). [...]”

Rule cited: “(5) a description of the facility's policies related to medical assistance waivers under chapter 256S and section 256B.49 and the housing support program under chapter 256I, including: (i) whether the facility is enrolled with the commissioner of human [...]”

Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to offer the resident the opportunity

MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to offer the resident the opportunity to identify a designated representative in writing with the required statutory language for five of five residents (R1, R2, R3, R6, R10) with records reviewed. [...]”

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 ensure the assisted living agreement did not include language waiving the facility's liability for health, safety, or personal property of a resident.

MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to ensure the assisted living agreement did not include language waiving the facility's liability for health, safety, or personal property of a resident. This had the potential to affect all residents. [...]”

Rule cited: “The contract must not include a waiver of facility liability for the health and safety or personal property of a resident. [...]”

Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to conduct a comprehensive reassessment for one of one resident (R10) with a change in condition.

MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to conduct a comprehensive reassessment for one of one resident (R10) with a change in condition. 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 [...]”

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 a written service plan was revised to reflect the current services provided for one of three residents (R10).

MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to ensure a written service plan was revised to reflect the current services provided for one of three residents (R10). [...]”

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 staff administered scheduled medications as ordered for two of two residents (R9, R18).

MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to ensure staff administered scheduled medications as ordered for two of two residents (R9, R18). 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 [...]”

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. [...]”

MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, licensee failed to date time-sensitive medications with an opened-on date for two of two residents (R9, R18). 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, [...]”

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 provide a hazard vulnerability or safety risk assessment of the physical environment with mitigation factors.

MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on document review and interview, the licensee failed to provide a hazard vulnerability or safety risk assessment of the physical environment with mitigation factors. This had the potential to directly affect all residents and staff. [...]”

Rule cited: “An assisted living facility with dementia care that has a secured dementia care unit must meet the requirements of section 144G.45 and the following additional requirements: (1) a hazard vulnerability assessment or safety risk must be performed on and around [...]”

MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to ensure the required dementia care policies and procedures were provided to each resident and/or the resident's legal and designated representatives for three of three residents (R3, R12, R16). [...]”

Rule cited: “(a) In addition to the policies and procedures required in the licensing of all facilities, the assisted living facility with dementia care licensee must develop and implement policies and procedures that address the: (1) philosophy of how services are [...]”

Summary: MDH found the licensee included within the residency agreement contract language which limited the rights of five of five residents (R1, R2, R3, R6, R14).

MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee included within the residency agreement contract language which limited the rights of five of five residents (R1, R2, R3, R6, R14). This had the potential to affect all residents and visitors. [...]”

Rule cited: “The rights established under this section for the benefit of residents do not limit any other rights available under law. [...]”

Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure infection control standards were followed for one of one unlicensed personnel (ULP)-D during personal cares.

MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee failed to ensure infection control standards were followed for one of one unlicensed personnel (ULP)-D during personal cares. [...]”

Rule cited: “(a) All assisted living facilities must establish and maintain an infection control program that complies with accepted health care, medical, and nursing standards for infection control. [...]”

Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to post the required information related to the grievance procedure.

MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation and interview, the licensee failed to post the required information related to the grievance procedure. This had the potential to affect all current residents, staff, and visitors. [...]”

Rule cited: “All facilities must post in a conspicuous place information about the facilities' grievance procedure, and the name, telephone number, and e-mail contact information for the individuals who are responsible for handling resident grievances. [...]”

Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure an individual abuse prevention plan (IAPP) was developed to include the required content for three of four residents (R10, R1, R3).

MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee failed to ensure an individual abuse prevention plan (IAPP) was developed to include the required content for three of four residents (R10, R1, R3). [...]”

Rule cited: “(b) The facility must develop and implement an individual abuse prevention plan for each vulnerable adult. [...]”

MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation and interview, the licensee failed to post the reporting number for the Minnesota Adult Abuse Reporting Center (MAARC) to report suspected maltreatment of a vulnerable adult under section 626.557. [...]”

Rule cited: “The facility shall support protection and safety through access to the state's systems for reporting suspected criminal activity and suspected vulnerable adult maltreatment by: (1) posting the 911 emergency number in common areas and near telephones provided [...]”

Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to have a written emergency preparedness plan with all the required content and failed to prominently post an emergency disaster plan.

MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee failed to have a written emergency preparedness plan with all the required content and failed to prominently post an emergency disaster plan. This had the potential to affect all residents receiving services under the assisted living with dementia care license, staff, and visitors. [...]”

Rule cited: “(a) The facility must meet the following requirements: (1) have a written emergency disaster plan that contains a plan for evacuation, addresses elements of sheltering in place, identifies temporary relocation sites, and details staff assignments in the event [...]”

Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to provide smoke alarms that complied with fire protection requirements.

MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation and interview, the licensee failed to provide smoke alarms that complied with fire protection requirements. This had the potential to directly affect all residents and staff. [...]”

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 maintain the portable fire extinguishers.

MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation and interview, the licensee failed to maintain the portable fire extinguishers. This had the potential to directly affect all residents and staff. 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) and was issued at a widespread scope (when problems are pervasive or represent a systemic failure that has affected or has the potential to affect a large [...]”

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 and staff. [...]”

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 provide the required training and

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

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

Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to execute a written contract with the required content for five of five residents (R1, R2, R3, R6, R10).

MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to execute a written contract with the required content for five of five residents (R1, R2, R3, R6, R10). 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 a widespread scope (when problems are pervasive or represent a systemic failure that has affected or has potential to affect a large portion or [...]”

Rule cited: “(a) The contract must include in a conspicuous place and manner on the contract the legal name and the license number of the facility. [...]”

Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to execute a written assisted living contract with the required content for five of five residents (R1, R2, R3, R6, R10).

MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to execute a written assisted living contract with the required content for five of five residents (R1, R2, R3, R6, R10). [...]”

Rule cited: “(c) The contract must include: (1) a disclosure of the category of assisted living facility license held by the facility and, if the facility is not an assisted living facility with dementia care, a disclosure that it does not hold an assisted living facility [...]”

Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to execute a written assisted living contract with the required content for five of five residents (R1, R2, R3, R6, R10).

MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to execute a written assisted living contract with the required content for five of five residents (R1, R2, R3, R6, R10). [...]”

Rule cited: “(d) The contract must include a description of the facility's complaint resolution process available to residents, including the name and contact information of the person representing the facility who is designated to handle and resolve complaints. [...]”

Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to execute a written assisted living contract with the required content for five of five residents (R1, R2, R3, R6, R10).

MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to execute a written assisted living contract with the required content for five of five residents (R1, R2, R3, R6, R10). [...]”

Rule cited: “(5) a description of the facility's policies related to medical assistance waivers under chapter 256S and section 256B.49 and the housing support program under chapter 256I, including: (i) whether the facility is enrolled with the commissioner of human [...]”

Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to offer the resident the opportunity

MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to offer the resident the opportunity to identify a designated representative in writing with the required statutory language for five of five residents (R1, R2, R3, R6, R10) with records reviewed. [...]”

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 ensure the assisted living agreement did not include language waiving the facility's liability for health, safety, or personal property of a resident.

MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to ensure the assisted living agreement did not include language waiving the facility's liability for health, safety, or personal property of a resident. This had the potential to affect all residents. [...]”

Rule cited: “The contract must not include a waiver of facility liability for the health and safety or personal property of a resident. [...]”

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

MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee failed to ensure a background study was submitted and a clearance received in affiliation with the assisted living with dementia care license for two of four employees (unlicensed personnel ULP-G, ULP-H.) This practice resulted in a level three violation (a violation that harmed a resident's health or safety, not including serious injury, impairment, or death, or a violation that has the potential to lead to serious injury, [...]”

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 provide staff orientation to assisted living licensing requirements and regulations for one of one employee (clinical

MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to provide staff orientation to assisted living licensing requirements and regulations for one of one employee (clinical nurse supervisor (CNS)-B). [...]”

Rule cited: “All staff providing and supervising direct services must complete an orientation to assisted living facility licensing requirements and regulations before providing assisted living services to residents. [...]”

Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure orientation to assisted living statutes including required content was completed for two of three employees (unlicensed personnel (ULP)- D, ULP-G) with records reviewed.

MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee failed to ensure orientation to assisted living statutes including required content was completed for two of three employees (unlicensed personnel (ULP)- D, ULP-G) with records reviewed. [...]”

Rule cited: “(a) The orientation must contain the following topics: (1) an overview of this chapter; (2) an introduction and review of the facility's policies and procedures related to the provision of assisted living services by the individual staff person; (3) handling [...]”

Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure two of four employees (clinical nurse supervisor (CNS)-B, unlicensed personnel (ULP)-E) received the required amount of dementia care training, in the required time frame and failed to ensure they received the required two hours of annual dementia training.

MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee failed to ensure two of four employees (clinical nurse supervisor (CNS)-B, unlicensed personnel (ULP)-E) received the required amount of dementia care training, in the required time frame and failed to ensure they received the required two hours of annual dementia 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 employees that did not provide direct care, received at least four hours of initial training on dementia care within 160 working hours of the employment start date, for one of three employees (cook assistant (CA)-M).

MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee failed to ensure employees that did not provide direct care, received at least four hours of initial training on dementia care within 160 working hours of the employment start date, for one of three employees (cook assistant (CA)-M). In addition, the licensee failed to ensure CA-M received two hours of annual dementia training. [...]”

Rule cited: “(4) staff who do not provide direct care, including maintenance, housekeeping, and food service staff, must have at least four hours of initial training on topics specified under paragraph (b) within 160 working hours of the employment start date, and must [...]”

Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure the registered nurse (RN) completed a comprehensive reassessment to include an assessment of current smoking status for four of four residents (R8, R3, R10, R2).

MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee failed to ensure the registered nurse (RN) completed a comprehensive reassessment to include an assessment of current smoking status for four of four residents (R8, R3, R10, R2). Additionally, the licensee failed to conduct a comprehensive reassessment for one of five residents (R1) with a change in condition. [...]”

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 a written service plan was revised to reflect the current services provided for four of four residents (R12, R1, R3, R10).

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 four of four residents (R12, R1, R3, R10). [...]”

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 have available as needed (PRN) Narcan (medication is used for the emergency treatment of known or suspected opioid overdose) for two of two residents (R10, R1) who were at risk for opioid overdose.

MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee failed to have available as needed (PRN) Narcan (medication is used for the emergency treatment of known or suspected opioid overdose) for two of two residents (R10, R1) who were at risk for opioid overdose. [...]”

Rule cited: “(a) For each resident receiving medication management services, the assisted living facility must prepare and include in the service plan a written statement of the medication management services that will be provided to the resident. [...]”

Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure the registered nurse (RN) documented resident-specific instructions for standing order medications for six of six residents (R6, R1, R3, R8, R15, R16) whose medication administration was delegated to unlicensed personnel.

MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee failed to ensure the registered nurse (RN) documented resident-specific instructions for standing order medications for six of six residents (R6, R1, R3, R8, R15, R16) whose medication administration was delegated to unlicensed personnel. [...]”

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 staff administered scheduled medications as ordered for two of five residents (R6, R1) and as needed (PRN) for two of five residents (R8, R6).

MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee failed to ensure staff administered scheduled medications as ordered for two of five residents (R6, R1) and as needed (PRN) for two of five residents (R8, R6). In addition, the licensee failed to ensure the steps of the medication administration process were followed for one of two employees, (unlicensed personnel (ULP)-G) observed during medication administration. [...]”

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 setup included all the required content for two of two residents (R12, R16).

MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee failed to ensure documentation of medication setup included all the required content for two of two residents (R12, R16). [...]”

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 medication was secured in a manner to that would permit only authorize personnel to have access for one of five residents (R1).

MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee failed to ensure medication was secured in a manner to that would permit only authorize personnel to have access for one of five residents (R1). [...]”

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 date time-sensitive medications with an opened or expiration date for five of five residents (R1, R7, R9, R11, R13).

MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee failed to date time-sensitive medications with an opened or expiration date for five of five residents (R1, R7, R9, R11, R13). In addition, the licensee failed to monitor for expired medication for one of one resident (R1). [...]”

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 individual treatment management plans with all required content for three of five residents (R1, R3, R6)

MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee failed to develop individual treatment management plans with all required content for three of five residents (R1, R3, R6) who received ordered 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 prior to delegating nursing tasks, the registered nurse (RN) trained unlicensed personnel (ULP) to demonstrate the ability to follow the procedure to perform the tasks for two of two employees (ULP-D, ULP-G) assisting with R1's incentive spirometer.

MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee failed to ensure prior to delegating nursing tasks, the registered nurse (RN) trained unlicensed personnel (ULP) to demonstrate the ability to follow the procedure to perform the tasks for two of two employees (ULP-D, ULP-G) assisting with R1's incentive spirometer. [...]”

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 treatments or therapies were administered as prescribed for one of three residents (R1) with oxygen administration.

MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee failed to ensure treatments or therapies were administered as prescribed for one of three residents (R1) with oxygen administration. [...]”

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 provide a hazard vulnerability or safety risk assessment on and around the property.

MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on document review and interview, the licensee failed to provide a hazard vulnerability or safety risk assessment on and around the property. This had the potential to directly affect all residents and staff. [...]”

Rule cited: “An assisted living facility with dementia care that has a secured dementia care unit must meet the requirements of section 144G.45 and the following additional requirements: (1) a hazard vulnerability assessment or safety risk must be performed on and around [...]”

Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to develop and implement all required policies and procedures related to dementia care.

MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to develop and implement all required policies and procedures related to dementia care. In addition, the licensee failed to ensure the required dementia care policies and procedures were provided to each resident and/or the resident's legal and designated representatives for three of three residents (R3, R12, R16). [...]”

Rule cited: “(a) In addition to the policies and procedures required in the licensing of all facilities, the assisted living facility with dementia care licensee must develop and implement policies and procedures that address the: (1) philosophy of how services are [...]”

Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to designate a qualified person to oversee staff training in the care of individuals with dementia.

MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to designate a qualified person to oversee staff training in the care of individuals with dementia. This had the potential to affect all residents, staff, and visitors. [...]”

Rule cited: “Persons providing or overseeing staff training must have experience and knowledge in the care of individuals with dementia, including: (1) two years of work experience related to Alzheimer's disease or other dementias, or in health care, gerontology, or [...]”

Summary: MDH found the licensee included within the residency agreement contract language which limited the rights of five of five residents (R1, R2, R3, R6, R14).

MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee included within the residency agreement contract language which limited the rights of five of five residents (R1, R2, R3, R6, R14). This had the potential to affect all residents and visitors. [...]”

Rule cited: “The rights established under this section for the benefit of residents do not limit any other rights available under law. [...]”

Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure the care and services were provided according to acceptable health care and medical, or nursing standards for four of four residents (R8, R10, R14, R15) with hospital-style bed rails.

MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee failed to ensure the care and services were provided according to acceptable health care and medical, or nursing standards for four of four residents (R8, R10, R14, R15) with hospital-style bed rails. In addition, 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 storage of oxygen. [...]”

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 ensure a required notice was posted at the main entry way of the facility to display statutory language to disclose electronic monitoring activity.

MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation and interview, the licensee failed to ensure a required notice was posted at the main entry way of the facility to display statutory language to disclose electronic monitoring activity. This had the potential to affect all current residents, staff, and visitors to the facility. [...]”

Rule cited: “Subd. 8.Notice to visitors. (a) A facility must post a sign at each facility entrance accessible to visitors that states: "Electronic monitoring devices, including security cameras and audio devices, may be present to record persons and activities." (b) The [...]”