Prairie Senior Cottages of Isa

Summary: MDH found the licensee failed to maintain the physical environment of the facility in a continuous state of good repair and operation.

MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation and interview, the licensee failed to maintain the physical environment of the facility in a continuous state of good repair and operation. This has the potential to directly affect the health, safety, and well-being of 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 minimum required training of staff on fire safety and evacuation and the minimum required evacuation drills.

MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, record review, and interview, the licensee failed to provide the minimum required training of staff on fire safety and evacuation and the minimum required evacuation drills. This has the potential to directly affect the safety of staff, visitors, and all residents receiving care. [...]”

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 all required content for one of one resident (R8).

MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee failed to ensure the assisted living contract included all required content for one of one resident (R8). This had the potential to affect all residents who received assisted living services. [...]”

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 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 (R15).

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 (R15). [...]”

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 service plans were updated for one of three residents (R14).

MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview and record review, the licensee failed to ensure service plans were updated for one of three residents (R14). 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 limited [...]”

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 four of four residents (R9, R10, R5, R7) medications were stored according to manufacturer's recommended temperatures and failed to ensure the medication refrigerators maintained an acceptable temperature.

MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee failed to ensure four of four residents (R9, R10, R5, R7) medications were stored according to manufacturer's recommended temperatures and failed to ensure the medication refrigerators maintained an acceptable temperature. [...]”

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 monitor for expired medications in the licensee's resident medications for one of one resident (R2).

MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation and interview, the licensee failed to monitor for expired medications in the licensee's resident medications for one of one resident (R2). 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 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 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 ensure treatments

MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview and record review, the licensee failed to ensure treatments were administered as prescribed, or to document the reason they were not provided to meet the resident's needs for two of three residents (R8, R14) with treatments managed by the provider. [...]”

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 complete facility hazard vulnerability or safety risk assessment plan to identify hazard vulnerabilities and mitigations on and around the property to protect the memory care residents from harm.

MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, document review, and interview, the licensee failed to provide a complete facility hazard vulnerability or safety risk assessment plan to identify hazard vulnerabilities and mitigations on and around the property to protect the memory care residents from harm. This has the potential to directly affect all memory care residents receiving assisted living services. [...]”

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 ensure the care and services were appropriate based on the needs of residents who resided in the facility with regards to safely storing chemicals and sharp objects.

MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview and record review, the licensee failed to ensure the care and services were appropriate based on the needs of residents who resided in the facility with regards to safely storing chemicals and sharp objects. This had the potential to affect all 37 residents, staff, and visitors. [...]”

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 facility failed to ensure one of one resident (R2) was treated with dignity and respect when unlicensed personnel (ULP)-J provided medication management services in a nonprivate area.

MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure one of one resident (R2) was treated with dignity and respect when unlicensed personnel (ULP)-J provided medication management services in a nonprivate area. [...]”

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. [...]”

MDH’s finding, as written: “Based on observation, interview, and record review, the licensee failed to submit a report to the Minnesota Adult Abuse Reporting Center (MAARC) for one of one resident (R3) who eloped and had incidents of resident-to-resident altercations. [...]”

Rule cited: “(a) A mandated reporter who has reason to believe that a vulnerable adult is being or has been maltreated, or who has knowledge that a vulnerable adult has sustained a physical injury which is not reasonably explained shall immediately report the information [...]”