Creek Way Village (5200 Corporate Drive, Burlington) is a long-term care facility that is owned and operated by Halton Region. There are approximately 140 beds.
Inspection Reports for Creek Way Village
Our research team carefully reviewed and summarized inspection reports for Creek Way Village. You can read the original copies of the reports in the Government of Ontario website.
December 2022
The inspection, conducted by Karlee Zwierschke and Daria Trzos, took place on December 6-8, 2022. This Critical Incident System inspection focused on various aspects of care including falls prevention and management, infection prevention and control, and medication management.
- Plan of Care: The facility failed to include current falls prevention interventions for a resident in their written care plan. This was identified through interviews and observations, indicating a discrepancy between the resident’s actual care needs and the documented plan.
- Obtaining and Keeping Drugs: Non-compliance was noted regarding the secure storage of drugs. An RN was observed leaving the medication cart and screen unlocked while administering medication, contrary to the expectations that the cart should be locked and secured whenever staff are not in immediate attendance.
- Infection Prevention and Control: There was a non-compliance issue related to infection prevention and control, specifically missing additional precaution signage for a resident’s room. This was identified and promptly remedied by placing new additional precaution signage by the room on December 7, 2022.
August 2022
During the course of this inspection, the inspector made relevant observations, reviewed records and conducted interviews, as applicable. There were no findings of non-compliance.
July 2021
The inspection report, conducted by Jessica Paladino, focused on critical incident system inspection. This inspection occurred over several days: June 24, 25, 29, 30, and July 6-9, 2021. The primary areas of inspection were falls prevention and management, infection prevention and control (IPAC), minimizing of restraining, and maintaining a safe and secure home.
- Fall Prevention Policy: The licensee failed to comply with the home’s fall prevention policy. This included incomplete ‘Post Fall Huddle’ documentation and failure to initiate a Head Injury Routine (HIR) for unwitnessed falls, posing risks of mitigating future falls and not identifying neurological injuries.
- Transfering Devices: There was a failure to ensure that safe transferring devices or techniques were used when assisting a resident, violating the home’s zero-lift policy.
- IPAC Program: The staff did not participate fully in the implementation of the IPAC program, particularly in storing personal protective equipment (PPE) correctly, thus risking contamination.
- Care Plan: There was a failure in ensuring staff collaboration in the assessment, development, and implementation of a resident’s care plan, leading to inconsistencies and potential risk of not meeting the resident’s appropriate care needs. Furthermore, there was a failure to revise the care plan when the resident’s care needs changed.
May 2021
The inspection report conducted by Gillian Hunter focused on a Complaint inspection. This inspection occurred on April 28 and May 7, 2021, and was primarily concerned with bed refusals.
The licensee failed to comply to approve an applicant’s admission unless specific conditions are met. These conditions include lacking the necessary physical facilities or nursing expertise to meet an applicant’s care requirements, or other circumstances provided in the regulations.
In the case of applicant #001, the refusal letter from March 2021 indicated that the home lacked the physical facilities and staff expertise needed for their care. However, a patient conference with the hospital care team and Placement Home and Community Care Support Services contradicted this, showing the home did have the necessary capabilities.
For applicant #002, the refusal letter from November 2020 claimed the home lacked the physical facilities for their specific needs. However, it was later confirmed that the home did not lack these facilities when the applicant applied to the home’s waitlist.
The home’s refusal to admit these applicants based on their needs and preferences was not in compliance with the Act.
August 2020
The inspection conducted by Emmy Hartmann focused on a Critical Incident System inspection.
The resident, identified as resident #001 in the report, was assessed to be at risk for falls and had a documented cognitive impairment along with responsive behaviors. The care plan included specific interventions to monitor the resident’s safety. However, during the incident in question, these interventions were not in place.
Due to the lack of proper implementation of the care plan, the resident experienced a fall, which resulted in significant injury. This incident led to the resident being transferred to the hospital, followed by a notable change in their health status.
Both an RPN (Registered Practical Nurse) and a Manager of Care at the facility acknowledged in interviews that the specific intervention intended to monitor the resident’s safety was not in place at the time of the resident’s fall, thereby confirming the non-compliance with the resident’s care plan.
The inspection report issued a VPC, requesting that the licensee prepare a written plan of correction to achieve compliance with the LTCHA, ensuring that the care set out in the care plan is provided to the resident as specified.
February 2020
The non-compliance identified during the inspection conducted by Roseanne Western was related to the admission process, particularly the refusal of an applicant’s admission to the long-term care home.
The licensee did not adhere to the LTCHA when they refused an applicant’s admission to the home based on reasons that were not permitted within the legislation.
A complaint was submitted regarding the refusal of admission for applicant #001. The refusal was based on the claim that the home lacked the physical facilities necessary to meet the applicant’s specific dietary requirements.
The decision to refuse admission was based on the information provided in the application, which indicated that the applicant required a special type of diet. However, upon review of the documentation and discussions with the placement coordinator and the Administrator, it was confirmed that this reason for refusal was not compliant with the Act.
The inspection concluded that the refusal of admission based on dietary requirements did not align with the reasons permitted under the LTCHA for denying admission to an applicant.