Mankato Lodge Senior Living

Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to provide the required documentation of employee and resident procedures and actions to take when there is a fire or evacuation emergency.

MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on a record review and interview, the licensee failed to provide the required documentation of employee and resident procedures and actions to take when there is a fire or evacuation emergency. This had the potential to affect all staff, residents, 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 ensure the assisted living contract included the designation of representative statutory language for three of three residents (R2, R3, R1).

MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to ensure the assisted living contract included the designation of representative statutory language for three of three residents (R2, R3, R1). [...]”

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 contract did not include language waiving the licensee's liability for health, safety, or personal

MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to ensure the assisted living contract did not include language waiving the licensee'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 the resident agreement arbitration requirement did not include a choice of venue provision.

MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to ensure the resident agreement arbitration requirement did not include a choice of venue provision. This practice resulted in a level one violation 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 portion or all of the residents). [...]”

Rule cited: “(a) An assisted living facility must clearly and conspicuously disclose, in writing in an assisted living contract, any arbitration provision in the contract that precludes, limits, or delays the ability of a resident from taking a civil action. [...]”

Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to provide a written notice with the required content for an emergency relocation and failed to notify the Office of Ombudsman for Long-Term Care of the emergency relocation when the residents had not returned to the facility within four days for two of two residents (R2, R1).

MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to provide a written notice with the required content for an emergency relocation and failed to notify the Office of Ombudsman for Long-Term Care of the emergency relocation when the residents had not returned to the facility within four days for two of two residents (R2, R1). [...]”

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 had been completed prior to providing services for two of five employees (unlicensed personnel (ULP)-C and ULP-E).

MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee failed to ensure a background study had been completed prior to providing services for two of five employees (unlicensed personnel (ULP)-C and ULP-E). This had the potential to affect all residents living within the facility. This resulted in an immediate correction order on April 5, at 4:25 p.m. [...]”

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 direct supervision of two of two unlicensed personnel (ULP-C and ULP-D) performing delegated tasks was provided within 30 calendar days after the date on which the individuals began working for the licensee.

MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee failed to ensure direct supervision of two of two unlicensed personnel (ULP-C and ULP-D) performing delegated tasks was provided within 30 calendar days after the date on which the individuals began working for the licensee. [...]”

Rule cited: “(a) Staff who perform delegated nursing or therapy tasks must be supervised by an appropriate licensed health professional or a registered nurse according to the assisted living facility's policy where the services are being provided to verify that the work [...]”

Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to ensure one of two employees (unlicensed personnel (ULP)-C) received the required amount of dementia care training in the required time frame.

MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to ensure one of two employees (unlicensed personnel (ULP)-C) received the required amount of dementia care training in the required time frame. [...]”

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 resident service plans included all the required content for three of three residents (R1, R2, R3).

MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee failed to ensure resident service plans included all the required content for three of three residents (R1, R2, R3). [...]”

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 medications were administered as ordered for 1 of 3 residents (R3).

MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee failed to ensure medications were administered as ordered for 1 of 3 residents (R3). 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: “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 time sensitive medications had an opened date for 1 of 1 resident (R1).

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 1 of 1 resident (R1). The findings include: R1's diagnoses included diabetes. R1's Individual Service Plan dated March 29, 2023, indicated R1 received medication administration. On April 4, 2023, at 7:30 a.m. ULP-C was observed setting up medication to administer for 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 document in the resident's record the disposition of the medication including the medication's prescription number as applicable, for one of one discharged resident (R4).

MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on interview and record review, the licensee failed to document in the resident's record the disposition of the medication including the medication's prescription number as applicable, for one of one discharged resident (R4). [...]”

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 ensure care and services were provided according to acceptable health care and medical or nursing standards for two of two residents (R3, R5) with side rails.

MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee failed to ensure care and services were provided according to acceptable health care and medical or nursing standards for two of two residents (R3, R5) with side rails. This resulted in an immediate correction order on April 3, 2023, at approximately 1:45 p.m. [...]”

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.”