Failure to Implement Policies to Prevent Sexual Abuse
Summary
The facility failed to establish and implement policies and protocols to prevent sexual abuse, including a protocol to identify when, how, and by whom determinations of capacity to consent to sexual contact would be made. This failure was highlighted by the case of a resident in the Memory Care Secured Unit (MCSU) who had a history of escalating sexual behaviors. Despite multiple documented incidents of inappropriate sexual behavior, the facility did not report, investigate, or implement protective measures to safeguard other residents from potential abuse. The resident in question, identified as having moderate to severe cognitive impairment, exhibited inappropriate sexual behaviors towards other residents on several occasions. These behaviors included rubbing, grabbing, and making verbal sexual remarks. On one occasion, the resident was found touching another resident's upper thigh in a private room. The facility's administrator used an unsanctioned questionnaire to assess the capacity of both residents to consent to sexual contact, without any supporting policy or guidelines to ensure the accuracy of this determination. Interviews with facility staff revealed that the administrator was not notified of several incidents of inappropriate behavior, and no investigation or safety measures were put in place. The facility's policy on abuse was found to be inadequate, lacking specific guidelines on how to handle situations involving residents' capacity to consent to sexual activity. This deficiency had the potential to affect all residents in the MCSU, as the facility failed to protect them from potential sexual abuse.
Removal Plan
- The facility failed to implement an abuse policy and procedure to protect residents on the Memory Care Secured Unit from abuse including affectionate physical touching, and verbal sexual statements made to female residents about their body parts. Abuse policy was instituted.
- The facility further failed to develop and implement a policy and to ensure resident's capacity to consent to sexual contact prior to the Administrator deciding RI #19 and RI #13, residents residing on the MCSU, could consent to sexual contact.
- Abuse policy was updated to include (When any resident expresses the desire to engage in sexual activity. Refer to the supplemental questions for determination of capacity related to sexual decisions. This will be completed by Administrator and Director of Nursing. If it is determined that residents have the capacity to consent it will be referred to the facility Medical Director and member of the ethics committee for final determination. This final determination will be documented in the medical record).
- This had the potential to affect all residents on the memory care secured unit. No residents are engaging in sexual conduct currently. All residents on the Memory Care unit were interviewed and/or assessed by the Memory Care Unit Manager to verify that no resident was exhibiting any sexually inappropriate behavior, nor had any complaints or verbalized any allegations of abuse. No residents were engaging in sexual behaviors. However, if residents desire to engage in sexual activity refer to the supplemental questionnaire for determination of capacity related to sexual decisions. This will be completed by the Administrator and Director of Nursing. If it is determined that residents have the capacity to consent it will be referred to the facility Medical Director and member of the ethics committee for final determination. The final determination will be documented in the medical record.
- VP of Operations and Regional Nurse Consultant provided 1:1 in-service education to Administrator and DON regarding updated abuse policy. The facilities abuse policy has always included that all residents have the right free from abuse, identification of abuse, and immediately protecting residents when abuse is suspected and the seven components of abuse: screening, training, prevention, identification, reporting, protection and investigation. Residents will be assessed when they desire or display to engage in sexual activity.
- Education was completed with all staff regarding the abuse policy. The facilities abuse policy has always included that all residents have the right free from abuse, identification of abuse, an immediately protecting residents when abuse is suspected and the seven components of abuse: screening, training, prevention, identification, reporting, protection and investigation. Residents will be assessed when they desire or display to engage in sexual activity. New hires will be educated on the new revision of the abuse policy.
- Emergency QAPI meeting was held with all key personnel (Administrator, Director of Nursing, Regional Director of Health services, [NAME] President of Operations, RN Infection Control and medical director). Facility discussed ensuring residents are kept safe from all types of abuse and neglect. This was done by educating staff on who to report abuse to, when to report abuse and what to report.
- There are no residents known to the facility to be consented and engaging in current sexual activity. Any sexual activity will be reported immediately. In the event that the Administrator and DON are unavailable, the activity will be reported immediately to a member of the Ethics Committee to complete the assessment for the capacity to consent.
Penalty
Resources
Below are regulatory guidelines relevant to this citation:
The facility failed to properly identify, report, and investigate abuse allegations involving two residents. One resident reported a staff member yelled at them and was rough with their roommate, but the incident was not documented or reported, and an LPN admitted not reporting it because they did not believe the resident. Another resident reported inappropriate touching by a peer, but the investigation lacked witness or resident statements, and ordered 1:1 supervision was not consistently provided despite repeated behaviors documented by staff and observations showing the resident unsupervised.
Failure to Report and Document Alleged Neglect: A Nursing Student reported that a CNA did not provide cares to residents, including residents being left soaking wet and unchanged. The concern was relayed to facility leadership, but the allegation was not reported to the SA within the required timeframe and the investigation was not documented, despite the facility’s abuse/neglect policy requiring prompt reporting and a written investigation record.
Failure to investigate resident-to-resident sexual abuse allegation: Two residents with dementia, one moderately cognitively impaired and the other severely cognitively impaired, were involved in an incident where a nurse aide observed one resident with his hands inside the other resident’s brief in the genital area. Staff did not obtain timely written statements, did not document resident assessments or investigative findings at the time, and there was no documented evidence that physicians or resident representatives were notified or that protective interventions were implemented until the resident was later moved to another unit.
Failure to Report Injury of Unknown Origin: A resident with aphasia, dementia, hemiplegia, and extensive ADL dependence developed a large area of bruising, swelling, and a blistered injury on the chest, axilla, shoulder, and extremities. Staff noted the injury but did not document or report it immediately, and an RN later stated she saw bruising on the night shift but assumed someone else had reported it. The resident was nonverbal and unable to explain what happened, and hospital and police records described the injuries as unknown in origin.
Failure to Complete Required Background and Registry Checks Before Hire: The facility failed to follow its background screening policy for an RN and the DON. Record review showed both were hired before criminal history checks were completed, and the RN’s EMR and NAR checks were also completed after hire. Interviews with the BOM, RN, and DON confirmed the employees had already been working at the facility when the required screening was not yet done.
Failure to Complete Required Pre-Employment Screening: The facility failed to complete required pre-employment screening for two LVNs and the DSD before hire. Reference checks were incomplete or limited to a spouse, friends, and co-workers, with no documented contact with former employers or HR, and the ADM stated a criminal background check alone was sufficient for one employee despite the facility policy requiring background, reference, and credential checks with documentation of screening.
Failure to Report and Supervise Resident Abuse Allegations
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to implement policies and procedures for identifying, reporting, and investigating resident-to-resident abuse for 2 residents. Resident 114, who was admitted with kidney failure and a bladder infection and was able to make needs known, reported that about two weeks earlier a staff member yelled at them and was rough with their roommate. The resident said they told another staff member but did not hear anything further. The EHR and May 2026 incident log contained no documentation of the incident. During interview, the administrator stated they were not aware of the allegation and would start an investigation. The facility investigation later showed an LPN was aware of the allegation but did not report it because they did not believe the resident, stating the resident makes things up. Resident 150, who was readmitted with depression, anxiety, and heart failure and was able to make needs known, reported that Resident 102 touched them inappropriately on three occasions and entered their room at 3 AM to touch their shoulders from behind. Resident 150 stated staff were aware and that they did not feel as safe as they used to, and they reported keeping a fork on their bedside table to use if needed. Resident 102 had an order to monitor and document inappropriate sexual behaviors, and the facility investigation showed no witness statements or statement from Resident 102. The intervention plan required one-to-one supervision, but observations showed Resident 102 in the hall or room without staff supervision, the TAR documented repeated inappropriate sexual behaviors in April and May 2026, and the staffing schedule showed no one-to-one supervision assigned on multiple days. The DON stated the facility had not been able to implement the planned one-to-one supervision due to lack of staffing.
Failure to Report and Document Alleged Neglect
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to implement its Abuse, Neglect, & Exploitation Policy after an allegation of neglect was made by a Nursing Student and relayed to RN/Staff #2. The allegation stated that a CNA did not provide cares to residents on the unit, including residents being left soaking wet and not changed. Staff #2 reported the concern to the former Administrator, and a complaint/grievance form was completed and texted to facility leadership, but the original form later could not be located in the abuse binder. The facility did not report the allegation of neglect to the State Agency within the required timeframe. The report indicates the initial allegation was made on March 27, 2026, but the facility’s first report to the SA was not made until April 17, 2026, approximately 21 days later. Staff #41 stated allegations of neglect are to be reported to the SA within 24 hours, and Staff #44 confirmed the allegation was not reported until after corporate office became involved. The investigation of the alleged neglect was also not documented. Staff #9 reportedly told Staff #44 that he had investigated by speaking with residents and staff and concluded the neglect had not occurred, but no written documentation of that investigation was produced. Staff #44 stated the standard process requires the investigation to be documented. The facility policy required the administrator or supervisor to protect residents from continued neglect, investigate the incident as soon as practicable, maintain a written record of the investigation, and report the allegation externally to the SA.
Failure to Investigate Resident-to-Resident Sexual Abuse Allegation
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to implement abuse prevention and investigation procedures after an allegation of resident-to-resident sexual abuse involving two residents. One resident had diagnoses including dementia and was assessed as moderately cognitively impaired with a BIMS score of 11, while the other resident also had dementia and was assessed as severely cognitively impaired with a BIMS score of 03. Facility policy required staff to immediately separate residents, assess for injury, initiate an investigation, obtain written statements from staff on duty, notify the administrator, physician, resident representative, law enforcement, and report the incident to the Pennsylvania Department of Health and local Area on Aging within 24 hours. Facility documentation and staff interviews showed that two nurse aides observed one resident with his hands inside the other resident’s brief in the area of the resident’s genitals, creating an allegation of sexual abuse. The nurse aides stated they were not asked to provide written statements at the time of the incident, and a registered nurse supervisor stated she did not interview or debrief them. The clinical records contained no documented evidence of resident-specific observations, evaluations, assessments, or investigative documentation at the time of the incident, and there was no documented evidence that physicians or resident representatives were notified. The records also lacked evidence of additional interventions to address the resident’s behavior or to protect the other resident and others from further unwanted contact until the resident was transferred to another nursing unit approximately 16 days later.
Failure to Report Injury of Unknown Origin
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to implement its Abuse Prevention Policy by not reporting an injury of unknown origin for one resident who was reviewed for abuse, neglect, and injuries of unknown origin. The resident had multiple significant medical conditions, including aphasia, hemiplegia, weakness, abnormal posture, contractures of both knees and ankles, and dementia. The care plan documented that the resident was nonverbal, unable to communicate effectively, and considered at risk for abuse or neglect due to mood, cognition, weakness, and behavioral/physical deficits. The MDS also documented that the resident was rarely or never understood, had memory problems, was dependent for many activities of daily living, and was always incontinent of bowel and bladder. Nursing documentation showed that a nurse was called to the resident’s room after staff noticed an area on the resident’s chest. The nurse found a large raised, firm, warm, dried popped blistered area extending from the right armpit to the right upper chest and shoulder, with severe pain. The nurse also noted bruising and swelling on the chest, bruising on the right side, scattered bruises, scabs, discoloration on both lower extremities, and a very swollen and painful right elbow. The nurse documented that there had been no prior progress note or risk management documentation and notified administration. The administrator was told that a CNA said a night nurse had noticed the areas on Sunday night, and the administrator later informed the nurse that a police officer would come to the facility. Hospital records and police documentation described bruising and unknown injuries with no documented explanation. The hospital noted significant bruising and swelling of the right chest wall, right axilla, and right upper arm, with an associated scrape in the axilla, and staff reported the bruising had been noted on Sunday and Monday without documentation of any injuries. The police report stated the resident had a large amount of bruising and unknown injuries, and the responding nurse reported that a night nurse on Sunday had verbally stated she noticed bruising. Interviews later showed one RN stated she saw bruising on the night of 5/10/26 but did not report it to administration because she assumed someone else had already done so, while a CNA stated the RN showed pictures of the bruises and did not report them that night. The administrator stated she was first notified on 5/13/26 and expected staff to report any allegation of abuse, neglect, or injury of unknown origin immediately.
Failure to Complete Required Background and Registry Checks Before Hire
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to implement written policies and procedures to prevent abuse, neglect, exploitation, and misappropriation of resident property for 2 of 3 employees reviewed for employability. Record review showed the RN had a hire date of 05/06/2026, but there was no evidence the facility completed a criminal history check before hire. The BOM provided documentation showing the RN’s criminal history was checked on 05/28/2026 during the on-site investigation. The RN’s file also showed the Employee Misconduct Registry and Nurse Aide Registry were checked on 05/07/2026, after the hire date. Record review also showed the DON had a hire date of 04/28/2026, but there was no evidence the facility completed a criminal history check before hire. The BOM provided documentation showing the DON’s criminal history was checked on 05/28/2026 during the on-site investigation. During interviews, the RN said she had been employed at the facility for about three weeks, and the DON said she had been employed for about a month. The BOM stated she understood that criminal history and registry checks were to be completed before a person was hired and given access to residents, but said she was overwhelmed after the facility switched to a new payroll company. The facility policy required background screening and criminal conviction checks for applicants with direct access to residents, including registry checks for nursing staff and licensed professionals.
Failure to Complete Required Pre-Employment Screening
Penalty
Summary
Develop and implement policies and procedures to prevent abuse, neglect, and theft was cited after the facility failed to complete required pre-employment screening before hiring three of six sampled employees: two LVNs and the DSD. For LVN 1, the personnel file and Reference Check Control Form dated 3/25/2025 showed the employment reference section was left blank, and the date of hire was 3/26/2025. During interview and record review with the ADM and DON, the DON stated the facility did not document attempts to contact former employers such as HR or the DSD, and that the references obtained were only from a friend and co-workers who could not provide relevant information such as length of employment, work performance, history of resident abuse, or re-hire eligibility. For LVN 4, the Reference Check Control Form dated 5/11/2025 showed the facility contacted the potential employee's wife and two co-workers, with a date of hire of 5/12/2026. During interview and record review, the ADM and DON stated the documentation did not identify the titles or positions of the individuals contacted, and the DON stated the facility should verify work experience and document the name and title of each person contacted. For the DSD, the personnel file contained Confidential Reference Checks signed 10/30/2020 showing contact with friends and a co-worker, with a date of hire of 11/3/2020. The ADM stated a criminal background check had been completed and showed no criminal offenses, and further stated that friends or co-workers could provide information about a history of resident abuse, so former employers did not need to be contacted. The facility's Abuse, Neglect, and Exploitation policy required background, reference, and credential checks and documentation that screening occurred.
Trusted data from CMS and state health departments
Every citation, penalty and Plan of Correction is sourced from public CMS records (latest release July 29, 2026) and official state health department websites — never guesswork.
In your survey window? See what surveyors are citing.
The Survey-Prep Report maps your facility's risk from 12 months of CMS and state citation data — what's being cited around you and what to check first. $129 one-time.