Duluth Minnesota Nursing Home Abuse Lawyer

Duluth Minnesota Nursing Home Abuse LawyerIn recent decades, the numbers of cases involving nursing home abuse and neglect have risen at an alarming rate throughout Minnesota and across the United States. One factor associated with this unacceptable rise is the increased demand for the need of professional care and nursing homes, long-term care centers and rehabilitation facilities throughout the state. The Duluth nursing home neglect attorneys at Rosenfeld Injury Lawyers LLC have handled many cases whether the vulnerable victim was abused or neglected by unqualified or untrained staff.

Families no longer have the ability to provide loving care to an elderly spouse, parent or grandparent, they are often left with the only remaining option to place them in a nursing facility. Moving them into a nursing home is built on the expectation that a skilled nursing staff will provide a higher level of care. Unfortunately, many vulnerable elderly citizens are abused or neglected at the hands of their caregivers.

The incident rate of abuse and neglect in nursing facilities has risen significantly in recent years and is likely to rise even higher in the future because the aging population is living longer than ever before. This is a significant issue to the more than 34,000 senior citizens living among nearly 200,000 St. Louis County residents. Without the proper oversight, supervision and management, many living in nursing facilities will be subjected to abuse, neglect, mistreatment, a loss of trust/dignity and quite possibly wrongful death.

Duluth Nursing Home Resident Health Concerns

Our Duluth elder abuse attorneys remain dedicated to protecting the dignity and rights of Minnesota’s most vulnerable residents and their family members. To assist, our team of personal injury attorneys continuously review opened investigations, safety hazards, health violations and filed complaints against many nursing facilities throughout the state. We gather this information from various national and state resources including the federal website Medicare.gov.

Comparing Duluth Area Nursing Facilities

Our Minnesota nursing home neglect attorneys have compiled the list published below that outlines every Duluth area nursing facility currently maintaining substandard ratings compared other nursing homes nationwide. In addition, our law firm has published our primary concerns by listing specific cases at each facility below that is led to the harm, injury or death of residents. Many of these cases could involve a spread of infection, substandard care, physical assault by caregivers and other residents, medication errors, accidental falls or another serious factor that caused the resident harm.

Contact Us

BAYSHORE RESIDENCE and rehabilitation center
1601 St Louis Avenue
Duluth, Minnesota 55802
(218) 727-8651
A “For-Profit” 139-certified bed Medicaid/Medicare-participating facility
Overall Rating – 1 out of 5 possible stars

1 star rating

Primary Concerns –

Failure to Report and Investigate Any Act or Alleged Act of Abuse, Neglect or Mistreatment of Residents

In a summary statement of deficiencies dated 10/22/2015, a complaint investigation was opened against the facility for its failure to “immediately report to the Administrator and to the State Agency (SA) alleged violations of neglect for [2 residents at the facility] review for significant medication errors that needed medical care.”

The complaint investigation handled by state surveyor involved a significant medical error first noted by the facility on 09/23/2015 in a facility Incident Report. The report “noted the error was reported to the Director of Nursing [on the same day] but was not reported to the State Agency (SA) until [2 days later on] 09/25/2015.”

The state surveyor reviewed the resident’s 09/23/2015 Medication Error Report indicating the resident was not administered “nine doses of medication over five days” in accordance with the physician’s order after a visit to the hospital emergency room. While the Director of Nursing was notified at 12:00 PM on 09/23/2015 (on the day of the incident) there is no record of the Administrator of the facility was notified.

The state agency did not receive notification of the incident until 09/25/2015. The incident was noted in the facility’s Progress Notes indicating that the resident had several falls after a change in mental status and needed to be seen in the emergency room on 09/20/2015. At that time, the resident was hospitalized.

However, the 10/03/2015 Medication Air Incident Report indicated that the resident was not administered an anticoagulant medication [in accordance with physician’s orders] “at the time he returned to the facility from the hospital.” The resident had been sent to the hospital emergency room “to evaluate the effects of missing medications” after the results of a lab report were reviewed.

The initial error in failing to administer the medication was first discovered on 10/03/2015 when it was reported to the facility’s Director of Nursing at 3:00 PM. However, the State Agency was not notified until 10/06/2015, and there is no indication that the facility Administrator was ever notified.

The state investigator conducted a 10/12/2015 1:15 PM interview with the facility’s Director of Nursing who indicated “that medication errors were reportable if they were serious and required medical care, and there was no reason given for not reporting immediately to the State Agency.”

Our Duluth nursing home neglect attorneys recognize a failing to follow procedures and protocols by reporting and investigating any alleged act of neglect, abuse or mistreatment could cause additional harm or injury to the resident. The deficient practice by the nursing staff at Bayshore Residence and Rehabilitation Center might be considered negligence or mistreatment because their actions failed to follow the facility’s policy title: abuse prevention plan that reads in part:

“The Director of Nursing is a designated Administrator when the Administrator is absent from the building, and the facility professional that received the report of maltreatment is responsible for immediately notifying the Administrator and the State Agency.”

AFTENRO HOME
510 West College Street
Duluth, Minnesota 55811
(218) 728-6600
A “Not for Profit” -certified bed Medicaid/Medicare-participating facility
Overall Rating – 2 out of 5 possible stars

2 stars rating

Primary Concerns –

Failure to Ensure That Residents Entering the Nursing Facility Receive Proper Services and Care to Prevent Urinary Tract Infections and Restore Normal Bladder Function

In a summary statement of deficiencies dated 01/30/2015, a notation was made during an annual licensure and certification survey by a state investigator concerning the facility’s failure to “ensure bladder incontinence had been comprehensively assessed for [a resident at the facility with] urinary incontinence.”

The deficient practice was noted by state surveyor reviewed a resident’s Admission MDS (Minimum Data Set) and quarterly MDS (Minimum Data Set) that both identified that the resident “required the extensive assistance of two persons for toilet use and was frequently incontinent of urine but not on a current toileting program.”

The state investigator also reviewed the resident’s Bowel and Bladder Three Day Voiding Diary that documents information gathered between 05/15/2014 and 05/17/2014, “which clearly identify [the resident] was incontinent more frequently than every two hours in the evening hours from 6:00 PM through 12 o’clock midnight. However, an analysis of the voiding diary was not complete as the area was left blank.”

A review of the resident’s 04/23/2014 CCA (Care Area Assessment) “indicated she had urinary dribbling for years and wore incontinence products changing it about seven times a day. In addition, the completed 06/18/2014 Comprehensive Bladder Assessment indicated that the resident “had frequent incontinence and had been incontinent for years. The assessment identified that the resident “hang up soiled incontinence pads to dry and have this inappropriate behavior prior to admission. The assessment concluded that [the resident] would be reminded to toilet and change brief every two hours.”

However, state investigator noted that the “assessment failed to identify the type of urinary incontinence and potential causal factors and interventions implemented to minimize identifiable casual factors.”

The surveyor also noted at 6:15 PM on 01/26/2015 that the resident “had a very strong urine odor in her room. However, [the resident] had no signs of incontinence and there are no soiled briefs in a room. Multiple attempts for further observation and interview were made.” However, the resident “remained in her room with the door locked, refusing to answer or not.”

At 11:42 AM 01/28/2015 interview was conducted by the state investigator involving the nursing assistant providing the resident care in the resident’s room who confirmed that the resident’s “room smelled of urine [and] that she did not know where the order was coming from but it was a strong urine smell.”

The surveyor also interviewed a Registered Nurse providing the resident care at 12:00 PM who stated that the resident “has a problem with incontinence and has been using multiple pads and stashing them under bed covers and in the bed side table to dry.” The Registered Nurse also confirmed that the resident’s “Care Plan did not match the analysis of the comprehensive bladder assessment. The Care Plan identified that [the resident] was independent with toileting activities and the comprehensive bladder assessment identified that [the resident] was to be assisted to the toilet and have the incontinent pad changed every two hours.”

The Registered Nurse also confirmed that “the three-day voiding diary had not been completed appropriately because there had been no analysis of [the resident’s] voiding pattern [and] further agreed the Comprehensive Bladder Assessment had not identified the type of urinary incontinence casual factors and interventions implemented to minimize identifiable casual factors.”

The state investigator interviewed the facility’s Director of Nursing at 9:36 AM the following morning on 01/29/2015 who “confirm the smell of urine in [the resident’s] room was so strong it made her eyes burn. She also confirmed [that the resident] had not been appropriately assessed for bladder incontinence.”

Our Duluth elder abuse attorneys recognize it failing to provide proper care to residents with urinary incontinence could place their health and well-being in jeopardy. The deficient practice by the nursing staff at Aftenro Home might be considered negligence or mistreatment because the actions of the nursing staff failed to follow established procedures and protocols enforced by federal and state nursing home regulations.

CHRIS JENSEN HEALTH and REHABILITATION CENTER
2501 Rice Lake Road
Duluth, Minnesota 55811
(218) 625-6400
A “For-Profit” 170-certified bed Medicaid/Medicare-participating facility
Overall Rating – 1 out of 5 possible stars

1 star rating

Primary Concerns –

Failure to Notify the Resident, Resident’s Doctor and Family Members of Any Change in the Resident’s Condition Including a Decline in Health or Injury

In a summary statement of deficiencies dated 05/29/2015, a complaint investigation was opened against the facility for its failure to “notify the resident’s legal representative when there was a significant change in the resident’s condition.” The deficient practice by the nursing staff at Chris Jensen Health and Rehabilitation Center involved one resident “who experienced a change in condition, but his family was not informed of the change.”

The state investigator handling the complaint review the resident’s POLST (Provider Orders for Life Sustaining Treatment) indicating that the “resident’s stated wishes included comfort care, if possible do not transport to the emergency room when the patient can be comfortable at the residence.”

The state investigator interviewed a facility Registered Nurse providing care to the resident who stated that “the resident developed a condition change, was shaking, had an oxygen saturation of 75% (normal is above 90%) and crackles in his lungs.” Upon observation, the Registered Nurse “started oxygen gave the resident a nebulizer treatment and is oxygen saturation rose to about 85%.” The Registered Nurse then stated that “he called the resident’s doctor who ordered [ a medication for the resident including] an antibiotic, but because of the POLST orders, the physician did not send the resident to the hospital.”

The Registered Nurse also stated that “although the resident’s family contact was listed on the medical record, he did not call the resident’s family member because of the lateness of the hour.”

The investigator also conducted an interview with another Registered Nurse who provided the resident care who stated “the resident was scheduled for transfer to another facility [… however] when she assessed the resident [that] morning, she was concerned about his condition and if he would survive the transfer.”

That Registered Nurse also indicated that “although she called the receiving facility to inform them of the resident’s deteriorating condition, no one called the resident’s family to inform them of the condition change.”

Investigator interviewed a family member of the resident who stated “no one from the facility called him when the resident developed a change in condition. The family member stated he was not informed of the resident’s change in condition until after the resident was transferred to another facility [and] the other facility called to tell him the resident was doing very poorly.” The family member “stated the resident died the next day.” The state investigator reviewed the resident’s death certificate which revealed the date of the resident’s death and “the cause of death was listed as complications of a right femur fracture.”

Our Duluth Minnesota nursing home neglect lawyers recognize that failing to notify family members of any change of the resident’s condition violates state and federal regulations. The deficient practice by the nursing staff and administrator at Chris Jensen Health and Rehabilitation Center might be considered negligence or mistreatment because their actions fail to follow the facility’s policy titled: Notification to Physician/Family of Change in Resident Health Status that reads in part:

“The facility will consult with the resident’s physician, nurse practitioner or physician’s assistant and if known, notify the resident’s legal representative or interested family member when there is: Acute illness or a significant change in the resident’s physical, mental or psychosocial status (i.e., deterioration health, mental, or psychosocial status in either life-threatening conditions or clinical complications).”

Contact Us

VIEWCREST HEALTH CENTER
3111 Church Street
Duluth, Minnesota 55811
(218) 727-8801
A “Not for Profit” 92-certified bed Medicaid/Medicare-participating facility
Overall Rating – 2 out of 5 possible stars

2 stars rating

Primary Concerns –

Failure to Follow Procedures and Protocols When Providing Care to a Resident Suffering from Pressure Sores

In a summary statement of deficiencies dated 05/01/2015, a state surveyor made a notation during an annual licensure and certification survey concerning the facility’s failure to “ensure repositioning was provided to decrease the risk of development of pressure ulcers.” The deficient practice by the nursing staff at Viewcrest Health Center affected one resident “reviewed for pressure ulcers.”

The deficient practice was noted by state investigator noted that the resident “was not repositioned to relieve pressure from a sitting position during continuous observations on 04/29/2015 from 8:08 AM until 11:59 AM.” In addition, the 02/19/2015 Certified Nurse Practitioner Visit Note indicates that the resident “had impaired mobility and ADLs (activities of daily living) and required total assistance for dressing, toileting, bathing and transfers.”

The state investigator also reviewed the resident’s Quarterly MDS that reveals that the resident “had a short-term memory deficit and severely impaired decision-making ability [and] required the total assistance of two staff with bed mobility and transfers [and] was at risk for skin breakdown.”

A review of the resident’s 03/23/2015 Quarterly Assessment MDS (Minimum Data Set) in the facility’s Progress Notes reveal that the resident “was unable to move self in bed required total assistance.” In addition, the addendum to the 03/24/2015 Progress Note indicates that the resident “was dependent on staff for all cares.”

The investigator also reviewed the undated Nursing Assistant Care Guide that indicated that the resident “required extensive assistance for 1-2 staff or ADL (activities of daily living), 1-2 for repositioning and directed staff to reposition [the resident] in the wheelchair and in bed every three hours. The care guide directed staff to provide toileting cares every two hours.”

A review of the resident’s 03/18/2015 Tissue Tolerance Repositioning Observation test “(used to determine how long a resident can tolerate sitting or lying in one position without pressure relief and without adverse effects)” indicates that the resident “had redness on his coccyx (tailbone) after three hours of lying and it was determined [the resident] required repositioning every two hours. The observation for sitting dated 03/19/2015, indicate [that the resident] was to be repositioned every two hours.”

The survey noted that in a 05/01/2015 copy of the Current Tissue Tolerance Result documents “the assessment every three hours and every two hours had been an error. [The resident] had redness on the coccyx (tailbone) after three hours of unrelieved pressure. The added documentation from 05/01/2015 was not signed or dated.”

The state investigator observed the resident at 8:08 AM on 04/29/2015 when the resident “was put in a wheelchair, using a Hoyer (mechanical lift that raises and transfers utilizing a sling). Pressure remained on [the resident’s] buttocks/hips/coccyx during the lifting process through the use of the sling. At 11:04 AM [the resident] was brought toward the dining room in Central Park.” The investigator continued observations of the resident “until 11:59 AM while [the resident] ate lunch. At that time, [the Registered Nurse in charge of providing the resident care] was informed of [the resident’s] need for repositioning. At 12:21 PM [the resident] was put into bed.”

In 04/29/2015 12:15 PM interview was conducted by the state investigator with the Registered Nurse who “stated repositioning times were determined by the tissue tolerance testing results and stated they start testing at two hours; if no redness at two hours, then they test the tolerance at three hours, both sitting and lying. If there is redness, they go back to reposition every two hours.”

In addition, the Registered Nurse stated that the resident “was to be repositioned every three hours [and] was uncertain how long pressure relief (off-loading) should be provided during the repositioning process [and] initially stated about a minute, then stated she was not sure if it was a couple of seconds or a minute, but would check.”

The state investigator then conducted a 4:59 PM 04/30/2015 interview with the Director of Nursing who “verify the Hoyer [lift] canvas still apply pressure on the resident’s bottom during transfers.” The Director of Nursing also verified lifting the resident “from the wheelchair with the Hoyer [lift] and immediately returning into the wheelchair did not provide pressure relief [and] stated pressure should be relieved for at least one full minute [and] stated she would expect the staff to follow the Care Plan.”

A follow-up interview was conducted by the state investigator at 9:33 AM on 05/01/2015 with the Registered Nurse providing the resident care “verify the Care Plan was not updated to reflect [the resident’s] need for repositioning every two hours as indicated on the Tissue Tolerance Test.”

Our Duluth Minnesota nursing home neglect attorneys recognize the failing to follow procedures and protocols when providing care to residents suffering pressure sores could affect their health and well-being. The deficient practice by the nursing staff at Viewcrest Health Center might be considered mistreatment or negligence because their actions fail to follow the facility’s 02/01/2015 policy titled: Skin Ulcer Protocol that reads in part:

“The tissue tolerance test results determine an individual’s turning and repositioning schedule.”

“Off-loading is considered one full minute of pressure relief and momentary pressure relief followed by a return to the same position is not beneficial.”

INTERFAITH CARE CENTER
811 Third Street
Carlton, Minnesota 55718
(218) 384-4258
A “For-Profit” 96-certified bed Medicaid/Medicare-participating facility
Overall Rating – 3 out of 5 possible stars

3 stars rating

Primary Concerns –

Failure to Follow Procedures and Protocols When Providing Care to a Resident Suffering from Pressure Sores

In a summary statement of deficiencies dated 05/08/2015, a notation was made by a state investigator during an annual licensure and certification survey concerning the facility’s failure to “ensure the care and services were provided to reduce the risk of progression development of pressure ulcers.” The deficient practice by the nursing staff at Interfaith Care Center affected one resident at the facility with pressure ulcers.

The deficient practice was noted by the state surveyor after a review of a resident’s Comprehensive Significant Change MDS (Minimum Data Set) indicating that the resident “had a severe cognitive impairment (memory loss) and severely impaired skills for daily decision-making.” The MDS (Minimum Data Set) further indicated that the resident “had no rejection of care behaviors [and] required the extensive assistance of two staff members for bed mobility, transfers, ambulation and extensive assistance of one staff for locomotion, toilet use and personal hygiene.”

The state investigator also noted that the MDS (Minimum Data Set) identify the resident “as being at risk for pressure ulcers and had two unstageable pressure ulcers [and], and a turning/repositioning program.”

Observations of the resident were made at 3:53 PM on 05/06/2015 when the resident “was lying in bed on her right side with the right outer ankle against the mattress and her left inner ankle against the mattress. She had gripper socks on both feet covering both ankles.”

The following day at 7:38 AM through 10:40 AM on 05/07/2015, continuous observations were made of the resident’s “buttocks and upper body had not been reposition. [The resident] remain positioned toward her left side through the observation. At 10:40 AM, [the Licensed Practical Nurse providing the resident care was informed that the resident] had not been repositioned.” At that time, to Licensed Practical Nurses repositioned the resident “on her right side and placed a pillow between her knees. No redness or signs of skin breakdown were observed on [the resident’s] left side, hip or shoulder.” At that time, one of the Licensed Practical Nurse verified that the resident “had remained on her left side throughout the dressing change and had not been repositioned.”

That same morning at 9:40 AM, the Licensed Practical Nurse along with “the Wound Care Nurse Consultant entered [the resident’s] room to assess the wounds.” At that time, the resident “had gripper socks on, and had an air mattress on the bed.” The Licensed Practical Nurse then “remove the dressing and the Wound Care Nurse assessed the wounds.” During that time, the resident’s “feet and lower legs were moved during the assessment, but [the resident’s] body was not moved during the assessment.”

Notations were made that the resident’s “left outer ankle wound had gauze from the dressing stuck to the wound and the dressing at a small amount of blood-tinged drainage on it. The gauze was removed easily after salt water was applied to the dressing. The Wound Care Nurse Consultant stated the type of dressing that was ordered by the physician from the hospital would make the wound worse.”

Upon removal of the dressing, the Wound Care Nurse “stated the ankle wounds were worse since returning from the hospital.” However, the Consultant also verified that “the blister area and the pressure wound next to it were new. She also verified the dark center appeared to be a deep tissue injury.”

The state investigator interviewed the Registered Nurse at 12:51 PM on 05/07/2015 who verify that the resident “should be repositioned every two hours and that would be the expectation.” The second Registered Nurse was also interviewed the following morning on 05/08/2015 at 7:43 AM and stated that the resident “used to have heel protectors, but then the air mattress was added and they were told they should not have those with the air mattress.” That Registered Nurse also stated that the resident “had foam heel protectors that were open for the heel, but had marks from the egg crate on her legs and said they have not found anything that works real well.”

A review of the resident’s 02/13/2015 Care Area Assessment (CAA) indicated that the resident “had pressure ulcers on bilateral outer ankles related to the pressure on her ankles. [The resident] was at increased risk of skin breakdown due to cognitive deficits related to dementia, required the extensive assistance of staff for bed mobility.”

Additional notations made in the resident’s CAA revealed that the resident’s Braden Score (“an assessment used to help determine the risk of skin breakdown”) identified at the resident “was at high risk for skin breakdown [and] was to be turned and repositioned every two hours and as needed.”

The investigator noted that the resident’s 02/13/2015 Care Plan indicate the resident “had a pressure ulcer on the left and right outer ankles required assistance with all activities of daily living (ADLs). The interventions directed staff to reposition every two hours in bed and wheelchair. The Care Plan indicated [that the resident] required the extensive assist of one for turning in bed and assist of two for boosting. The undated Care Guide for [the resident] directed staff members to reposition [the resident] every two hours.”

Our Carlton nursing home neglect attorneys recognize and failing to follow procedures and protocols when providing care to a resident suffering from pressure ulcers could make their pressure ulcers significantly worse. The deficient practice by the nursing staff at Interfaith Care Center might be considered mistreatment or negligence because their actions failed to follow the facility’s policy title: Policy and Procedure for the Prevention and Treatment of [Bedsores] that reads in part:

“Pressure is the primary cause of pressure ulcers and an effective turning and repositioning schedule can help reduce the risk of pressure ulcer development.”

SUPERIOR NURSING AND REHABILITATION CENTER
1800 New York Ave
Superior, Wisconsin 54880
(715) 394-5591
A “For-Profit” 118-certified bed Medicaid/Medicare-participating facility
Overall Rating – 1 out of 5 possible stars

1 star rating

Primary Concerns –

Failure to Provide an Environment to Residents Free of Accident Hazards and Provide Adequate Supervision to Prevent an Avoidable Accident from Occurring

In a summary statement of deficiencies dated 06/24/2015, a complaint investigation was opened against the facility for its failure to “ensure the resident environment remains as free of accident hazards as possible and that each resident receives adequate supervision and assistance devices to prevent accidents.” The deficient practice by the nursing staff at Superior Nursing and Rehabilitation Center affected one resident at the facility “review for falls.”

The complaint investigation by the state surveyor included an observation of the resident being “independently ambulating with a four-wheeled walker.” The surveyor noted that the resident “experienced a fall on 05/31/2015 and sustained a scalp laceration. When returned from the hospital stay, the care plan was changed to require an assist of one staff or locomotion, transfers, positioning and standby assist for toileting. There is no evaluation from [the Therapy Department] to indicate [that the resident] is safe to ambulate independently.”

The state investigator also reviewed the resident’s 06/09/2015 Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) that returned a score of 13 Indicating that the resident is “cognitively intact.” A review of the resident’s 11:05 PM 05/31/2015 Medical Records document that the resident “had an unwitnessed fall in her room while transferring herself out of bed.”  The state surveyor also reviewed the resident process Care Plan the documents “at the time of the fall she was independent with locomotion, transfers, position and assist of one for toileting.”

The complaint investigation also involved a review of the resident’s fall that identified the resident “was found on the floor between the doorway of the bathroom and room. The resident fell on the window side of the bed, somehow made their way to the bathroom and yelled for help. The resident stated, ‘I guess I didn’t make it to the bathroom – I don’t know what happened’.”

As a part of the investigation, it was identified that the resident “had on regular socks [and] was last toileted at 10:30 PM and is offered to use the bathroom every two hours. [The resident] sustained a hematoma to the back of the right side of the head, right scapula bruise and right elbow cut. The physician was notified and [the resident] was transferred to the hospital for evaluation.”

Upon further investigation by the facility involving the incident, “it was noted that there was an area blood on the floor between the bed and the window and this was identified as initial area [where the resident] fell.” The resident was assessed by the emergency room medical team and “complained of nausea and had emesis [vomiting] and complained of dizziness upon movement. The resident continued to complain of nausea and a headache. The physician was updated, [the resident] was transported back to the hospital for evaluation.”

The State Investigator Reviewed the Resident’s 06/16/2015 Fall Risk Assessment that revealed that the resident scored 18, indicating that the resident “is at high risk for falls.” Seven days later at 2:30 PM on 06/23/2015, the surveyor conducting an investigation into the complaint observed the resident “walking with a four-wheel walker and a family member [and] was not being assisted by staff.”

The following morning on 06/24/2015 at 11:00 AM, the same surveyor observed the resident “with the four-wheel walker standing at the nurses’ station drinking glass of juice and was not being assisted by staff.” Later that day at 2:30 PM, the surveyor observed the resident “walking in the hallway with the four-wheel walker and not being assisted by staff.”

A review of the resident’s Medical Record “identify there was no evaluation from nursing or therapy staff to ensure [that the resident] was safe to emulate with the four-wheeled walker without the assistance of staff members.”

An interview was conducted by the state surveyor at 2:40 PM on 06/24/2015 with the facility’s Director of Nursing in regards to the resident “ambulating without staff assistance. The [Director of Nursing] indicated [that the resident] doesn’t wait for staff to help to transfer [and that] the therapy staff would evaluate residents for transfers and ambulation and they will update nursing to change the care plans.”

Our Superior nursing home neglect attorneys recognize that failing to provide every resident an environment free of accident hazards and provide adequate supervision to avoid a preventable fall could place the health and well-being of the resident in jeopardy. The deficient practice by the nursing staff at Superior Nursing and Rehabilitation Center might be considered mistreatment or negligence.

Contact Us

GOLDEN LIVINGCENTER SUPERIOR
1612 N 37th St
Superior, Wisconsin 54880
(715) 392-5144
A “For-Profit” 90-certified bed Medicaid/Medicare-participating facility
Overall Rating – 2 out of 5 possible stars

2 stars rating

Primary Concerns –

Failure to Provide Adequate Services and Care That Met Professional Standards of Quality by Applying Barrier Cream to Opened Skin Areas

In a summary statement of deficiencies dated 02/12/2015, a state surveyor made a notation during an annual licensure and certification survey concerning the facility’s failure to “ensure that the services provided met professional standards of quality.” The deficient practice by the nursing staff at Golden Living Center Superior affected one resident “with non-intact skin.”

The deficient practice was noted by state investigator who noted that the resident “had barrier cream applied to an open, sheered [non-intact skin] area on his buttocks by a Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA), [who] can apply barrier cream to intact skin only.”

The investigator notes that Standard 14 of Wisconsin Scope of Practice for Nurse Aides indicate that Certified Nursing Assistants can only “apply creams, such as a moisture barrier cream, to intact skin only.”

The state investigator noted that according to the resident’s 02/06/2015 Nurses Notes reveal that the resident “had developed an open area to [the] sacrum. The resident was noted on 02/05/2015 to have an area of excoriation to the left sacrum in close proximity to the rectum that overall measures 0.2 centimeters by 0.5 centimeters. The area is superficial with a pink wound bed. No drainage noted. …Hospice updated. Will use barrier cream every shift and after each incontinent episode to protect the skin.”

However, the surveyor observed the Certified Nursing Assistants providing the resident’s care at 2:35 PM on 02/09/2015 applying “barrier cream with her gloved hand to the open area on [the resident’s] inner buttocks and coccyx.” Approximately 20 minutes later, the surveyor discussed the observation made in the resident’s room with both of the attending Certified Nursing Assistants who “were unaware that it is beyond the scope of practice for a [Certified Nursing Assistant] to apply barrier cream to non-intact skin.” The observation was also discussed at a later time with the Licensed Practical Nurse providing care to the resident who was asked: “who apply the barrier cream since the area opened on 02/05/2015.” The Licensed Practical Nurse replied that the Certified Nursing Assistant’s “would normally apply after incontinence cares [and] stated she also was not aware that a [Certified Nursing Assistant] can only apply barrier cream to the resident’s intact skin.”

Our Superior nursing home neglect lawyers recognize a failing to provide care and professional standards of quality could place the health and well-being of the resident in jeopardy. The deficient practice by the nursing staff at Golden Living Center Superior might be considered negligence or mistreatment because their actions did not follow state and federal regulations.

Filing a Formal Complaint Involving Abuse or Neglect

Determining that a loved one has been neglected or abused can be heartbreaking. Often times, family members will respond to the inappropriate behavior by filing a formal complaint against the facility, nursing staff, employees or others that have caused their loved one harm. However, the process of holding responsible parties accountable can be challenging. Because of that, families will often hire a skilled attorney to deal with the complexities of insurance bureaucracies, nursing industry corporations and state investigators making the determination of who is at fault for the incident, accident or event that led to injury or death.

In many situations, investigators will determine the exact cause of neglect or abuse against the resident. Many cases handled by personal injury attorneys who specialize in nursing home abuse and neglect involve:

  • Falling accidents
  • Dehydration and malnutrition
  • Fractures and broken bones
  • Medication errors
  • Preventable accidental falls
  • Overmedication used as a restraint
  • Unauthorized devices including belts used for physical restraint
  • Facility acquired pressure sores/bedsores involving osteomyelitis (bone infection) or sepsis (blood infection)
  • Choking death
  • Declining medical conditions caused by a failure to diagnose or treat
  • Physical, verbal, sexual or mental abuse by residents or staff members
  • Elopement or wandering away from the facility without supervision or detection
  • A preventable spread of infection
  • Unsanitary conditions
  • Alienation where the resident is not allowed visitors or access to social events
  • Emotional trauma caused by humiliation, retaliation, disgrace or embarrassment
  • Unsafe or hazardous conditions
  • Sexual assault including rape
  • Wrongful death

Families must remain vigilant when choosing the best nursing facility for their aging spouse, parent or grandparent.  While many nursing facility caregivers place the best interest of the resident’s, other caregivers prey upon the resident’s vulnerability. In many incidences, the management, supervisors and administrators at nursing facilities operate the home as nothing more private corporation or business seeking to generate profits. Unfortunately, these profits are often generated at a cost of the elder’s health and well-being.

Contacting a Nursing Home Abuse Attorney

If your loved one has suffered neglect, mistreatment or abuse at the hands of their caregiver, it is essential to seek immediate help to ensure the harm stops now. The Duluth nursing home abuse attorneys at Rosenfeld Injury Lawyers LLC can assist you in investigating the situation/event/accident to determine if abuse or neglect is present and take all legal steps required to hold the responsible party fully accountable.

Serving as your loved one’s advocate is important because they are likely defenseless against those who cause them harm. While no amount of financial compensation can take away the pain your loved one has endured, the recompense can ensure that you have adequate funds to pay for the best medical care available to maximize their health and well-being. Our St. Louis County elder abuse lawyers have helped many victims and their family members recover compensation to cover their medical bills, pain, suffering and other damages.

We encourage you to contact our law offices today at (800) 926-7565 to schedule a free, no-obligation full case review. We accept every nursing home neglect case, personal injury claim and wrongful death lawsuit through contingency fee arrangements. This means no upfront fee is required for legal services. We are paid only after we win your case at trial or negotiate an acceptable financial amount through an out-of-court settlement.

Contact Us

For additional information on Minnesota laws and information on nursing homes look here.

If you are looking for information on a specific facility or an attorney, please see links below to respective locality pages.

Client Reviews
★★★★★
Jonathan did a great job helping my family navigate through a lengthy lawsuit involving my grandmother's death in a nursing home. Through every step of the case, Jonathan kept my family informed of the progression of the case. Although our case eventually settled at a mediation, I really was impressed at how well prepared Jonathan was to take the case to trial. Lisa
★★★★★
After I read Jonathan’s Nursing Home Blog, I decided to hire him to look into my wife’s treatment at a local nursing home. Jonathan did a great job explaining the process and the laws that apply to nursing homes. I immediately felt at ease and was glad to have him on my side. Though the lawsuit process was at times frustrating, Jonathan reassured me, particularly at my deposition. I really felt like Jonathan cared about my wife’s best interests, and I think that came across to the lawyers for the nursing home. Eric