Failure to Initiate Emergency Medical Services for Drug Overdose
Summary
The facility failed to initiate emergency medical services for a resident who exhibited symptoms of a drug overdose. The resident was found slumped over, non-responsive, with constricted pupils and impaired respirations. Despite these critical signs, the staff did not call 911 as required by the physician's order for Narcan administration. The resident was later pronounced dead, and this deficiency affected one of the three residents reviewed for quality of care. The resident had a complex medical history, including chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), acute and chronic respiratory failure, congestive heart failure (CHF), obstructive sleep apnea, anxiety disorder, and panic disorder. The resident's care plan included monitoring for respiratory depression and administering oxygen and pain medications as ordered. However, there was no mention of opioid or Narcan use in the care plans. On the day of the incident, the resident received multiple medications, including opioids and sedatives, which likely contributed to the overdose. Interviews with the staff revealed a lack of familiarity with the facility's policy for Narcan administration and the necessity to call 911. The nurse who administered Narcan did not call emergency services, believing that the resident's Do Not Resuscitate (DNR) status precluded further action. This misunderstanding was compounded by the fact that the nurse had not received training on Narcan administration. The facility's failure to activate emergency medical services as required by the physician's order directly contributed to the resident's death.
Removal Plan
- The facility has re-educated the licensed nursing staff on the use of Narcan and activation of the emergency response per physician orders.
- Licensed nursing staff that are not available will not be scheduled until the education has been completed.
- The DNS will review the 24-hour report on a daily basis for appropriate activation of the emergency response.
- Feedback will be provided by the DNS to the licensed nurse addressing any challenges or barriers in the use of Narcan and/or the activation of the emergency response.
- Re-education was provided to licensed nursing staff about the activation of the emergency response when Narcan is administered.
- Agency licensed nurses working at the facility will receive education on activating emergency response when administration of Narcan for a suspected overdose by the DNS/ Assistant Director of Nursing (designee).
- The facility has re-educated the licensed nursing staff on the use of Narcan and activation of the emergency response per physician orders.
- The DNS will review the 24-hour report on a daily basis for appropriate activation of the emergency response. Feedback will be provided by the DNS addressing any challenges or barriers.
- Agency licensed nurses working at the facility will receive education on notification to the medical provider on administration of Narcan for a suspected overdose by the DNS/ Assistant Director of Nursing (designee).
- The nurse who responds to the suspected overdose will direct another staff member to activate the emergency response system, which is denoted in the revised Narcan Administration Policy.
Penalty
Resources
Below are regulatory guidelines relevant to this citation:
Surveyors found that staff did not follow multiple physician orders for three residents. A resident with diabetes received ordered insulin even when blood glucose readings were below the ordered hold parameter. Another resident with cerebral palsy, DM, and heart failure had repeated significant overnight weight gains without evidence that the physician was notified as ordered. A third resident with anemia and CKD had ordered CBC and CMP lab tests that were not documented as completed. The DON confirmed there was no documentation that these physician orders were carried out.
A resident with multiple medical conditions, including respiratory disorders and diabetes, had physician orders for scheduled laxatives and a three-step PRN bowel protocol to be used when no bowel movement occurred within specified timeframes. Over a four-day period without a documented BM, the MAR showed that none of the ordered bowel protocol steps were administered, and there was no documentation of bowel care on one of those days. Facility records also lacked any notes of medication refusal or staff education regarding bowel care, and leadership confirmed the absence of documentation and implementation of the ordered bowel protocol.
A resident with Alzheimer's disease and type II DM, who required extensive assistance with ADLs and was receiving scheduled Lantus and sliding-scale Humalog, experienced a severely elevated blood glucose level. The on-call provider was notified and ordered an additional dose of lispro insulin with a directive to recheck the blood glucose after administration. Nursing staff administered the extra insulin but did not document any follow-up blood glucose check, and the DON confirmed that this reevaluation was required by the facility's abnormal blood glucose policy and was not completed or documented.
The facility failed to follow professional standards and physician orders for multiple diabetic residents by not consistently assessing and responding to abnormal capillary blood glucose (CBG) results. Several residents with diabetes and comorbid conditions such as CKD, CHF, CAD, COPD, dementia, ESRD, and heart failure had repeated CBG readings in both hypoglycemic and hyperglycemic ranges, including values below 70 mg/dl and above 400 mg/dl, without documented provider notification, rechecks, or clinical assessment. Some insulin and CBG monitoring orders lacked clear parameters for provider notification, and in at least one case a resident left on a leave of absence after a markedly elevated CBG without reevaluation. Although LPNs described appropriate protocols for managing low and high blood sugars during interviews, the documentation in the medical records did not show that these steps were consistently implemented or recorded, leading to an immediate jeopardy finding related to quality of care.
A resident with dementia, osteoporosis, and prior femur fracture experienced an unwitnessed fall and subsequently developed severe hip pain and decreased ability to ambulate and transfer. Nursing staff failed to document the fall on the day it occurred, did not complete comprehensive lower‑extremity or mobility assessments, and repeatedly charted pain scores of 0 despite the resident’s complaints and nurse aide reports of significant pain with movement and increased assistance needs. An NP evaluated the resident for hip pain but was not informed of the fall, did not assess the hips or legs, and treated the pain as baseline neuropathic discomfort. Over several days, PRN acetaminophen was given intermittently without consistent pain scoring, multiple shifts lacked progress notes or assessments, and aides assumed nurses were aware of the resident’s worsening pain and functional decline. Bilateral hip x‑rays were eventually ordered after internal communication about hip pain, and the report later showed an acute displaced femoral neck fracture, after which the resident was sent to the hospital and underwent a left hip hemiarthroplasty.
A resident with Parkinson’s disease, osteoporosis, and osteoarthritis reported being punched in the face by another resident, resulting in facial bruising. The resident’s MDS showed intact cognition, and a change in condition evaluation documented the assault; however, the MD was not notified until more than a day later. The care plan directed licensed nurses to assess the resident’s body, and staff observed a purplish bruise on the right lower eyelid/orbital area, but this was not documented in the progress notes. Required every-shift monitoring for 72 hours after the change in condition was not documented on multiple day shifts. The DON confirmed lack of awareness of the bruise and acknowledged missing documentation and monitoring, despite facility policies requiring immediate provider notification and complete, accurate charting of changes in condition.
Failure to Follow Physician Orders for Insulin, Weight Monitoring, and Lab Tests
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to implement and follow physicians’ orders for three residents. For one resident with diabetes mellitus, a physician ordered Novolog insulin to be administered in the morning prior to breakfast, with instructions to hold the insulin if the resident’s blood sugar was less than 80 mg/dL. Review of the April 2026 MAR showed that staff administered the insulin on three occasions when the resident’s blood sugar was below 80 mg/dL, contrary to the physician’s order. Another resident with cerebral palsy, diabetes mellitus, and heart failure had a physician’s order to be weighed every night shift and to notify the physician if the resident gained more than 2 lbs in 24 hours or 5 lbs in one week. Clinical records showed multiple instances of significant weight gains over 24-hour periods, including gains of 4.7 lbs, 3.4 lbs, 6 lbs, 2.3 lbs, 5.8 lbs, 4 lbs, 2.4 lbs, and 3.3 lbs, without documented evidence that the physician was notified as ordered. A third resident with anemia and chronic kidney disease had a physician’s order for two blood tests (CBC and CMP), but the clinical record contained no documentation that these lab tests were obtained. The DON confirmed there was no documented evidence that care and services were provided in accordance with these physicians’ orders.
Failure to Implement Ordered Bowel Protocol for Constipation Management
Penalty
Summary
Surveyors identified a failure to follow physician orders for bowel care for one resident. The resident was readmitted with multiple diagnoses including pneumonia, diabetes, respiratory disorders, respiratory failure, shortness of breath, and pulmonary edema. Physician orders included scheduled Miralax twice daily, Bisacodyl 5 mg daily for constipation prevention, Senna Plus twice daily, and a three-step PRN bowel protocol: Senna tablets as step #1 if no bowel movement (BM) in 72 hours, oral Bisacodyl tablets as step #2 if no BM in 96 hours, and a Bisacodyl rectal suppository as step #3 if no BM by the following morning after completing oral Bisacodyl. Record review showed the resident had no documented BM from 4/9/26 through 4/12/26, a four-day period that met criteria for activation of the ordered bowel protocol. The MAR from 4/9/26 to 4/13/26 documented that the resident did not receive bowel protocol step #1, step #2, or step #3 during this time. There were no records available for 4/12/26 related to bowel care, and there were no progress notes documenting any refusal of bowel medications by the resident or any education provided by staff. The ACNO confirmed that the MAR lacked documentation of bowel protocol medications on 4/12/26 and 4/13/26 and that there were no related progress notes.
Failure to Reevaluate Blood Glucose After Treatment for Hyperglycemia
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure that a resident with diabetes received treatment in accordance with professional standards of practice when nursing staff did not reevaluate the resident's blood glucose after treatment for severe hyperglycemia. The resident, admitted with diagnoses including Alzheimer's disease, type II diabetes mellitus, and depression, had physician orders for Humalog insulin on a sliding scale before meals, Lantus insulin 25 units daily, and lisinopril 5 mg daily. The resident required extensive assistance with activities of daily living, including transfers, toileting hygiene, eating, and bathing. On the evening in question, the resident's blood glucose was documented as 532 mg/dL, and the on-call provider was notified. The provider gave a new order to administer an additional 8 units of lispro (Humalog) and to recheck the blood glucose in 30 minutes. The electronic medication administration record showed that the blood glucose of 532 mg/dL was obtained at 9:00 p.m. and that the additional 8 units of lispro were administered at 9:21 p.m. However, there was no documentation in the resident's chart that the blood glucose was rechecked after the additional insulin was given. In an interview, the DON confirmed there was no evidence of reevaluation and verified that, according to the facility's "Abnormal Blood Glucose Procedure" policy, the resident should have been reevaluated and that the evaluation step should have been included in the progress note documentation.
Plan Of Correction
F684 The facility will continue to ensure all residents, including #03, receive treatment in accordance with professional standards of practice and reevaluated for hyperglycemia. To ensure compliance with this standard the following measures have been taken: 1. The director of nursing assessed resident #03, reviewed documentation and orders and found no ill effects immediately 4/16/26. 2. All licensed nurses were re-educated to facility policy "Blood Glucose Monitoring" by the Director of Nursing/designee in April 2026. 3. Audits of like-residents that require blood sugar checks to be completed by the director of nursing/designee two times a week for 4 weeks and then monthly after that to validate correct follow through when there is abnormally high blood glucose result. The Administrator will bring results of these audits to the QAPI committee for ongoing monitoring and further direction.
Failure to Assess and Notify Providers for Abnormal Blood Glucose Levels
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to ensure that residents with diabetes received treatment and care in accordance with professional standards of practice and physician orders related to capillary blood glucose (CBG) monitoring and response. Surveyors found that the facility did not have policies for management of diabetes, hypoglycemia, or hyperglycemia available when requested, despite the facility assessment indicating it provides care for residents diagnosed with diabetes. The existing “Episodic and Narrative Documentation” policy only indicated that a narrative entry would be made for physician notification, without specific guidance for hypo- or hyperglycemic events. Manufacturer instructions for the glucometer defined “Low” as less than 20 mg/dl and “High” as greater than 600 mg/dl, and prescribing information for long-acting insulin (Basaglar) described its onset and duration of action, underscoring the need for appropriate monitoring and timely response to abnormal blood glucose values. For multiple residents with diabetes and other comorbidities such as chronic kidney disease, congestive heart failure, coronary artery disease, COPD, dementia, and end-stage renal disease, surveyors identified numerous CBG values that met or exceeded ordered parameters for provider notification or represented clinically significant hypo- or hyperglycemia, without documentation of physician notification, reassessment, or follow-up. Examples included residents with sliding-scale insulin orders specifying to notify the provider if blood glucose was under 70 mg/dl or over 400 mg/dl, yet blood sugars in the 400–500+ mg/dl range and lows in the 50–60 mg/dl range had no corresponding notes, rechecks, or documented provider contact. In some cases, residents had repeated elevated readings over several days, including meter readings of “HI” (over 600 mg/dl), with no documentation of notification or follow-up. Several insulin and blood sugar monitoring orders also lacked any parameters for provider notification, even as residents experienced significantly abnormal CBG values. Specific residents cited included individuals admitted with diagnoses of diabetes and chronic kidney disease, CAD, CHF, dementia, COPD, CKD, ESRD, and heart failure. Their records showed repeated elevated CBG values such as 401–591 mg/dl and lows as low as 55–57 mg/dl without documented assessment for signs and symptoms of hypo- or hyperglycemia, without rechecks, and without documented physician notification as required by orders. In one instance, a resident left the facility for a leave of absence after a CBG of 495 mg/dl without reevaluation. Interviews with LPN staff revealed that they could verbally describe appropriate steps for managing blood sugars under 70 mg/dl or over 400 mg/dl, including rechecking, giving snacks or glucose, monitoring, and notifying the physician and supervisor, and documenting in the MAR and progress notes. However, the clinical records reviewed did not reflect that these actions and notifications were consistently carried out or documented for the abnormal CBG values identified, leading surveyors to determine that the facility failed to notify physicians of elevated or decreased CBG levels and failed to assess residents for hyperglycemia and hypoglycemia, resulting in immediate jeopardy for 12 of 21 residents reviewed.
Plan Of Correction
The physician was notified for Residents R2,R4,R16,R33,R37,R46,R47,R56,R70, R80, R97 and R116 that their Capillary Blood Glucose levels were either greater than 400 or less than 70. The facility NP saw these residents to assess any impact from a Capillary Blood Glucose result not reported to the physician. For residents with current orders for Capillary Blood Sugar testing, results greater than 400 or less than 70 will be recorded, documented, and the MD/designee will be notified to issue further treatment orders as needed. The DON/Designee began educating nursing staff, including contracted staff on the facility's new policy titled "Managing Hypo and Hyperglycemia." The DON/designee will educate new nursing staff to the facility before the start of their first shift. Licensed Nursing Staff will attend Directed In-Service with AAE Consulting Services Inc on May 5th, 2026 Titled F684 Quality of Care 483.25. Licensed staff who do not attend the training in person on this date will have to watch the training provided prior to the start of their next shift. The DON/Designee will review all current diabetic residents in the facility with orders for Capillary Blood Sugar testing results during the daily clinical Morning Meeting M-F to verify that residents' Capillary Blood Sugar results were recorded, documented, and the MD/designee was notified. Saturday and Sunday results will be reviewed by the Nursing Supervisor for the same compliance. The DON /Designee will complete audits for the compliance of the new policy Managing Hypo and Hyperglycemia for 10% of facility resident with orders for Blood Sugar testing for 4 weeks then monthly times 4 The facility NHA will query 5 random nurses 3 times a week for 4 weeks then weekly for 4 weeks and then monthly for 3 months to verify their knowledge of the protocols for Hypo/Hyperglycemic Management. Results of the audits will be reviewed during QAPI and frequency adjusted based on the results of the audits.
Removal Plan
- Report identified residents’ out-of-range finger stick blood sugar results to the Nurse Practitioner and have the NP evaluate the residents and update orders as indicated.
- Review and update Resident R16’s care plan to include a diabetes care plan.
- Conduct NP review/rounds on current residents who may be impacted by a diabetic emergency to verify appropriate orders are in place and update as indicated.
- Have the MDS nurse review current diabetic residents’ care plans to verify a diabetes care plan is in place and update as indicated.
- Create a facility policy titled “Managing Hypo and Hyperglycemia.”
- Provide education by DON/ADON to current nurses (including agency) on the hypo/hyperglycemia protocol; continue for staff not yet trained and all new hires; require completion prior to working a shift.
- Notify the Medical Director of the Immediate Jeopardy and that the NP is seeing all current diabetic residents.
- Hold an ad hoc QAPI meeting with the Medical Director to review and discuss the Immediate Jeopardy and the Immediate Plan of Correction.
- Implement daily review of all current diabetic residents’ FSBS results in weekday morning clinical meeting by DON/ADON and weekend review by nursing supervisor to verify FSBS is recorded/documented and MD/designee is notified; continue per the established audit schedule.
- Implement NHA competency checks by querying random nurses to verify knowledge of hypo/hyperglycemia management protocols per the established audit schedule.
- Review audit results in QAPI and adjust audit frequency based on results.
- Complete a root cause analysis identifying lack of a formalized hypo/hyperglycemia management policy as the cause.
Failure to Assess and Respond to Post‑Fall Hip Pain and Mobility Decline
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to comprehensively assess, recognize, and respond to a resident’s severe hip pain and functional decline following a reported unwitnessed fall. The resident had dementia, osteoporosis, and a history of femur fracture, and was previously able to transfer and ambulate with limited assistance. On the date of the unwitnessed fall, there was no nursing progress note, no documentation of a fall, no pain complaint, and no assessment of the lower extremities or of transfers, ambulation, or mobility. Nursing documentation on that date reflected a pain score of 0, and the nurse assigned to the resident did not recall any fall, pain, or assessment. The quarterly MDS showed severe cognitive impairment and a prior fall, but no pain assessment. On the following night, a nurse documented that the resident was having “a lot of pain” in her hip and placed a note in the doctor’s book, but did not call the on‑call provider, did not document administration of any pain medication, and did not record a pain score with the complaint. The nurse aide on that shift did not recall changes, but the nurse later reported that the aide had told her the resident was unable to ambulate, which was a change from baseline. The next day, another nurse documented in a late entry that the resident reported she had fallen the previous day, pulled herself up, and had not told anyone, and that the resident screamed in pain when moved. This nurse contacted the NP, who, according to the note, stated the resident complained of pain all the time; the nurse informed him that this pain was not typical. The progress note did not include a pain level, a lower extremity assessment, or documentation that the unwitnessed fall was communicated to the NP. The NP’s own note documented nonspecific hip pain, a sleepy and groggy presentation, and neuropathic/hip pain, but did not include an assessment of the legs or hips. The NP later stated he was unaware of the fall, did not assess the hips or legs, and did not inquire about changes in condition such as pain with movement or ambulation. Over the next several days, multiple nurses documented pain scores of 0 on the MAR despite intermittent administration of PRN acetaminophen and reports from nurse aides that the resident had significant pain with transfers, ambulation, and repositioning. Nurse aides reported that the resident, who had previously been able to get up and ambulate, now required increased assistance, had difficulty transferring and ambulating, and grimaced and winced in pain during movement. One aide kept the resident in bed and provided all care in bed due to pain with movement, while another aide did not report the pain to the nurse, assuming the nurse was already aware. There were no nursing progress notes on some days documenting any assessment of the lower extremities or of the resident’s ability to transfer, ambulate, or move, and some assigned nurses did not enter any assessment notes at all. A nursing supervisor received a Stop and Watch communication about hip pain, obtained an order for bilateral hip x‑rays, but did not complete a comprehensive assessment and did not document a pain level or lower extremity assessment. The x‑ray order was entered, and bilateral hip x‑rays were completed, but pain scores of 0 continued to be documented on the MAR by nursing staff, and the unit manager assigned for part of one day did not assess the resident. A nurse aide who assisted with the x‑ray reported that repositioning the resident in bed was difficult due to pain and observed grimacing and wincing. The x‑ray report later showed an acute left femoral neck fracture with displacement. The nurse who came on duty the next day found the x‑ray report on the fax machine, noted the fracture, and contacted the provider, after which the resident was sent to the emergency department. The hospital history and physical documented that the resident endorsed hip pain on arrival and was treated with analgesics and later underwent a left hip hemiarthroplasty. The NP and Medical Director both acknowledged that there was potential for complications when a fracture remained undiagnosed for several days while the resident continued to be moved, transferred, and assisted with ambulation. The DON confirmed that the facility’s investigation determined that a nurse had been informed of an unwitnessed fall and failed to report the incident, resulting in a delay in treatment, and emphasized the importance of thorough assessment and documentation.
Failure to Assess, Notify, and Monitor Resident After Facial Trauma
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to follow professional standards of nursing practice in assessing and monitoring a resident after a reported change of condition related to facial trauma. The resident was admitted with Parkinson’s disease, age-related osteoporosis, and osteoarthritis, and had intact cognitive skills for daily decision-making per a recent MDS. On the evening of 3/26/2026, a Change in Condition Evaluation documented that another resident hit this resident on the nose and both cheeks. The evaluation showed that the attending physician was not notified until 10 p.m. on 3/27/2026, approximately 26.5 hours after the reported incident, and the physician’s recommendation was to monitor the resident’s nose and cheeks for any changes and pain. The resident’s care plan, initiated on 3/26/2026, documented the report that another resident hit him on the nose and both cheeks and included an intervention for licensed nurses to check and assess the resident’s body. In an interview, the resident described that the other resident came into the room, stood on the left side of the bed, and punched him in the face. A photograph taken two days after the alleged incident showed a purplish-blue bruise on the right lower orbital area, although the resident declined to provide a copy of the picture. A CNA later reported observing a purple bruise on the resident’s right lower eyelid on 3/27/2026, described as extending from the inner to the middle lower eyelid and about the size of the tip of her fifth digit. During record review and interviews, an LVN stated that on 3/27/2026 the resident’s right lower eyelid had a dime-sized purplish bruise, but there was no documentation of this bruise in the progress notes. The LVN also stated that the resident should have been monitored every shift for 72 hours after the change of condition, yet there was no documented evidence of monitoring on the 7 a.m. to 3 p.m. shifts on 3/27/2026, 3/28/2026, and 3/29/2026. The DON reported not being made aware of the right eyelid bruise, confirmed that the resident should have been monitored every shift for at least 72 hours following the change of condition, and acknowledged there was no confirmed documentation of monitoring on the identified shifts. Facility policies required immediate physician consultation for significant changes in condition and complete, accurate documentation of changes and services provided, but the facility failed to identify, document, and monitor the resident’s change of condition in accordance with these policies.
Plan Of Correction
Facility Response Submission of the Plan of Correction does not constitute admission or agreement by the Provider of the truth of the facts alleged or conclusion set forth in this statement of deficiencies. The Plan of Correction is prepared and/or executed solely because it is required by the provision of Federal and State laws. This Plan of Correction constitutes the facility's credible allegation of compliance Corrective Action On 4/7/2026 Resident 1 was reassessed by LVN 3 and no skin issue was identified. On 4/7/2026 LVN 3 received one-on-one in-service by DON regarding importance of documenting details about resident's change of condition and monitoring every shift for 72 hours. Identification of other residents and corrective action On 4/8/2026 DON and/or designee reviewed audits provided by medical records for all change of condition in month of April to ensure proper documentation and monitoring are in place. No other deficient practice noted. Measures to prevent recurrence On 4/7/2026 LVN 3 received one-on-one in-service by DON regarding importance of documenting details about resident's change of condition and monitoring every shift for 72 hours. On 4/8/2026 Licensed nurses received in-service by DON regarding importance of documenting details about resident's change of condition and monitoring every shift for 72 hours. Monitoring and incorporation into the QA system HID will audit change of conditions using Change of Condition Audit form daily Monday-Friday and will report any finding during daily stand-up meeting Monday-Friday on-going. DON or designee will review change of conditions from prior day during daily clinical meetings (Monday -Friday) on going to ensure the nurse notified the attending physician regarding resident's significant change of condition and documented. Any deficient finding will be reported to DON and/or administrator for further corrective action/recommendation. Any trend of deficient finding(s) will be documented on Change of Condition Audit Form and will be reviewed during the monthly QA meeting for further review and/or recommendation(s). Administrator who will then report to the Quality Assurance (QA) team during monthly Quality Assurance (QA)/Quality Assurance and Performance Improvement (QAPI) for further evaluation/recommendation and to provide feedback and program modification if needed x3 months or until compliant. Date Corrective action to be completed: 4/8/2026
Trusted data from CMS and state health departments
Every citation, penalty and Plan of Correction is sourced from public CMS records (latest release May 27, 2026) and official state health department websites — never guesswork.
Trusted by long-term care providers and associations.
