F 0697
Provide safe, appropriate pain management for a resident who requires such services.
Level of Harm - Minimal harm
or potential for actual harm
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on
interview and record review the facility failed to ensure 1 of 8 residents (74) was reassessed after pain
medications were administered.
Residents Affected - Few
As a result, the resident's pain may not have been relieved.
Findings:
Resident 74 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnosis that included gout and cancer.
During initial survey screening on 5/22/24 at 9:02 A.M., Resident 74 requested a pain pill.
On 5/22/24 at 9:13 A.M., a concurrent interview and review of Resident 74 physician orders was conducted
with LN 10. Resident 74 had an order for Tylenol 650 mg (milligram) every 4 hours prn (as needed) for mild
1-4 pain, hydrocodone/acetaminophen 7.5/325 mg every 4 hours prn for moderate pain 5-6, and
hydromorphone 2 mg every 6 hours prn for severe pain 7-10.
On 5/18/24, Resident 74 received pain medications on the following times:
At 1:58 A.M., pain medication was given for 6 out of 10 pain level. There was no documented evidence pain
was reassessed.
At 10:31 A.M., pain medication was given but there was no pain level documented. At 11 A.M., pain was
reassessed 5 out 10 pain level, this was only after 30 minutes after medication administration, not the
required 45 minutes per facility policy.
At 5:10 P.M., pain medication was given. There was no documented evidence that pain assessment was
completed before and after medication administration.
At 7:49 P.M., Resident 74 complained 5 out of 10 pain level. Resident 74 was not medicated until 8:54 P.M.,
which was an hour after his initial complaint and his pain had increased to 6 out of 10.
LN 10 stated the Resident 74 should have been reassessed an hour after the medication was given. LN 10
further stated the pain reassessment should have been documented in the pain assessment tab. This was
not done for Resident 74.
An interview with the DON was conducted on 5/22/24 at 3:48 P.M. The DON stated pain level should have
been reassessed after pain medication was given. The DON further stated it should have been
(continued on next page)
Any deficiency statement ending with an asterisk (*) denotes a deficiency which the institution may be excused from correcting providing it is determined that other
safeguards provide sufficient protection to the patients. (See instructions.) Except for nursing homes, the findings stated above are disclosable 90 days following the
date of survey whether or not a plan of correction is provided. For nursing homes, the above findings and plans of correction are disclosable 14 days following the date
these documents are made available to the facility. If deficiencies are cited, an approved plan of correction is requisite to continued program participation.
LABORATORY DIRECTOR'S OR PROVIDER/SUPPLIER
REPRESENTATIVE'S SIGNATURE
TITLE
(X6) DATE
FORM CMS-2567 (02/99)
Previous Versions Obsolete
Facility ID:
If continuation sheet
Page 1 of 11
Event ID:
555572
Printed: 05/15/2026
Form Approved OMB
No. 0938-0391
Department of Health & Human Services
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services
STATEMENT OF DEFICIENCIES
AND PLAN OF CORRECTION
(X1) PROVIDER/SUPPLIER/CLIA
IDENTIFICATION NUMBER:
(X2) MULTIPLE CONSTRUCTION
555572
B. Wing
A. Building
(X3) DATE SURVEY
COMPLETED
05/24/2024
NAME OF PROVIDER OR SUPPLIER
STREET ADDRESS, CITY, STATE, ZIP CODE
Grossmont Hospital D/P Snf
5555 Grossmont Center Drive
LA Mesa, CA 91941
For information on the nursing home's plan to correct this deficiency, please contact the nursing home or the state survey agency.
(X4) ID PREFIX TAG
SUMMARY STATEMENT OF DEFICIENCIES
(Each deficiency must be preceded by full regulatory or LSC identifying information)
F 0697
Level of Harm - Minimal harm
or potential for actual harm
Residents Affected - Few
FORM CMS-2567 (02/99)
Previous Versions Obsolete
reassessed an hour after pain medications given by mouth. The DON also stated the new EMR (electronic
medical record) may not have triggered the reassessment, so it was missed.
According to the facilities policy patient screening, assessment, and management of pain, last revised
5/2/24, .F. Perform reassessment of pain and sedation level to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of pain
management and interventions. 1. NOTE: That's mean time is based on, dose. General guidelines are listed
below. Review IV (intravenous) guidelines for specific medications PO/IM/SC/rectal (by
mouth/intermuscular/subcutaneous): within 45-60 min 2. CAUTION: reassessments performed too early or
too late may result in sub optimal pain management or delay in recognizing over- sedation and respiratory
depression .G. Pain reassessment includes: 1. Pain intensity rating and function using scale consistent with
patients age, condition, and ability to understand 2. Compare post-invention pain intensity rating to
acceptable pain intensity to determine intervention effectiveness and slash or need for additional
interventions.
Event ID:
Facility ID:
555572
If continuation sheet
Page 2 of 11
Printed: 05/15/2026
Form Approved OMB
No. 0938-0391
Department of Health & Human Services
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services
STATEMENT OF DEFICIENCIES
AND PLAN OF CORRECTION
(X1) PROVIDER/SUPPLIER/CLIA
IDENTIFICATION NUMBER:
(X2) MULTIPLE CONSTRUCTION
555572
B. Wing
A. Building
(X3) DATE SURVEY
COMPLETED
05/24/2024
NAME OF PROVIDER OR SUPPLIER
STREET ADDRESS, CITY, STATE, ZIP CODE
Grossmont Hospital D/P Snf
5555 Grossmont Center Drive
LA Mesa, CA 91941
For information on the nursing home's plan to correct this deficiency, please contact the nursing home or the state survey agency.
(X4) ID PREFIX TAG
SUMMARY STATEMENT OF DEFICIENCIES
(Each deficiency must be preceded by full regulatory or LSC identifying information)
F 0812
Level of Harm - Minimal harm
or potential for actual harm
Procure food from sources approved or considered satisfactory and store, prepare, distribute and serve
food in accordance with professional standards.
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure food was stored and served
in accordance with professional standards for food safety when:
Residents Affected - Some
1. Spoiled food was stored amongst non-spoiled food inside the walk-in
refrigerators;
Food was stored without being covered in the refrigeration units;
Food was not consistently labeled and dated;
The cool-down process (a time sensitive procedure to chill cooked food to a safe temperature
range) was not initiated for two trays of cooked chicken.
2. Three dietary aids (DA 1, DA 2, and DA 3) with long facial hair were not
wearing beard guards in the kitchen and during food service;
One DA (DA 1) used contaminated gloves to touch ready-to-eat food.
These failures had the potential for residents consume contaminated and/or hazardous food which put
them at risk for foodborne illnesses.
Findings:
1. On 5/21/24 at 8:20 A.M., an observation of the facility's kitchen was conducted with regulatory affairs
(RA) 1. A reach-in refrigeration unit contained three small-sized salads that were uncovered and were not
labeled and dated. The lettuce and cucumbers in the salads were wrinkled and did not appear fresh.
In a walk-in produce refrigerator, there was a bag with a manufacturer's label indicating basil and a date of
5/28/24. The contents of the bag of basil appeared moldy and slimy. At 8:25 A.M., the patient services
manager for nutrition services (PSM) joined the observation in the walk-in refrigerator and observed the
bag of basil. The PSM stated the basil was spoiled and should not have been stored among non-spoiled
food. The PSM also stated the basil should have been dated when it was opened. Two unlabeled and
undated bags containing produce that was tan in color, soft, and covered with patchy fuzzy areas
resembling mold, was identified by the PSM as being bamboo. The PSM stated the bamboo was for eating
and should have been labeled so everyone knew what it was. The PSM stated both bags of bamboo should
have been removed from the walk-in refrigerator since they were rotten. Three open bags of: arugula,
chopped celery, and chopped onions, were not labeled or dated. The PSM stated the open bags of produce
should have been labeled and dated when staff first opened them. Two bell peppers in a box of
approximately ten peppers were wrinkled and covered with fuzzy black spots. The PSM stated the spoiled
bell peppers should have been removed. The PSM stated staff were to perform a daily walk through of the
refrigeration units to check the quality of the food and to remove any spoiled items. The PSM stated this
walk through was documented on a log.
(continued on next page)
FORM CMS-2567 (02/99)
Previous Versions Obsolete
Event ID:
Facility ID:
555572
If continuation sheet
Page 3 of 11
Printed: 05/15/2026
Form Approved OMB
No. 0938-0391
Department of Health & Human Services
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services
STATEMENT OF DEFICIENCIES
AND PLAN OF CORRECTION
(X1) PROVIDER/SUPPLIER/CLIA
IDENTIFICATION NUMBER:
(X2) MULTIPLE CONSTRUCTION
555572
B. Wing
A. Building
(X3) DATE SURVEY
COMPLETED
05/24/2024
NAME OF PROVIDER OR SUPPLIER
STREET ADDRESS, CITY, STATE, ZIP CODE
Grossmont Hospital D/P Snf
5555 Grossmont Center Drive
LA Mesa, CA 91941
For information on the nursing home's plan to correct this deficiency, please contact the nursing home or the state survey agency.
(X4) ID PREFIX TAG
SUMMARY STATEMENT OF DEFICIENCIES
(Each deficiency must be preceded by full regulatory or LSC identifying information)
F 0812
Level of Harm - Minimal harm
or potential for actual harm
Residents Affected - Some
Two large trays of cooked chicken (approximately 30 pieces of breasts/thighs) were uncovered in the
walk-in refrigerator. The PSM stated the chicken should have been covered while inside the walk-in. The
PSM stated staff walk around inside the walk-in refrigerator and the chicken should not be out in the open
uncovered. The PSM stated it could become contaminated.
On 5/21/24 at 8:30 A.M., a joint observation and interview was conducted with cook (CK) 1. CK 1 observed
the two trays of cooked chicken that were in the walk-in refrigerator. CK 1 stated he finished cooking the
chicken around 7 A.M. and it was to be used for salads that would be served later in the day. CK 1 was
asked if he had started a cool-down log for the chicken. CK 1 stated he usually started a log once the
chicken was done cooking and recorded the initial temperature. CK 1 stated final cooking temperature of
the chicken was something like 185 [degrees]. CK 1 stated he would check the temperature of the chicken
once it was finished cooling down. CK 1 then stated that he did not start a cool-down log and that he should
have done so.
On 5/21/24 at 8:40 A.M., an interview was conducted with the sous-chef (SC). The SC stated the cool-down
process was mandatory. The SC stated the initial temperature had to be recorded, then another
temperature taken and recorded at 2-hour intervals. The SC then stated it was her expectation for the
temperature to be checked and recorded every hour. The SC stated at the end of the six hours, the final
temperature should be below 40 degrees Fahrenheit. The SC stated CK 1 should have stated a cool-down
log for the chicken.
On 5/21/24 at 8:50 A.M., another walk-in refrigerator unit was observed with the PSM. There was a
package of provolone cheese left open to air. The PSM stated it should have been fully covered and dated
and labeled when it was opened.
2. On 5/22/24 at 10:30 A.M., an observation of food and nutrition services was conducted in the facility
kitchen. Also present was the director of regulatory affairs (DRA) and the general manager (GM). The
kitchen staff were preparing for tray line (process of cooked food being prepared for delivery to residents).
Dietary aide (DA) 1 was opening containers of cooked food, scooping out, pouring out, and placing the food
onto the steam table. DA 1 had facial hair that was approximately half an inch long on his chin. The facial
hair was not covered with a beard guard.
At 10:40 A.M., an interview was conducted with DA 1. DA 1 stated that he should have worn a beard guard
when in the kitchen and preparing food.
At 10:42 A.M., an interview was conducted with the GM. The GM stated DA 1 should have been wearing a
beard guard.
At 10:45 A.M., DA 3 was observed at a nearby steam table preparing food and beverage items for lunch
service. DA 3 had a beard. DA 3 wore a beard guard below his bottom lip leaving his mustache, which was
approximately half an inch long, exposed.
At 10:47 A.M., a joint observation was conducted with the GM of DA 2. DA 2 was walking through the
kitchen/food service area without a beard guard on. DA 2 had a mustache that was approximately one inch
long and completely obscured his upper lip. The GM instructed DA 2 to go and put on a beard guard. The
GM stated it was his expectation that, Beard guards, like hairnets, were to be applied before setting foot in
the kitchen.
At 10:51 A.M., a joint observation of DA 3's exposed mustache was conducted with the GM. The GM
(continued on next page)
FORM CMS-2567 (02/99)
Previous Versions Obsolete
Event ID:
Facility ID:
555572
If continuation sheet
Page 4 of 11
Printed: 05/15/2026
Form Approved OMB
No. 0938-0391
Department of Health & Human Services
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services
STATEMENT OF DEFICIENCIES
AND PLAN OF CORRECTION
(X1) PROVIDER/SUPPLIER/CLIA
IDENTIFICATION NUMBER:
(X2) MULTIPLE CONSTRUCTION
555572
B. Wing
A. Building
(X3) DATE SURVEY
COMPLETED
05/24/2024
NAME OF PROVIDER OR SUPPLIER
STREET ADDRESS, CITY, STATE, ZIP CODE
Grossmont Hospital D/P Snf
5555 Grossmont Center Drive
LA Mesa, CA 91941
For information on the nursing home's plan to correct this deficiency, please contact the nursing home or the state survey agency.
(X4) ID PREFIX TAG
SUMMARY STATEMENT OF DEFICIENCIES
(Each deficiency must be preceded by full regulatory or LSC identifying information)
F 0812
Level of Harm - Minimal harm
or potential for actual harm
Residents Affected - Some
stated it was his expectation for beard guards to be worn correctly and to fully cover all the facial hair
including the mustache.
At 10:58 A.M., a joint observation was conducted with the GM at the steam table. DA 1 was observed
plating resident food. DA 1, using his gloved hands, touched plates, plate covers, held onto the steam table,
moved a nearby cart, retrieved items from the other side of the kitchen, and held meal ticket slips. At 11:05
A.M., DA 1 opened a large bag of bread rolls that another staff handed to him. DA 1 reached into the bag
with his gloved hand, removed a roll and placed it onto a resident's plate. DA 1 plated two other resident
plates with bread rolls in the same manner. At 11:07 A.M., the GM stated it was his expectation for staff to
touch ready to eat food as little as possible. The GM further stated the bread rolls should have been placed
into a tub and tongs should have been utilized to prevent contamination of the food from DA 1's gloves.
On 5/23/24 at 7:42 A.M., a joint interview and record review was conducted with the GM. The GM stated
food items that were spoiled or had quality issues should have been discarded immediately regardless of
any best by date on the packaging. The GM stated the leader on duty was supposed to conduct an opening
and closing walk through of the refrigerated units and food storage areas to check for quality issues. The
GM stated this walk through was not documented. The GM stated the prompt removal of spoiled food was
to ensure it did not make its way to a resident. The GM further stated what had been identified as bamboo
by the PSM was not bamboo but lemon grass. The GM stated food if it's opened, it has to be labeled and
dated. The GM stated all opened food should have been fully covered, except when actively cooling.
The GM stated it was his expectation for the cool-down process to have been implemented and
documented when cooked food was chilled. The GM stated the final cooked temperature had to be
recorded with the corresponding time. The GM stated this had to be done for staff to know when to do the
next temperature check which also had to be recorded. The GM stated it was a matter of food safety.
The staff training logs were reviewed for cooling food, personal hygiene, labeling and dating, and preventing
cross contamination. The GM stated CK 1, DA 1, DA 2, and DA 3, had received training and should have
implemented their training when performing food and nutrition services.
A review of the facility's policy titled Infection Prevention for Food & Nutrition Services revised 8/31/21,
indicated, .A. Personnel .5. Beards and moustaches that are not closely cropped or neatly trimmed are
covered . G. Food Storage/Disposal 1. All foods are labeled, covered and dated when stored. They are
rotated to assure freshness. Outdated foods are discarded
A review of the facility's policy titled Food Safety Management System revised 4/1/22, indicated, .Cooling
TCS [time/temperature control for safety] Foods . Cooling- Verify temperature after 2 hours is 70 degrees
Fahrenheit or less .Verify temperature of chilled product is 40 degrees or less after 4 hours . Forms and
record keeping: Required: HACCP [ hazard analysis and critical control points] Cooling and Chilling Log
FORM CMS-2567 (02/99)
Previous Versions Obsolete
Event ID:
Facility ID:
555572
If continuation sheet
Page 5 of 11
Printed: 05/15/2026
Form Approved OMB
No. 0938-0391
Department of Health & Human Services
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services
STATEMENT OF DEFICIENCIES
AND PLAN OF CORRECTION
(X1) PROVIDER/SUPPLIER/CLIA
IDENTIFICATION NUMBER:
(X2) MULTIPLE CONSTRUCTION
555572
B. Wing
A. Building
(X3) DATE SURVEY
COMPLETED
05/24/2024
NAME OF PROVIDER OR SUPPLIER
STREET ADDRESS, CITY, STATE, ZIP CODE
Grossmont Hospital D/P Snf
5555 Grossmont Center Drive
LA Mesa, CA 91941
For information on the nursing home's plan to correct this deficiency, please contact the nursing home or the state survey agency.
(X4) ID PREFIX TAG
SUMMARY STATEMENT OF DEFICIENCIES
(Each deficiency must be preceded by full regulatory or LSC identifying information)
F 0881
Implement a program that monitors antibiotic use.
Level of Harm - Minimal harm
or potential for actual harm
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on
interview and record review, the facility failed to implement an Antibiotic Stewardship Program to monitor
antibiotic use.
Residents Affected - Some
This failure had the potential to increase the risk of adverse events from unnecessary or inappropriate
antibiotic use.
Findings:
A review of Resident 121's untitled facesheet indicated the resident was admitted on [DATE].
On 5/21/24 at 2:41 P.M., an interview was conducted with the infection prevention nurse (IPN) 1. During the
interview, IPN 1 was informed of what the survey team would need to review and discuss with her regarding
the facility's infection control practices, including antibiotic stewardship, monitoring, and the status of all
residents' antibiotic use.
On 5/24/24 at 10:42 A.M., a joint interview and record review was conducted with IPN 1. IPN 1 was asked
how she tracked and monitored antibiotic use in the facility. IPN 1 logged into her email account and
retrieved an untitled document with random words and names on it. IPN 1 stated the untitled document was
her tracking list and that there were no residents on antibiotics. IPN 1 was asked when she updated her
tracking list and she stated, sometime this month. IPN 1 again stated there were no residents this month
who received antibiotics.
The facility's Matrix for Providers (Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services document required to be
completed by facilities and given to the survey team) provided to the survey team on 5/21/24, was shown to
IPN 1. The Matrix for Providers indicated Resident 121 had received antibiotics and had a urinary tract
infection (UTI).
At 10:50 A.M., IPN 2 joined the interview and record review with IPN 1. IPN 1 stated Resident 121 had not
had a UTI but did have a history of ESBL (type of bacteria that can be found in urine and has shown
resistance to antibiotics). IPN 1 reviewed the clinical record and then stated Resident 121 had a UTI and
received antibiotics when in the acute care hospital but not here in the skilled nursing facility (SNF). IPN 1
stated Resident 121 was not on antibiotics while admitted to SNF. IPN 2 showed IPN 1 something on the
electronic health record and IPN 1 then stated Resident 121 had been on antibiotics when admitted . IPN 1
stated she did not know why the resident had been on antibiotics. IPN 1 was asked if this resident
information should have been tracked and monitored by the IPN and she stated, Yes. IPN 1 stated it was
important to track and monitor residents' antibiotic use to ensure appropriate treatment was provided. IPN 1
stated she did not have any information on the facility's residents' antibiotic use at which point the interview
was ended and IPN 1 was asked to locate and review her resident information so the interview could
continue.
On 5/24/24 at 12 P.M., a joint interview and record review was continued with IPN 1 and IPN 2. IPN 1
reviewed documentation of Resident 121's prescribed cefuroxime (antibiotic) 500 mg that had been
administered twice a day for the resident's UTI from 5/13/24 through 5/18/24. IPN 1 stated the resident did
receive antibiotics while admitted and was not currently on any other antibiotics. IPN 1 stated, This should
have been identified by me and tracked. IPN 1 further stated she had not been monitoring or tracking
antibiotic use in the facility since the new computer charting system was
(continued on next page)
FORM CMS-2567 (02/99)
Previous Versions Obsolete
Event ID:
Facility ID:
555572
If continuation sheet
Page 6 of 11
Printed: 05/15/2026
Form Approved OMB
No. 0938-0391
Department of Health & Human Services
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services
STATEMENT OF DEFICIENCIES
AND PLAN OF CORRECTION
(X1) PROVIDER/SUPPLIER/CLIA
IDENTIFICATION NUMBER:
(X2) MULTIPLE CONSTRUCTION
555572
B. Wing
A. Building
(X3) DATE SURVEY
COMPLETED
05/24/2024
NAME OF PROVIDER OR SUPPLIER
STREET ADDRESS, CITY, STATE, ZIP CODE
Grossmont Hospital D/P Snf
5555 Grossmont Center Drive
LA Mesa, CA 91941
For information on the nursing home's plan to correct this deficiency, please contact the nursing home or the state survey agency.
(X4) ID PREFIX TAG
SUMMARY STATEMENT OF DEFICIENCIES
(Each deficiency must be preceded by full regulatory or LSC identifying information)
F 0881
Level of Harm - Minimal harm
or potential for actual harm
Residents Affected - Some
implemented. IPN 1 stated there was no monitoring/tracking in April or May 2024. IPN 1 stated she was
unable to conduct antibiotic stewardship monitoring because of the new computer system. IPN 1 further
stated she did not attend the daily stand-up (meetings where infection control issues and antibiotic use
would be discussed).
On 5/24/24 at 1:08 P.M., a joint interview was conducted with the director of nursing (DON) and director of
regulatory affairs (DRA). The DON and DRA both stated reports could be generated in the new computer
system for infection control surveillance and antibiotic monitoring. The DON and DRA both stated IPN 1 had
access to this.
A review of the facility's policy titled Antimicrobial Stewardship Program (ASP), 43167 revised 4/11/23,
addressed antibiotic stewardship at the acute care level and did not provide guidance for the SNF.
FORM CMS-2567 (02/99)
Previous Versions Obsolete
Event ID:
Facility ID:
555572
If continuation sheet
Page 7 of 11
Printed: 05/15/2026
Form Approved OMB
No. 0938-0391
Department of Health & Human Services
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services
STATEMENT OF DEFICIENCIES
AND PLAN OF CORRECTION
(X1) PROVIDER/SUPPLIER/CLIA
IDENTIFICATION NUMBER:
(X2) MULTIPLE CONSTRUCTION
555572
B. Wing
A. Building
(X3) DATE SURVEY
COMPLETED
05/24/2024
NAME OF PROVIDER OR SUPPLIER
STREET ADDRESS, CITY, STATE, ZIP CODE
Grossmont Hospital D/P Snf
5555 Grossmont Center Drive
LA Mesa, CA 91941
For information on the nursing home's plan to correct this deficiency, please contact the nursing home or the state survey agency.
(X4) ID PREFIX TAG
SUMMARY STATEMENT OF DEFICIENCIES
(Each deficiency must be preceded by full regulatory or LSC identifying information)
F 0883
Develop and implement policies and procedures for flu and pneumonia vaccinations.
Level of Harm - Minimal harm
or potential for actual harm
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on
interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure two of five residents (5, 124) were appropriately
offered the pneumococcal vaccine and had the education regarding benefits and potential side effects of
pneumococcal vaccine explained to them and documented in the medical record.
Residents Affected - Few
In addition, the facility's infection prevention nurse (IPN) 1 did not have a process to readily identify the
residents' vaccination status.
As a result of this deficient practice, the facility missed opportunities to ensure pneumococcal vaccines had
been offered to all residents which put residents at potential risk of contracting pneumonia.
Findings:
A review of Resident 5's untitled Facesheet indicated the resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE].
A review of Resident 124's untitled Facesheet indicated the resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE].
On 5/21/24 at 2:41 P.M. an interview was conducted with IPN 1. During the interview, IPN 1 was informed of
what the survey team would need to review and discuss with her regarding the facility's infection control
practices, including the status of all residents for pneumococcal and COVID-19 vaccines.
On 5/24/24 at 8:15 A.M. a joint interview and record review was conducted with IPN 1. IPN 1 stated that
each residents' vaccination status was reviewed upon admission by the admitting nurse. IPN 1 reviewed
Resident 124's pneumococcal vaccination status and stated the resident had been offered the vaccine on
5/22/24 and the resident had refused. Further review of Resident 124's clinical record indicated the resident
tested positive for COVID-19 on 5/16/24 and was currently on isolation. IPN 1 stated the pneumococcal
vaccine should not have been offered to a resident actively infected with COVID-19 and that it was not
appropriate. IPN 1 stated she had been unaware that this had been done and that it was a learning
opportunity.
At 9:12 A.M., the director of nursing (DON) joined the interview and record review to assist IPN 1 with
locating residents' vaccination information. The DON stated it was not appropriate to offer the
pneumococcal vaccine to Resident 124 while the resident was COVID-19 positive and on isolation.
The record review and interview was continued with IPN 1. IPN 1 reviewed Resident 5's clinical record and
stated the resident had been offered the pneumococcal vaccine on 1/26/22 and the resident had refused.
IPN 1 stated there was no documentation education about the vaccine had been provided to the resident.
IPN 1 stated education should have been provided for the resident to make an informed refusal. IPN 1
further reviewed Resident 5's clinical record and stated the resident had not been re-offered the
pneumococcal vaccine. IPN 1 stated the pneumococcal vaccine should be re-offered annually, if indicated,
and that Resident 5 should have been re-offered the vaccine in 2023 and 2024.
IPN 1 stated she could not access all the vaccination information in the new medical record system.
(continued on next page)
FORM CMS-2567 (02/99)
Previous Versions Obsolete
Event ID:
Facility ID:
555572
If continuation sheet
Page 8 of 11
Printed: 05/15/2026
Form Approved OMB
No. 0938-0391
Department of Health & Human Services
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services
STATEMENT OF DEFICIENCIES
AND PLAN OF CORRECTION
(X1) PROVIDER/SUPPLIER/CLIA
IDENTIFICATION NUMBER:
(X2) MULTIPLE CONSTRUCTION
555572
B. Wing
A. Building
(X3) DATE SURVEY
COMPLETED
05/24/2024
NAME OF PROVIDER OR SUPPLIER
STREET ADDRESS, CITY, STATE, ZIP CODE
Grossmont Hospital D/P Snf
5555 Grossmont Center Drive
LA Mesa, CA 91941
For information on the nursing home's plan to correct this deficiency, please contact the nursing home or the state survey agency.
(X4) ID PREFIX TAG
SUMMARY STATEMENT OF DEFICIENCIES
(Each deficiency must be preceded by full regulatory or LSC identifying information)
F 0883
Level of Harm - Minimal harm
or potential for actual harm
IPN 1 stated she was not compiling/tracking the information and reviewing it to ensure all residents were
offered pneumonia vaccination and that education had been provided. IPN 1 was asked who was
monitoring this. IPN 1 stated, It should probably be me. IPN 1 stated without keeping track of resident
vaccination status, vaccinations could get missed. The joint interview and record review with IPN 1 took two
hours and 27 minutes to determine the vaccination status of five residents.
Residents Affected - Few
A review of the facility's policy titled Vaccination Program for Residents of Long Term Care/ Sub Acute
Facilities, 39136 revised 8/29/23, indicated, .C. Pneumococcal and COVID-19 vaccine is offered year round
.E. For persons with acute illness with suspected or laboratory -confirmed COVID-19, health care providers
should consider delaying .vaccination until the residents are no longer acutely ill and criteria has been met
for discontinuing COVID isolation
FORM CMS-2567 (02/99)
Previous Versions Obsolete
Event ID:
Facility ID:
555572
If continuation sheet
Page 9 of 11
Printed: 05/15/2026
Form Approved OMB
No. 0938-0391
Department of Health & Human Services
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services
STATEMENT OF DEFICIENCIES
AND PLAN OF CORRECTION
(X1) PROVIDER/SUPPLIER/CLIA
IDENTIFICATION NUMBER:
(X2) MULTIPLE CONSTRUCTION
555572
B. Wing
A. Building
(X3) DATE SURVEY
COMPLETED
05/24/2024
NAME OF PROVIDER OR SUPPLIER
STREET ADDRESS, CITY, STATE, ZIP CODE
Grossmont Hospital D/P Snf
5555 Grossmont Center Drive
LA Mesa, CA 91941
For information on the nursing home's plan to correct this deficiency, please contact the nursing home or the state survey agency.
(X4) ID PREFIX TAG
SUMMARY STATEMENT OF DEFICIENCIES
(Each deficiency must be preceded by full regulatory or LSC identifying information)
F 0887
Level of Harm - Minimal harm
or potential for actual harm
Residents Affected - Few
Educate residents and staff on COVID-19 vaccination, offer the COVID-19 vaccine to eligible residents and
staff after education, and properly document each resident and staff member's vaccination status.
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on
interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure two of five residents (122, 11) were
offered/re-offered the COVID-19 vaccination and had documentation that education regarding the vaccine
had been provided.
In addition, the facility's infection prevention nurse (IPN) 1 did not have a process to readily identify the
residents' vaccination status.
As a result of this deficient practice, the facility did not provide all residents the opportunity to accept or
change their decision to accept a COVID-19 vaccine which put residents at potential risk of contracting
COVID-19.
Findings:
A review of Resident 11's untitled facesheet indicated the resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE].
A review of Resident 122's untitled facesheet indicated the resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE].
On 5/21/24 at 2:41 P.M., an interview was conducted with IPN 1. IPN 1 stated the facility was currently
experiencing a COVID-19 outbreak, with the first positive case on 5/15/24. During the interview, IPN 1 was
informed of what the survey team would need to review and discuss with her regarding the facility's
infection control practices, including the status of all residents for pneumococcal and COVID-19 vaccines.
On 5/24/24 at 8:15 A.M., a joint interview and record review was conducted with IPN 1. IPN 1 stated that
each residents' vaccination status was reviewed upon admission by the admitting nurse. IPN 1 stated she
did not have residents' COVID-19 vaccination status available and that she would have to review each
residents' clinical record.
At 9:12 A.M., the director of nursing (DON) joined the interview and record review to assist IPN 1 with
locating residents' vaccination information.
The interview and record review continued with IPN 1. IPN 1 reviewed Resident 122's clinical record and
stated the resident received a COVID-19 vaccine on 1/13/22. IPN 1 stated there was no documentation
Resident 122 had been offered the latest version of the COVID-19 vaccine. IPN 1 stated the resident should
have been offered the COVID-19 vaccine.
IPN 1 reviewed Resident 11's clinical record and stated the resident was offered the vaccine on 1/26/24
and had refused. IPN 1 stated there was no documentation education about the vaccine had been provided
to the resident. IPN 1 stated education should have been provided for the resident to make an informed
refusal.
IPN 1 stated she could not access all the vaccination information in the new medical record system. IPN 1
stated she was not compiling/tracking the information and reviewing it to ensure all
(continued on next page)
FORM CMS-2567 (02/99)
Previous Versions Obsolete
Event ID:
Facility ID:
555572
If continuation sheet
Page 10 of 11
Printed: 05/15/2026
Form Approved OMB
No. 0938-0391
Department of Health & Human Services
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services
STATEMENT OF DEFICIENCIES
AND PLAN OF CORRECTION
(X1) PROVIDER/SUPPLIER/CLIA
IDENTIFICATION NUMBER:
(X2) MULTIPLE CONSTRUCTION
555572
B. Wing
A. Building
(X3) DATE SURVEY
COMPLETED
05/24/2024
NAME OF PROVIDER OR SUPPLIER
STREET ADDRESS, CITY, STATE, ZIP CODE
Grossmont Hospital D/P Snf
5555 Grossmont Center Drive
LA Mesa, CA 91941
For information on the nursing home's plan to correct this deficiency, please contact the nursing home or the state survey agency.
(X4) ID PREFIX TAG
SUMMARY STATEMENT OF DEFICIENCIES
(Each deficiency must be preceded by full regulatory or LSC identifying information)
F 0887
Level of Harm - Minimal harm
or potential for actual harm
Residents Affected - Few
residents were offered COVID-19 vaccination and that education had been provided. IPN 1 was asked who
was monitoring this. IPN 1 stated, It should probably be me. IPN 1 stated without keeping track of resident
vaccination status, vaccinations could get missed. The joint interview and record review with IPN 1 took two
hours and 27 minutes to determine the vaccination status of five residents.
On 5/24/24 at 12 P.M., a joint interview was conducted with IPN 1 and IPN 2. IPN 1 and IPN 2 both stated
when the facility started their COVID-19 outbreak (5/15/24), that all residents' COVID-19 vaccination status
should have been reviewed. IPN 1 and IPN 2 both stated the COVID-19 vaccine should have then been
re-offered to eligible residents.
A review of the facility's policy titled Vaccination Program for Residents of Long Term Care/ Sub Acute
Facilities, 39136 revised 8/29/23, indicated, .A. All residents will be screened for .COVID-19 vaccine . and
offered the vaccine(s) if eligible .C. Pneumococcal and COVID-19 vaccine is offered year round . 2. Provide
resident (or designee) with education regarding the benefits and potential side effects associated with the
vaccine .Document education provided in the resident's medical record
FORM CMS-2567 (02/99)
Previous Versions Obsolete
Event ID:
Facility ID:
555572
If continuation sheet
Page 11 of 11