Resident 39 required complex care including a tracheostomy, colostomy, and dual-port abdominal tube for both gastric emptying and feeding. On August 31, his feeding tube became dislodged and his ostomy bag disconnected from the colostomy site, requiring emergency transport to the hospital.
When inspectors arrived in October following multiple complaints, they found the same resident in distressing condition. Gastric contents were leaking from his feeding tube onto his body, soaking his clothes and incontinence brief. The leaked fluids covered his abdominal binder, wheelchair, and pooled on the floor around him.
Nurse 430 told inspectors the resident had scratched himself, causing redness on his abdomen and penis. No treatment had been ordered for the irritated areas.
The nurse practitioner responsible for his care, NP 435, was unaware of the resident's reddened skin. She had not been notified about the irritation despite facility policies requiring daily monitoring of tube sites for "erythema, edema, drainage including quantity, odor, appearance."
"I was not surprised the areas were red because he had a G-tube and a colostomy," NP 435 told inspectors during an evening interview on September 25.
Her lack of surprise suggested the untreated skin irritation was an expected consequence rather than a medical concern requiring intervention.
Nurse 229, who had cared for the resident on the day his tube became dislodged and he required hospitalization, could not recall the incident when questioned by inspectors weeks later.
The facility's own policies outlined detailed procedures for preventing exactly these failures. For colostomy care, staff were required to "gently cleanse the peristomal area with warm tap water and wash cloth" and ensure the opening fit "closely to the size of the stoma so little peristomal skin was exposed."
The enteral feeding policy mandated that nurses "monitor the condition of the tube with each use and inform the physician if the tube becomes unusable, leaks or might need replacement."
Both policies required daily monitoring and documentation. Neither appeared to have been followed consistently for Resident 39.
The inspection revealed a pattern of inadequate oversight for residents requiring complex medical devices. Staff demonstrated competence was required for both ostomy care and enteral feeding management, yet the resident's deteriorating condition suggested gaps in training or execution.
For Resident 39, the consequences were immediate and visible. Gastric contents are acidic and can cause chemical burns when in prolonged contact with skin. The leaking tube not only created unsanitary conditions but posed infection risks.
His detached colostomy bag on August 31 meant waste was not being properly collected, creating additional health hazards and dignity concerns. The combination of feeding tube and colostomy failures on the same day suggested systemic care breakdowns rather than isolated incidents.
The facility's policies acknowledged the complexity of caring for residents with multiple tubes and ostomies. The enteral feeding policy specifically warned staff not to use tubes if there was "any doubt about correct placement" and to contact physicians for guidance.
Yet when Resident 39's tube was clearly malfunctioning and leaking, no immediate medical consultation appeared to have occurred. Instead, inspectors found him sitting in the leaked gastric contents with untreated skin irritation.
The August hospitalization represented a critical safety event that should have triggered enhanced monitoring and care plan reviews. Instead, similar problems recurred within weeks.
Multiple complaint numbers were associated with this deficiency, indicating ongoing concerns about the facility's handling of complex medical care. The pattern suggested residents with feeding tubes, colostomies, and other medical devices faced elevated risks of neglect.
For families considering placement of loved ones requiring specialized medical equipment, the inspection findings raise questions about staff competency and supervision. The gap between written policies and actual care delivery proved dangerous for at least one vulnerable resident.
Resident 39 remained dependent on staff for all aspects of his complex medical needs. The inspection documented their failure to meet even basic standards for his care, leaving him to endure the physical discomfort and indignity of sitting in his own leaked gastric contents while his medical conditions went untreated.
Full Inspection Report
The details above represent a summary of key findings. View the complete inspection report for Tallmadge Health & Rehab Center from 2025-10-09 including all violations, facility responses, and corrective action plans.
Additional Resources
- View all inspection reports for Tallmadge Health & Rehab Center
- Browse all OH nursing home inspections