HospitalInspections.org

Based on record review and interview the hospital failed to ensure the established process for identifying and investigating grievances as outlined in hospital policy was followed for 1 of 2 grievances reviewed (#1) and 1 of 7 sampled patients (#3). Findings:

Review of the hospital policy titled, "Grievance Procedure, last revised April 2009" presented by the hospital as their current policy revealed in part, "A grievance is defined as an allegation of a violation of a patient's rights, discrimination, abuse/neglect, sexual misconduct, or unethical practices. . . Department Supervisor: Schedules a hearing with patient (and/or family) for the purpose of conducting an informal, but thorough, investigation of the allegation to determine its validity affording all interested persons and their representative, if any, an opportunity to submit evidence relevant to the allegation. Resolves or investigates validity of the grievance within 48 hours of receipt of the grievance. . . "

Patient #1:
Review of the hospital's grievance log revealed a grievance form was initiated on 3/17/2010 at 10:21 a.m. by Patient #1's son. Review of section titled, "What/Who is the complaint about?" revealed "Pt's (Patient's) son complaining about (Physician #S3) being unprofessional and too casual. Was upset that nothing was done for pt. on last admission. Review of the section titled "How would the grievance desire this complaint be resolved?" revealed "pt.s son wanted a formal complaint done." Review of "Staff findings: revealed no documentation. Review of "Actions Taken" revealed no documentation. Review of "Level at which resolution occurred" revealed no documentation. Review of "Signature of staff member responding" revealed no documentation.

During a face to face interview on 5/03/2010 at 10:10 a.m., Physician S3 indicated she had no knowledge of Patient #1's son requesting a "formal complaint" in regards to her "being unprofessional and too casual." Physician S3 indicated Patient #1's son was extremely agitated and controlling. She further indicated Patient #1's son had a history of being difficult to communicate with at several facilities where his mother had been a patient. Physician S3 indicated #1's son had demanded the patient's treatment be under his direction dictating the number of days she could remain in the hospital and what medication changes were to occur. Physician S3 indicated one day the son was angry because his mother had been ordered no new medications and then another day he was angry because his mother had been ordered a new medication. Physician S3 indicated she spent many hours working with Patient #1's son in an attempt to educate him on his mother's condition and the treatment decisions in relation to treating his mother. Physician S3 indicated Patient #1's son was very angry and controlling and that although she spent hours working with him, there was no pleasing him. Physician S3 indicated Patient #1's son had a history of complaining about all the facilities his mother had been treated in and all the physicians that had provided care. Physician S3 indicated she felt she had done her best."

During a face to face interview on 5/03/2010 at 10:40 a.m., Administrator S2 indicated she was the person in the hospital that handled grievances. Administrator S2 indicated she had not been aware that Patient #1's son had requested a "formal complaint" regarding the physician's (S3) treatment of his mother and had not followed hospital policy in regards to investigating or responding to Patient #1's son's grievance. S2 indicated she did not know how the grievance form located in the grievance log had escaped her notice.

Patient #3:
Review of Patient #3's medical record revealed the patient was admitted to the hospital on 1/15/2010 and discharged on 2/04/2010 with diagnoses that included Schizoaffective Disorder and Dementia, Alzheimer type.

During a face to face interview on 4/30/2010 at 12:40 p.m., Mental Health Tech (MHT) S7 indicated Patient #3's daughter had been told by Patient #3 that men had bathed her. MHT S7 indicated #3's daughter had questioned him about it. MHT S7 indicated he informed the daughter that female staff bathed female patients in the hospital. When asked by the surveyor if he had reported the daughter's concern to anyone, S7 indicated he thought the question by Patient #3's daughter was nothing more than information gathering and never thought of it as a complaint/grievance. S7 indicated he never reported the daughter's comment to anyone.

During a face to face interview on 5/03/2010 at 8:40 a.m., Registered Nurse (RN) S14 indicated she did receive a phone call from Patient #3's daughter questioning her about male employees bathing female patients (unsure of date). S14 indicated #3's daughter indicated her mother (Patient #3) had stated that MHT S7 had bathed her and she was very disturbed. S14 indicated she knew of no time when a female patient had been bathed by a male employee. S14 indicated she spoke with MHT S7 about the accusation. S14 indicated S7 told her Patient #3's daughter had asked him if men (staff) bathed women (patients) in the hospital and he had told her, "No. " S14 indicated S7 informed her that he had no idea she (Patient #3's daughter) was trying to imply that he had bathed Patient #3. S14 indicated MHT S7 indicated he thought #3's daughter was just asking a question. S14 indicated S7 confirmed that he had never bathed any female patients to include Patient #3. S14 indicated she had assured Patient #3's daughter that the incident had not occurred. S14 indicated she had not identified the voiced concern by Patient #3's daughter as a complaint/grievance and had not documented the conversation on a complaint form, grievance form, or in the patient's medical record.

During a face to face interview on 5/03/2010 at 10:10 a.m., Medical Director, Physician S3 indicated she recalled speaking with Patient #3's daughter regarding her concern that Mental Health Tech S7 had bathed her mother (#3). Physician S3 indicated she had spoken at length with Patient #3's daughter and assured her that they had not allowed any male staff to bath her mother. Physician S3 indicated she informed Patient #3's daughter that the patient had been very agitated, paranoid, and delusional. Physician S3 indicated she told Patient
#3's daughter to call at anytime to clarify events reported by her mother and either she or the nursing staff would educate her on what events had occurred in order for the daughter to know what was real versus what had been delusional paranoid thinking on the part of Patient #3. Physician S3 indicated she had informed Patient #3's daughter that the only time opposite gender employees were involved in patient care would be when lifting assistance was required and a male might assist a female patient in the presence of female staff or when a male patient might be bathed by a female staff but only with the patient's permission.

During a face to face interview on 5/03/2010 at 9:30 a.m., Administrator S2 indicated she was the person designated by the Governing Body to handle grievances. S2 confirmed she had never received any documentation regarding the grievance brought forth by Patient #3's daughter regarding the allegation that her mother was bathed by a male staff member which had caused her to be distressed. S2 indicated she had no documentation of an investigation into the allegation by Patient #3's daughter that Patient #3 had been bathed by a male staff member which had caused her distress.

Based on record review and interview the hospital failed to ensure a written notice was provided to the complainant upon resolution of the grievance that contained the name of the hospital contact person, the steps taken on behalf of the patient to investigate the grievance, the results of the grievance process, and the date of completion for 1 of 2 grievances reviewed (Patient #2). Findings:


Patient #2:
Review of the hospital's grievance log revealed a grievance form was initiated on 2/19/2010 at 9:00 a.m. by Patient #2's daughter. Further review revealed the grievance alleged "Neglect" by "MHT (Mental Health Tech)". Review revealed no documented evidence to indicate the name of the MHT. Review of "Staff findings" revealed no documentation. Review of "Actions taken" revealed "Provided in-service to all staff on pt (Patient) care, rights, dignity. 2/19/10" and "Terminated employee".

Review of e-mail sent to "Oceans Healthcare CEO" dated 2/19/10 at 10:22 a.m. revealed in part, "Also while visiting, he (Patient #2) expressed that he (#2) needed to go to the bathroom. He (#2) is unable to walk and stand without a walker or chair and needs complete assistance in using the bathroom. By the time I (Patient #2's daughter) found someone to assist him, it was too late. The staff member was more concerned with stating that she has other patients to handle and could not be (in) two places at once while he sat there in the bathroom and soiled himself right in front of us. needless to say, it was very difficult to see him soil himself when there were a number of people just standing around. I left wondering whether they were really going to clean him up and make him comfortable. I want to give this facility the benefit of the doubt as to the standard of care. . ." Further review revealed no documented evidence of an investigation into this complaint.

Review of Mental Health Tech (MHT) S17's Disciplinary Action Report dated 2/19/2010 revealed in part, "Reason for Report: Violation of Company Policies, Unsatisfactory Work Performance, Neglect of pt (patient) basic needs. Explanation. . . Employee had not attended to basic needs of pt. family member was extremely upset. Pt. had soiled himself b/c (because) staff member did not toilet him when he requested. family called to complain and wrote letter to CEO web site. Type of warning: Termination."

During a face to face interview on 5/03/2010 at 10:40 a.m., Administrator S2 indicated she had investigated the grievance filed by Patient #2's daughter. S2 indicated she handled the entire process verbally and did not document her investigation. S2 indicated she discovered that MHT S17 had made the excuse to Patient #2's family of not being able to toilet the patient because she was the only MHT with keys to the unit. S2 indicated all MHTs have keys to the unit and it was untrue that she would not be able to assist in toileting Patient #2. S2 further indicated Patient #2 should have received the assistance he needed and never should have been left to soil himself. S2 further indicated she discovered in her investigation that MHT S17 had eventually provided incontinence care to Patient #2 but had left the door to his room and to the bathroom open. S2 indicated that although the bathroom was not visible from the hallway, it was a dignity issue and not acceptable. S2 indicated she terminated MHT S17 as a result of this incident. S2 indicated she did not send a written letter to the complainant in response to the grievance. S2 indicated it had not been her practice to send a letter (with the name of the hospital contact person, the steps taken on behalf of the patient to investigate the grievance, the results of the grievance precess, and the date of completion) in response to grievances.

Review of the hospital policy titled, "Grievance Procedure, last revised April 2009" presented by the hospital as their current policy revealed in part, "Department Supervisor issues a written decision which includes the name of the hospital contact person, the steps taken on behalf of the patient to investigate the grievance, the results of the grievance process and the date of completion. The written notice must be communicated to the patient or the patient's representative in a language and manner the patient or the patient's representative understands. This written decision shall be issued within 7 days of the hearing."

Based on record review and interview the hospital failed to ensure patients had the right to formulate advance directives by failing to identify a previously executed Advance Directive, inform the patient of the right to formulate an Advance Directive, or confirm the status of a Do Not Resuscitate (DNR) status for 3 of 7 sampled patients. (#4, #6 and #7) Findings:

Patient #4
The medical record for Patient #4 was reviewed. Patient #4 was admitted on 04/25/10 with a diagnosis of Dementia with Behavioral Disturbances. Review of the Comprehensive Interdisciplinary Assessment dated 04/25/10 revealed Patient #4 was admitted per a Physician's Emergency Certificate (PEC) and was unable to sign papers. The patient's son was identified as the person of contact for emergencies and to take part in treatment. The Authorization/Consent Form was signed by the patient's son which identified him as the Legal Representative. The Advance Directive Acknowledgement was stamped with Patient #4's name but was blank. There was no documented evidence the assessment was completed to identify if Patient #4 had a previously executed Advance Directive, of informing the patient of the right to formulate an Advance Directive, or to confirm the status of a Do Not Resuscitate (DNR) order.

S16 was interviewed face to face on 04/30/10 at 2pm. S16 reviewed the record for Patient #4. She confirmed she had completed the "Nursing Initial Interview and Assessment" for Patient
#4. Further she had not addressed the Advance Directive with the patient or the Patient's husband who had come to the unit on the date of the patient's admit.

S1, Director of Nurses was interviewed face to face on 04/30/10 at 10:45am. S1 reviewed the record for Patient #4. She confirmed there was no documented evidence the Advance Directive was addressed for Patient #4.

S18 was interviewed face to face on 05/03/10 at 8:15am. S18 reviewed the record for Patient #4 S18 indicated the nurses should be completing the Advance Directive on admission and if it is a problem at admission there should be follow up documentation to get the information.

Patient #6
The medical record for Patient #6 was reviewed. Patient #6 was admitted on 04/12/10 with a diagnosis of Schizoaffective Disorder, Dementia with Behavioral Disturbances. Review of the Comprehensive Interdisciplinary Assessment dated 04/12/10 revealed Patient #6 was admitted per a Physician's Emergency Certificate (PEC) and was unable to sign papers. Patient #6 signed a Voluntary Admission on 04/27/10. The patient's spouse and daughter were identified as the persons of contact for emergencies and to take part in treatment. The Advance Directive Acknowledgement was stamped with Patient #6's name with the signature of the Admitting Registered Nurse. The rest of the form was blank. There was no documented evidence the assessment was completed to identify if Patient #6 had a previously executed Advance Directive, of informing the patient of the right to formulate an Advance Directive, or to confirm the status of a Do Not Resuscitate (DNR) order.

S18 was interviewed face to face on 05/03/10 at 8:15am. S18 reviewed the record for Patient #6 S18 indicated the Advance Directive was not done and this was the responsibility of the admitting nurse.

Patient #7
The medical record for Patient #7 was reviewed. Patient #7 was admitted on 04/23/10 with a diagnosis of Depression with Psychosis and Suicidal Ideations. Review of the Comprehensive Interdisciplinary Assessment dated 04/23/10 revealed Patient #7 was a Voluntary Admission and was able to sign papers. The patient's daughter were identified as the Power of Attorney and the person of contact for emergencies and to take part in treatment. The Advance Directive Acknowledgement was stamped with Patient #7's name but was blank. There was no documented evidence the assessment was completed to identify if Patient #7 had a previously executed Advance Directive, of informing the patient of the right to formulate an Advance Directive, or to confirm the status of a Do Not Resuscitate (DNR) order.
Further there was no documented evidence Patient #7's daughter was contacted .

S18 was interviewed face to face on 05/03/10 at 8:15am. S18 reviewed the record for Patient #7 S18 indicated the Advance Directive was not done.

The hospital policy #RTS-03, adopted March 2008, entitled "Advanced Directives" was reviewed. Documentation revealed in part, "Procedure: Admissions Professional * During preadmission assessment process, asks patient (or patient's relative, if the patient is determined to be not competent) whether the patient has appointed a health care surrogate or executed a Living Will and whether any advance directives are still valid and up to date. * If patient has executed an advance directive, information shall be placed in the patient's medical record where it is readily visible during patient's treatment stay. If information is not available requests that patient/family supply this information. Informs patient/family that facility cannot honor advance directive unless copy is on file at this facility and physician has written order. * If the patient does not have a health care surrogate and has not issued advance directives, documents that the patient was presented with a copy of Advance Directive form with appendices: a. Notice to Patients Regarding Your Right to Make Advance Health Care Decision b. Living Will c. Durable Power of Attorney d. Written information about Advance Directives."

Based on record review and interview the hospital failed to ensure the Registered Nurse (RN) supervise and evaluate the nursing care of each patient by failing to do ongoing assessments of patients after a fall for 3 of 3 patients identified with a fall out of a total sample of 7 patients. (Patients #3, #5, and #6) Findings:


Patient #3
Review of Patient #3's medical record revealed the patient was admitted to the hospital on 1/15/2010 and discharged on 2/04/2010 with diagnoses that included Schizoaffective Disorder and Dementia, Alzheimer type.

Review of Patient #3's Multi-Disciplinary Notes dated 1/31/10 at "approx. (approximately) 1800 (6:00 p.m.)" as documented by Registered Nurse (RN) S14 revealed in part, "(patient name) up to bathroom ambulating very slowly down hallway, Pt. (Patient) had blanket on walker due to she gets cold all the time. She was trying to get the blanket in between her legs she was bent over and before I could get to her she rolled over from a squatting position on to her R (right) elbow and R (right) buttock. There is 0 (no) injury noted. Pt. denies pain. . . I called (daughter ' s name) and explained what happened. She did not hit her head, she did not harm self. . . Physician was present. 0 distress. 0 complaints." Further review revealed no documented evidence of an assessment of the physical points of contact; i.e. no documented evidence of Patient #3's range of motion, capillary refill, distal pulses, discoloration, or the presence/absence of deformities to Patient #3's right elbow or right hip/leg immediately post fall or at any time after the injury.

Review of Patient #3's " Risk for Falls Score Sheet " revealed in part, "2/3/10 (no documented time): Has fallen just prior to admit or during hospital stay" to be blank/not circled (3 days after the patient was documented as having fallen). Further review revealed no documented evidence of an updated Fall Risk Assessment on the date of the patient s (#3's) fall (1/31/2010).

Review of the hospital's Incident Report Log revealed an incident report dated 1/31/2010 at 1800 (6:00 p.m.) regarding Patient #3's fall: "pt. (patient) (#3) ambulating in hallway c (with) bed spread wrapped around her, nurse reported pt. was squatting down to move blanket from legs and rolled over to her side- 0 (no) injuries noted, MD (Medical Doctor) and family notified. Temperature 98.4, Pulse 76, Respirations 19, Blood Pressure 125/80. . . "

During a face to face interview on 5/03/2010 at 8:40 a.m., Registered Nurse (RN) S14 indicated she was the nurse on duty that witnessed Patient #3's fall on 1/31/2010. S14 indicated the patient was located near the floor when she fell because she fell from the squatting position indicating the distance of the fall was minimal. S14 indicated she did a quick head to toe assessment after the witnessed fall. S14 indicated she saw no bruises, palpated no tenderness, and the patient did not complain of pain so she determined there were no noted injuries. S14 confirmed there was no documented evidence of a post fall assessment in the medical record for Patient #3 to include an assessment for range of motion, distal capillary refill, distal pulses, and absence/presence of deformities to Patient #3 ' s right elbow or right hip. S14 confirmed Patient #3's fall was never noted on the Risk for Falls Score Sheet and further indicated there should have been an update to Patient #3's Risk for Falls Score Sheet on the day of the fall (1/31/2010). These findings were also confirmed by Director of Nursing S1.

Patient #5
The medical record for Patient #5 was reviewed. Patient #5 was admitted on 04/18/2010 with a diagnosis of Dementia with Behavior Disturbance, Bipolar Disorder. Patient #5 was identified on admission as high risk for falls. Review of the Mult-Disciplinary Note dated 04/27/10 0600 (6am) revealed in part, "Pt observed walking to ice machine when pt fell backwards hitting head VS (vital signs) WNL (within normal limits) ACCU chek-120. Pt. clammy & wet initially but warm and dry at present. Pt awake and alert but confused."
Review of the "Incident/Accident Report dated 04/27/10 0600am revealed the physician and family were notified.
There was no documented evidence in the record of neurological checks after a head injury full range of motion assessment, or skin assessment for bruising after Patient #5's fall. There was no documented evidence of continued assessments after 04/27/10 at 0600.

S1 Director of Nursing was interviewed face to face on 04/27/10 at 10:45am. S1 indicated there were no specific hospital protocols for assessment of the patient after a fall.

S18 RN Vice President of Operations was interviewed face to face on 05/03/10 at 9:40am. S18 reviewed the record for Patient #5. She confirmed the assessments after Patient #5's fall were not adequate and neurological checks should have been done after the patient was observed hitting her head during the fall. Further S18 indicated there were no documented follow up assessments after Patient #5's fall and this should have been done.

Patient #6
The medical record for Patient #6 was reviewed. Patient #6 was admitted on 04/12/2010 with a diagnosis of Schizoaffective Disorder, Dementia with Behavioral Disturbance, status post fibula fracture, status post rod placement in spine. Review of the Mult-Disciplinary Note dated 04/16/10 1930 (7:30pm) revealed in part, "Status post fall, Follow up assess after fall earlier reported." A total body and neurological assessment was documented.
Further review of the record revealed no documented evidence of the date and time of Patient #6's fall . There was no documented evidence in the record of full range of motion assessment, or skin assessment for bruising after Patient #6's fall.

Review of the "Incident/Accident Report dated 04/16/10, no time documented for the time of the accident, revealed in part, "Pt found on floor beside toilet. Pt lifted with assistance x 4 and transported to bed. Denies pain with no visible injury. S3 (name of physician) notified. time of notification 0725." (7:25am) (This information was not documented in Patient #6's record).

S19 RN was interviewed face to face on 05/03/10 at 9:45am. S19 reviewed the record for Patient #6. S19 indicated her date of hire was 04/06/10 and she had previously been employed as a Director of Nurses at a nursing home. Further S19 indicated it was reported to her, Patient #6 had fallen, by the 7a/7p nurse when she (S19) reported to work at 7pm on 04/16/10. Further she could not find documented evidence in the patient's record of the fall and an assessment after the fall. Further S19 indicated she had reviewed the record for a post fall form but could not locate one so she documented her assessment in the notes. Further she indicated at her previous employment there was a policy to document post fall assessments every shift for 72 hours.

S18 RN Vice President of Operations was interviewed face to face on 05/03/10 at 9:40am. S18 reviewed the record for Patient #6. She confirmed there was no documented evidence in Patient #6's record of the patient's fall or an assessment at the time of the fall. Further she indicated an Incident Report had been completed but the fall should have been documented in the patient's record. Further S18 indicated there was no hospital policy for nursing assessments after a patient's fall.

Review of the hospital policy titled, " Fall Assessment/Re-Assessment and Precautions, last revised May 2008 " presented by the hospital as their current policy revealed in part, " All patients will be assessed and identified for the potential of being at risk for falls upon admission and every 7 days thereafter. In the event of a fall occurrence, patients will be re-assessed and placed on high risk for falls and secondary fall prevention strategies instituted. . . Fall Risk Criteria. . . Has fallen just prior to admit or during hospital stay = 7. . . "

Based on record review and interview the hospital:
1) failed to develop a care plan for a patient with multiple medical problems, who was taking Coumadin, a blood thinner, and was at a high risk for excessive bleeding, for 1 of 1 patients on Coumadin out of a total of 7 sampled patients (Patient #4).
2) failed to address nutritional complication of dysphagia in the care plan for 1 of 1 patients reviewed with dysphagia out of a total sample of 7 (Patient # 2). Findings:

1) failed to develop a care plan for a patient with multiple medical problems, who was taking Coumadin, a blood thinner, and was at a high risk for excessive bleeding:

The medical record for Patient #4 was reviewed. Patient #4 was admitted on 04/25/10 with diagnosis of Dementia with Behavioral Disturbances. Review of the Medical History and Physical dated 04/25/10 revealed medical diagnoses of 1. CHF/HTN/CAD 2.COPD
3) Constipation 4) A-fib 5) Hypothyroidism 6) Depression. Review of the Physician's Orders dated 04/25/10 2030 (8:30pm) revealed an order for Coumadin 25 mg PO (by mouth) daily.

Review of the "Multidisciplinary Integrated Treatment Plan" revealed no documented evidence the patient's multiple medical problems or the risk for excessive bleeding were identified.

S1, Director of Nurses was interviewed face to face on 04/30/10 at 10:45am. S1 reviewed the record for Patient #4 and confirmed the patient's multiple medical problems and the Coumadin daily with the risk for excessive bleeding were not identified as problems and care-planned.

S18, Vice President of Operations was interviewed on 05/03/10 at 9:30am. S18 reviewed the record for Patient #4 and confirmed the patient's multiple medical problems and high risk for excessive bleeding while on Coumadin should have been identified in the "Multidisciplinary Integrated Treatment Plan."

Review of the hospital policy TX-Gen-02 entitled "Treatment Planning/Integrated/Multidisciplinary" date adopted March 2008, revealed in part," Admitting RN: This preliminary plan of care addresses presenting needs. Initiates individualized treatment problem/nursing diagnosis list as identified in the assessment. Nurse Revises and develops nursing and medical components of the treatment plan based on additional findings from patient, assessments, problem, needs strengths and limitations, and physician's orders. Includes all physician orders in the Treatment Plan."


2) failed to address nutritional complication of dysphagia in the care plan:

Review of Patient #2's medical record revealed the patient was initially treated at the hospital (Ocean's Behavioral) from 2/17/2010 through 2/24/2010. Patient #2 was transferred out due to respiratory difficulty and admitted to an acute care hospital (Hospital B). Patient #2's second admission to the hospital (Ocean's Behavioral) was from 3/01/2010 through 3/08/2010. Review of Hospital B's Video Swallow Study located in the medical record of Patient #2 dated 3/01/2010 revealed in part, "Impressions. Pt (Patient) presents c (with) moderate oral/pharyngeal dysphagia. . . Mech (mechanical) soft diet c (with) honey thick liquids, crush meds c with) puree, multiple swallows c (with) each bite/sip, no straws. Review of Patient #2's Initial Interview and Assessment dated 3/01/2010 at 2330 (11:30 p.m.) revealed physical illness and disabilities to include "Asp (aspiration) pneumonia". Further review revealed no documented evidence of any problems identified in the area of nutrition to include no check mark beside the problem of "dysphagia, choking, gurgling on liquids." Review of Patient #2's physician's orders revealed Diet orders to include "NCS (no concentrated sugar), NAS (no added salt), Thickened Liquid - Ensure tid (three times per day)".

Review of Patient #2's "Multidisciplinary Integrated Treatment Plan" revealed no documented evidence the patient's dysphagia or risk for aspiration had been identified. This finding was confirmed by Director of Nursing S1 on 5/03/2010 at 10:40 a.m. who further indicated the nurse who assessed Patient #2 upon return to the hospital (Ocean's Behavioral Hospital) post acute care hospitalization (Hospital B) should have included the medical issues identified during the patient's acute care stay which included pneumonia and dysphagia. Further she indicated the Multidisciplinary Integrated Treatment Plan should also have reflected the patient's problem with dysphagia and needed interventions.