Failure to Prevent Elopement of Cognitively Impaired Resident
Summary
The facility failed to prevent a cognitively impaired resident, who requires supervision and has a history of wandering, from leaving the facility without staff knowledge. This incident involved a resident diagnosed with Encephalopathy, Drug Induced Subacute Dyskinesia, Malaise, Reduced Mobility, Adjustment Disorder, Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus, Seizures, and Hypertension. The resident, who had a cognitive assessment score indicating moderate cognitive impairment, left the facility through his bedroom window without staff noticing. The resident was found days later at a fire station and subsequently transported to a hospital due to knee pain. On the day of the incident, staff noticed the resident was missing around 2:00 PM, and a code purple was initiated. Despite searching the facility and surrounding areas, the resident was not found until he presented himself at a fire station three days later. Interviews with staff revealed that the resident's window was not secured to prevent it from opening fully, allowing the resident to exit through it. The maintenance director confirmed that many windows in the facility were not equipped with safety mechanisms to prevent them from opening wide enough for a person to pass through. The facility's social services and nursing staff were unaware of the resident's high risk for elopement, as the resident's behavior and cognitive assessments were not adequately reflected in his care plan. The resident's elopement risk was not properly assessed, and preventive measures were not in place. This lack of awareness and preventive action led to the resident's unauthorized departure and subsequent absence from the facility for several days, during which he did not have access to his medications and was exposed to potential harm.
Removal Plan
- Identification of Residents Affected or Likely to be Affected: nine other residents were identified as wanderers and were added to the elopement list following the completion of the reassessment.
- All nine residents were also added to the elopement binder.
- The Care plans were reviewed and updated accordingly for all nine residents. Eight of the nine residents were moved to rooms with windows that lead to a courtyard and are not directly accessible to the exterior/exit areas of the facility. One resident refused the room change; however, her room is located directly across from social services office and her windows have been secured.
- There is a total of 11 residents on the elopement list/binder.
- The facility has a total of 81 windows, all 60 windows were secured to only open three inches except for 21 windows. The 21 windows were not secured because they do not lead/have access to exit the premises as they lead to the patio/courtyard which is within the facility. The maintenance director assessed and secured all external windows that are accessible to exit the premises.
- The Asst. Administrator initiated an in-service/training on elopement protocol to staff.
- The trainings on elopement prevention mentioned in the section are new and have been integrated in the facility's policies and procedures regarding elopement prevention.
- The facility does not utilize agency staff at this time, nonetheless, if the need arises in the future, the DON/ADON/Charge nurse will provide training on elopement prior to start of shift.
- The IDT (Interdisciplinary Team) which includes the DON (Director of Nursing), unit manager, social services director, activity director reviewed R6's care plans to ensure that wandering behavior and elopement risks are addressed. Resident was moved to another room, with window that opens to a secured courtyard. The window was secured so it does not open fully.
- R6's elopement assessment was completed by the social services director. R6 was added to the elopement binder. Nurse Practitioner also completed an evaluation upon return to the facility.
- R6 was placed on one-to-one supervision for 72 hours.
- Resident head count of the whole facility was completed by the DON/clinical managers. There was no concern identified.
- Headcount is done during shift change as part of the nurse-to-nurse shift reporting and when completing the midnight census.
- Elopement/Wandering assessment will be completed for all residents. The assessment will be completed by the DON (Director of Nursing), unit manager, Administrator and Social Services.
- Any resident who is identified with wandering behavior/ elopement risk will have care plans developed. This will be completed by the IDT.
- The elopement binders will be updated and will have elopement binders in all nursing stations, kitchen, front desk, and department head offices.
- The elopement binder is not new, but it is updated when a new resident is added to the binder. A resident is added to the binder when the resident is identified with exit-seeking behavior/risk for elopement.
- The Maintenance Director/Environmental staff will assess all windows of the facility and will secure windows and prevent the windows from fully opening to prevent a resident from using the window to exit the building.
- The Maintenance Director/MOD (Manager on Duty) will conduct rounds of all windows daily to ensure windows are always secure. The QAPI team conducted an Ad-Hoc QAPI meeting and decided to secure the windows to only allow 3-inch opening to prevent a resident from using the window to elope. An Ad-Hoc resident council meeting is scheduled to discuss the new standard of securing the windows in the facility.
- The facility utilized an L-bracket (also called corner brackets or angle braces) which is fastened to the window frame to prevent the window from fully opening and only allow the 3-inch opening. The residents are not able to tamper with the security of the windows.
- The Administrator will provide training to the IDT regarding development of care plans to address residents who are identified with exit-seeking /wandering behaviors and elopement risk.
- The DON/Administrator/Social Services Director will provide education to the staff. The education items include but not limited to: a) Code Purple b) Use of the elopement binders c) Exit-seeking behaviors and interventions d) Elopement risk and wandering and interventions e) Policy on missing resident f) Responding to alarms and g) Resident safety and supervision h) Reporting to the Administrator/Maintenance Director any concern related to windows.
- The training will be completed. Any staff who are not available, on vacation or leave of absence will have training completed at the start of their shift upon return to work.
- To measure knowledge retention, posttests will also be started. The Administrator/Director of Nursing/Social Services Director will conduct posttests of five random staff to evaluate knowledge retention. Five posttests per week for four weeks will be completed. The acceptable score of the post-test is 100%. Any staff who will not meet the acceptable score will receive additional training. The Administrator/Director of Nursing/Social Services Director will provide the staff with training on specific areas based on the results of the post tests.
- To ensure that all staff are trained prior to the start of their next shift if off duty, the DON/Administrator will notify the staff to meet with their supervisor/charge nurse/DON when they return to work. The supervisor/charge nurse/DON will ensure that the training is done before starting their work shift. The Administrator/DON/Social Services Director will provide the training. If the DON/Social Services Director are not available, a trained nurse will provide the training.
- The facility will conduct the same training quarterly for four quarters, and then annually thereafter. The training will also be included in the orientation of new employees.
- At this time, the facility is not utilizing agency. In the future, if the facility will use agency, the DON/Social Services Director/Administrator will provide the same training to the agency staff.
- Actions to Prevent Occurrence/Recurrence: Ad-Hoc QAPI meeting was completed which were participated by the leadership team which includes the Director of Nursing (DON), Unit Manager (UM), Risk Manager (RM), Social services Director (SSD), Admissions Director, Minimum Data Set (MDS) Coordinators, Maintenance Director, Business office Manager (BOM), Rehabilitation Manager, Human Resource Director and the Activities Director (AD). The Medical Director also participated via telephone. The QAPI team discussed the incident and the corrective actions to prevent similar events.
- Elopement drill will be completed by the Maintenance Director and Administrator. This will also be completed daily, for the seven days, and will be done at different shifts. After seven days, the elopement drills will be done weekly for three months, then monthly thereafter. The elopement drills will be completed per policy, as indicated above.
- All exit doors in the facility will also be checked by the Maintenance Director to ensure all doors were locked and secure and that delayed egress was functioning properly. Door checks will be completed daily, including weekends by the MOD-manager on duty/charge nurse. The door checks will be completed by Maintenance Director, or other members of the maintenance team. If there is any concern identified, the Administrator and/or the Maintenance Director will be notified immediately. If there is any concern with the door, a staff member will be assigned as door monitor until the door concern is addressed.
- The Maintenance Director/Environmental Service Director/MOD will also conduct window checks daily. Window checks will be completed daily, including weekends by the MOD-manager on duty/charge nurse. The window checks will be completed by Maintenance Director, or other members of the maintenance team. If there is any concern identified, the Administrator and/or the Maintenance Director will be notified immediately. If there is any concern with the door, a staff member will be assigned as door monitor until the door concern is addressed.
- Daily, the DON, clinical managers, and members of the IDT will hold clinical meetings and discuss new or worsening wandering/ exit-seeking behaviors. Any new and/or worsening behaviors will be addressed by ensuring that appropriate clinical interventions are implemented to prevent an incident of elopement. The MOD (manager on duty)/charge nurse, DON will also conduct weekend clinical meetings to review new or worsening exit seeking/wandering behaviors and ensure interventions are in place to prevent elopement.
- New admissions will be reviewed by the DON, Risk Manager, Wound Nurse or MDS for elopement risk and any resident identified as being at risk will be updated into the facility elopement books.
- The QAPI team will hold a weekly Ad-Hoc QAPI meeting to discuss the elopement prevention program and review interventions to new/worsening wandering/exit-seeking behaviors. The QAPI team will determine if additional corrective actions are necessary based on concerns identified.
- The Administrator/Social Services Director/DON will conduct audits of the Elopement Binder daily for three months to ensure that identified elopement risk are included in the binder. Additionally, the Administrator/Social Services Director/DON will also review five residents weekly for three months to ensure that residents who are identified with new and/or worsening exit-seeking behaviors and wandering are being addressed in the care plans. After three months, the QAPI team will determine if additional monitoring or corrective actions are necessary.
- To evaluate the effectiveness of the removal plan, QAPI team will review results of the audits, posttests, door and window checks. The QAPI team will determine if additional monitoring or corrective actions are necessary based on the review of monitoring activities.
Penalty
Resources
Below are regulatory guidelines relevant to this citation:
Failure to ensure effective fall alarms and supervision: two residents had Smart Caregiver monitoring devices set to LOW volume, and one resident's bed alarm did not alert staff before the resident was found on the floor after an unwitnessed fall. One resident had dementia, osteoporosis, prior TIA, and cognitive impairment and was fully dependent on staff, while staff also found that a second resident's bed and recliner alarms did not activate properly during testing.
Failure to assess the safety of perimeter mattresses for two residents. Both residents had severely impaired cognition and significant mobility limitations, and both care plans included use of a perimeter mattress to define the edges of the bed. However, their Mobility, Physical Device, and Fall Risk assessments lacked documentation of a perimeter/defined edge mattress assessment. Staff interviews showed inconsistent understanding of the required order, IDT review, engineering review, and safety assessment before use.
Improper Mechanical Lift Transfers: A resident with dementia, spinal cord dysfunction, and dependence for transfers was supposed to be moved with a full-body mechanical lift and two staff members, but a TMA stated she transferred the resident alone. The resident reported that staff sometimes used only one person for lift transfers because of staffing shortages, while other staff and the DON stated this was unsafe and against policy.
Two residents were involved in accident-hazard deficiencies. One resident with cancer, PVD, and Alzheimer’s disease was observed in a wheelchair with feet extending past short footrests, with the lower legs resting against the hard footrests despite a care plan entry for padding. Another resident with dementia and a hx of falls had an unwitnessed fall, but ordered orthostatic BP monitoring was not completed accurately and staff reported no post-fall PT referral was received.
A resident was given a new electric wheelchair without a prior therapy assessment and could not stop the chair, causing it to strike a bed frame and resulting in a leg laceration, tibia/fibula fractures, and a syncopal episode from blood loss. Another resident with cognitive impairment and high fall risk continued to self-transfer and fall, but the care plan was not updated with new fall interventions after repeated incidents.
A CNA used a Hoyer lift alone to weigh one resident, and another CNA was observed using a Hoyer lift alone to weigh a second resident. One resident’s care plan called for a 2-assist Hoyer lift, and the facility’s lift competency checklist and policy both required two caregivers for mechanical lift use; the DON and Director of Therapy also stated that two staff members are always required.
Failure to Ensure Effective Fall Alarms and Supervision
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to provide adequate supervision and effective use of assistive fall-prevention devices for two residents who were reviewed for fall precautions. One resident had diagnoses including unspecified dementia, age-related osteoporosis, a history of transient ischemic attack, and cognitive impairment, and was described by the POA as weak, bedbound, and unable to participate in physical therapy after a prior right femur fracture. The resident was completely dependent on staff for eating, hygiene, mobility, and toileting, and the care plan included a bed alarm per orders. The resident was found on the floor next to the bed after an unwitnessed fall. The POA reported receiving a call from the facility that the resident had been found on the floor and was not injured, and stated the resident frequently forgot to ask for help and had tried to get up without assistance before. A nurse stated the bed alarm was not heard when the resident fell, and the facility was unable to provide evidence that the bed alarm functioned as intended or alerted staff before the resident was found on the floor. The event report identified the fall as unwitnessed and did not indicate that a bed alarm alerted staff. The facility also failed to ensure the Smart Caregiver sensor pad monitoring system used for another resident was functioning properly and set at an audible volume. Two Smart Caregiver monitor boxes at the nurses' station for that resident's bed and recliner were observed set to LOW volume, and the chime settings faced the back wall of the desk. When a CNA tested the recliner alarm from the resident's room, the monitor at the nurses' station did not illuminate or sound an alert on either attempt. The CNA changed the batteries but did not retest the device, and both CNAs stated they could hear alarms only if they were near the nurses' station and did not recall training on operation or testing of the devices. The facility director stated the facility did not perform preventive maintenance on the devices and relied on staff to ensure they functioned properly.
Failure to Assess Safety of Perimeter Mattresses
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure that 2 residents with perimeter mattresses were assessed for safety. One resident had a significant change MDS showing severely impaired cognition, dementia, reduced mobility, muscle weakness, and need for assistance with bed mobility, sitting, standing, and transfers. That resident’s care plan identified limited physical mobility related to dementia with mood disturbance and anxiety, a genetic muscle disorder, spinal stenosis, and osteoarthritis, and included use of a perimeter mattress to help find the edges of the bed for bed mobility. However, the resident’s Mobility, Physical Device, and Fall Risk assessment lacked documentation of an assessment for a perimeter/defined edge mattress. The second resident’s annual MDS showed severely impaired cognition, dementia, multiple sclerosis, repeated falls, and need for partial to moderate assistance with bed mobility. The care plan identified limited physical mobility related to weakness, falls, incontinence, hypertension, renal disease, dementia, MS, depression, and delusional disorder, and included use of a bariatric sized bed with a perimeter mattress to define the edges of the bed. That resident’s Mobility Physical Device and Fall Risk assessment also lacked documentation of an assessment for a perimeter/defined edge mattress. During observation, the resident was in bed asleep with a perimeter mattress. Staff interviews showed differing understanding of whether a physician order, assessment, IDT review, engineering review, and safety assessment were required before use of a perimeter mattress, and the DON confirmed both residents’ most recent assessments lacked documentation of a perimeter/defined edge mattress assessment.
Improper Mechanical Lift Transfers
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure transfers were performed according to R24’s assessed needs, care plan interventions, and facility policy. R24’s records showed she had diagnoses including non-traumatic spinal cord dysfunction, diabetes, dementia, depression, heart failure, and asthma. She was dependent on staff for toileting and transfers, was frequently incontinent of bowel and bladder, and had care plan directions for assistance with transfers using a full-body mechanical lift and two staff members. During interviews, a TMA stated she transferred R24 with the full-body mechanical lift by herself because R24 needed to use the bathroom and she felt the transfer was safe. R24 stated staff sometimes transferred her with only one staff member and said they told her there was not enough staff. Other staff interviewed stated transfers with the full-body mechanical lift using one staff member were unsafe and should not occur. The facility policy for using a mechanical lift stated that at least two trained associates are needed to safely move a resident with a mechanical full-body floor-based lift or ceiling/overhead full-body lift.
Unsafe Wheelchair Fit and Incomplete Post-Fall Monitoring
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to provide an environment free from accident hazards for two residents. Resident 27 was readmitted with diagnoses including cancer, peripheral vascular disease, and Alzheimer's disease and was sometimes able to make needs known. On multiple observations, Resident 27 was seated in a slightly tilted back wheelchair with feet extending beyond the footrests, and the back of the lower legs rested against the hard footrests above the ankle/heel area. A pillow was observed either on the floor or behind the legs rather than padding the footrests. The focused care plan for skin integrity included padding to wheelchair footrests, and staff interviews confirmed the footrests were too short and needed adjustment or replacement, but staff had not notified therapy or otherwise addressed the wheelchair fit. Resident 50 was admitted with diagnoses including dementia, history of falls, and UTI and was sometimes able to make needs known. The care plan identified the resident as at risk for falls. After an unwitnessed fall in the 300 hallway, the incident investigation added interventions to monitor orthostatic blood pressures and refer to physical therapy. However, the record showed an orthostatic blood pressure order on 05/20/2026 was not completed, and subsequent orthostatic blood pressures recorded the same blood pressure and pulse for all three positions on 05/22/2026, 05/23/2026, and 05/24/2026. Staff later stated they had not received a post-fall therapy referral, and the DNS stated the resident should have had orthostatic blood pressures taken accurately to rule out orthostatic hypotension.
Failure to assess electric wheelchair use and update fall interventions
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to comprehensively assess a resident for the use of an electric wheelchair and failed to develop new interventions to reduce fall risk for another resident. The report states that the facility’s policies required a device evaluation before an electric wheelchair was initiated, resident education and consent, and an updated service plan identifying device use and other interventions. The fall management policy required individualized care plan updates, a systematic review after each fall, identification of root cause, and review of prior interventions when new interventions were implemented. Resident 73 was admitted with weakness and lymphedema and had an above-the-knee left leg amputation, requiring assistance with bed mobility, transfers, and locomotion. The resident’s record showed cognitive intactness, lower extremity impairment, supervision or touch assistance for bed-to-chair transfers, and use of a manual wheelchair. On 4/17/26, a newly issued electric wheelchair was delivered and the resident was assisted into it. The resident reported that the representative showed how the chair worked but not enough, and that the resident did not know how to stop it. The resident then returned to the room, could not stop the chair, and the chair continued forward into the bed, causing the resident’s right leg to strike the metal bed frame. The resident sustained a five-centimeter laceration to the right anterior lower leg, fractures of the right tibia and fibula, and a brief syncopal episode secondary to blood loss. The resident also received an anticoagulant, which contributed to significant bleeding. The clinical record contained no evidence that the resident had been assessed to safely operate the electric wheelchair before use. Resident 3 was admitted with a right total hip replacement with deep hardware removal and post-traumatic osteoarthritis of the right hip. The resident had a high fall risk on Morse Fall Scale assessments, cognitive impairment on OT evaluation, and a PT evaluation showing a score of zero on the Short Physical Performance Battery, indicating high fall risk and increased risk of mobility disability. The resident fell on 3/31/26 after getting up independently and sustained a right femur fracture requiring surgical repair, and fell again on 5/12/26 after getting up independently and sustained a skin tear to the right elbow. The care plan identified fall risk and included reminders to use the call light, non-skid socks, and one-person assistance for toileting and transfers, but revisions to the care plan did not add new or amended fall prevention interventions. Staff statements indicated the resident continued to self-transfer and toilet without assistance, staff believed the resident was independent, and the existing fall prevention interventions were ineffective.
Unsafe One-Person Use of Mechanical Lift
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure safe use of a mechanical lift for 2 of 3 residents reviewed for accidents. During an observation on 6/2/2026 at 8:42 AM, Resident #4 was lying on his bed on top of a Hoyer pad while CNA Staff K stood on the right side of the bed with a mechanical lift; the lift hand bags were observed over the resident, and no other staff member was in the room. Staff K stated that he was weighing Resident #4 and that normally only one person uses the Hoyer lift for weights, although the resident’s care plan documented a Hoyer lift with 2 assist. On 6/4/2026 at 10:15 AM, CNA Staff D was observed using a Hoyer lift alone to obtain Resident #13’s weight, with the resident lifted approximately 12 inches off the mattress in the sling and no other staff present. Staff D stated that he was performing weekly weights and most of the time did the weights using the Hoyer lift by himself. Resident #13’s MDS Section GG coded the resident as dependent, and the facility’s mechanical lift competency checklist stated that two caregivers are present, while the facility policy for using a mechanical lifting device stated that at least two nursing assistants are needed to safely move a resident with a mechanical lift. The DON and Director of Therapy both stated that a mechanical lift should always be used by two staff members.
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.