Inspection Reports for Commonwealth Senior Living at East Paris

The inspection was initiated due to a complaint alleging that Resident A was administered insulin incorrectly on 07/20/2024.

The investigation confirmed that Resident A was administered insulin incorrectly, resulting in a violation. The staff member responsible (SP2) had multiple prior disciplinary issues and was terminated. The facility failed to ensure Resident A's safety by allowing SP2 to continue medication administration without completing required retraining.

The complaint alleged that Resident A received insulin incorrectly on 07/20/2024, with blood glucose low at 38, and insulin should not have been administered. The staff person administering insulin was already under investigation for past behavior. The violation was substantiated.

The inspection was conducted in response to a complaint alleging that Staff Person 1 was physically and verbally aggressive towards a resident on 10/1/24, and that residents were left soiled and their needs unmet consistent with their service plans.

The investigation found no violation regarding physical and verbal aggression by Staff Person 1 towards the resident, as there was insufficient evidence and no injuries observed. The allegation that residents were left soiled was also not substantiated, with observations and interviews indicating residents were adequately groomed and cared for. However, a violation was established for failure to report the incident timely to management, as the incident was not reported to the administrator until approximately two weeks later.

The complaint alleged that Staff Person 1 was physically and verbally aggressive towards Resident A on 10/1/24, including hitting and threatening the resident. It also alleged residents were left soiled and their needs unmet. The investigation did not substantiate the abuse allegations or the care concerns but did find a violation for delayed incident reporting.

The investigation was initiated due to a complaint alleging that Resident D did not receive an updated admission contract after a change of ownership, the facility did not provide Resident D’s responsible persons with her discharge notice, and that staff stopped providing care to Resident D due to her discharge notice.

The investigation established violations that Resident D did not have a signed updated admission contract after ownership change and that the facility failed to provide proper discharge notice to Resident D’s responsible persons. However, the allegation that staff stopped providing care to Resident D was not substantiated.

The complaint alleged Resident D did not receive an updated admission contract after ownership change, the facility failed to provide discharge notice to responsible persons, and staff stopped providing care due to discharge notice. The first two allegations were substantiated; the third was not.

The investigation was initiated due to a complaint received on 03/26/2024 alleging that Resident C was left soiled for a long period of time and missed lunch as a result on 03/24/2024.

The investigation found that Resident C was left sitting in her own urine and feces for several hours despite multiple staff responding to her calls for assistance. Staff did not provide care consistent with Resident C's service plan, resulting in a violation of the rule requiring residents to be treated with dignity and have their personal needs attended to.

The complaint alleged that on 3/24/24, Resident C was left soiled for a long period and missed lunch. The allegation was substantiated. Resident C reported multiple refusals to assist her, including being told staff were too busy and being yelled at. Staff SP1 and SP2 were terminated due to the incident. Resident C was later admitted to a skilled nursing facility and refused to return to the facility. The APS case was closed unsubstantiated due to Resident C not returning.

The inspection was initiated due to a complaint alleging that Resident A's care needs were not met, including issues with hearing aids, incontinence care, and resulting pressure sores.

The investigation found that Resident A's care needs were not fully met, including inadequate documentation of care needs in the service plan and failure to provide consistent assistance with toileting and hearing aids. However, the allegation that Resident A's nutritional needs were not met was not substantiated.

The complaint alleged Resident A's hearing aids were not put in, Resident A was left covered in feces and urine resulting in a pressure sore, and was found on the floor soaked in urine. The complaint was substantiated for care needs not met but not substantiated for nutritional needs.

The inspection was conducted as a renewal inspection to determine compliance with applicable licensing statutes and rules for Commonwealth Senior Living at East Paris.

The facility was found to be in substantial compliance with the public health code and administrative rules regulating home for the aged facilities. Upon receipt of the annual renewal fee, issuance of a regular license is recommended.

The inspection was conducted as part of the original licensing study for Commonwealth Senior Living at East Paris to determine compliance with applicable licensing statutes and administrative rules for a home for the aged facility.

The facility was found to be in substantial compliance with licensing requirements, including physical plant, fire safety, and programmatic standards. A temporary 6-month license with a capacity of 90 beds was recommended. Minor issues such as a non-functioning exhaust vent were promptly corrected during the inspection.