Fail

Provincial inspection report finds eleven issues with care at McFarland home

The day after its officials dismissed both the administrator and the director of care of H.J McFarland Memorial Home for the Aged the County issued a statement assuring the community that the care of its vulnerable residents was not at issue in the allegations identified or during the resulting investigation.5

Yet just one month earlier, the County was presented with an inspection report that pointed to several instances of lapses in the care provided to residents at McFarland Home.

The inspection report, prepared by the Performance Improvement and Compliance Branch of the Ministry of Health and Long Term Care, cited 11 issues in which McFarland home had failed to comply with requirements of the Long-Term Care Homes Act, 2007. Many of the comments are critical of the care and documentation of care received by residents of the facility.

In the MOHLTC inspection report, obtained by the Times, one resident complained of being handled roughly, yet the inspectors found no documented assessment of the incident—though the resident was given painkillers for “discomfort”. Further, MOHLTC inspectors found that the home doesn’t define abuse in its policies—in contravention of prescribed procedures under its license.

The report reminded the facility that “At a minimum, the policy to promote zero tolerance of abuse and neglect of residents shall clearly set out what constitutes abuse and neglect.”

Another resident went five days without a bowel movement on two occasions, and six days on another. The McFarland Home has a medical directive that indicates a resident is to receive an oral laxative after two days without a bowel movement and a suppository on the fourth day. According to the inspection report, the resident did not receive the laxatives as specified on three occasions.

The same resident lost 10 per cent of his/her weight over six months. This was the second event that should have triggered a response. According to McFarland Home policy, this weight loss should have prompted a referral to the Registered Dietitian and a thorough assessment of the resident. But the MOHLTC inspection found that there were no assessments related to the resident’s weight losses for two months.

When contacted by the inspector, the Registered Dietitian confirmed that she had not assessed the weight loss of the resident in these two months—and had she completed them, they would have been done within the month the weight warnings had occurred.

MOHLTC inspectors also found that McFarland Home failed to comply with their system of monitoring and evaluating the food and fluid intake of this resident. A review of the food and supplement documentation discovered that, more often than not, this resident’s nourishment, meals and supplements weren’t documented over the three specified months this year. While meal and nourishment intake was recorded a handful on occasions—supplement intake was not recorded over the three months reviewed.

One resident had an open skin wound. He or she should have been assessed every seven days after that—but McFarland records indicate the resident’s wound wasn’t assessed again until 17 days later.

Another resident walked out of the home, exiting by a door that was supposed to be secure. The resident was picked up and returned, unharmed, by the OPP.

The home is cited in various places for failure to provide clear policy, procedures and process. It also found McFarland Home failed to comply with requirements to conduct care conferences and log nutritional intake of residents.

When asked to respond to the findings in the inspection report, the County’s Chief Administrative Officer, Merlin Dewing, said he had been instructed by the municipality’s solicitor to decline comment as it involves a personnel matter.

In a new development, the County last week agreed to hand over management oversight of the McFarland Memorial Home to St. Elizabeth Health Care for the next 18 months.