Failure to Prevent Elopement of Cognitively Impaired Resident
Summary
The facility failed to provide adequate supervision and timely interventions for a cognitively impaired resident with a history of exit-seeking behaviors, resulting in the resident's elopement. The resident, who resided in a secured unit, broke a window in his room using a fire extinguisher and later exited the building by jumping out of the second-story window. The resident was missing for approximately 12 hours before being found by police and EMS six miles from the facility. This incident affected one of three residents reviewed for elopement risk and highlighted the facility's failure to ensure the safety of residents at risk for elopement. On the morning of the incident, a State-tested Nursing Assistant (STNA) discovered the broken window and reported it to a Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN). The staff moved the resident to a common area but later allowed him to return to his room with the broken window. The LPN assigned to monitor the resident left him unsupervised to attend to another resident, during which time the resident eloped through the broken window. The facility's failure to provide continuous supervision and secure the environment contributed to the resident's ability to elope. The resident's medical record revealed a history of schizoaffective disorder, schizophrenia, dementia, and other mental health conditions, making him a high risk for elopement. Despite being identified as an elopement risk and residing in a secured unit, the facility did not implement adequate measures to prevent his escape. The incident underscores the facility's shortcomings in monitoring and safeguarding residents with known exit-seeking behaviors, leading to a serious lapse in resident safety.
Removal Plan
- LPN #220 was informed the window in Resident #39's room was broken.
- LPN #220 was stationed outside the resident's room to supervise and ensure the safety of Resident #39 and to prevent re-entrance and access to the resident's room.
- LPN #220 stationed outside of the resident's room responded to another resident screaming and went to check on the resident.
- STNA #265 checked the resident's room for the resident and noted him missing.
- Resident #39 was believed to have exited through the broken second floor window and landed 13 feet below on the exterior ground which consisted of grass and concrete and was unsecured. On the ground there was a pillow, unused gloves, wipes, a flat bed sheet and a bed spread. A head count was conducted immediately and there was a total of 45 residents present in-house out of a census of 47 (there was one resident on a Leave of Absence (LOA) with family and Resident #39 was unaccounted for).
- Upon discovering the Resident #39 could not be located, STNAs #218, #217, #312, #265 and LPN #251 began searching the facility.
- All other windows were checked by STNAs #216 and #312 and validated as being secured, and all exits/entrances were validated as being secured by STNA #218.
- STNAs #218 and #312 searched the perimeter of the facility.
- LPN #293 notified the local Police Department Resident #39 was missing. Resident #39's Guardian, Psychiatric (Psych) Physician #316 and Medical Director (MD) #317 were notified by LPN #251.
- Maintenance Technician (MT) #318 arrived at the facility.
- The DON and Administrator were notified that Resident #39 could not be located.
- LPN #293 was placed on door watch outside of Resident #39's room to ensure the resident's room was not entered due to the broken window where she remained until the window was fixed by MT #318.
- The DON, Business Office Manager (BOM) #207, Therapy Manager #258, Activities Director (AD) #305, MT #318, Administrator, RDO #315, Minimum Data Set (MDS) Coordinator #256 and Social Services Designee (SSD) #271 arrived at the facility and conducted an additional neighboring community search to locate the missing resident.
- Calls were made to all local hospitals by SSD #271 and Resident #39 was not located.
- The Administrator conducted a second audit of all door alarms and the elevator keypads to check for proper function and locking mechanism. No concerns were identified.
- MT #318 conducted a second window audit to ensure all windows were secured and in proper function. There were no concerns identified.
- The DON and RDO #315 reviewed/completed wandering observation tools for each resident. No new residents were identified as an elopement risk.
- MDS Coordinator #256 reviewed/updated all care plans to identify residents who were at risk for wandering and elopement. No new residents identified.
- The DON reviewed the elopement binder, the elopement policy, pictures, and face sheets of all at risk residents and no corrections were needed.
- The search for Resident #39 was concluded by the facility staff.
- The DON and Administrator initiated education on elopement management with all facility staff. There were 108 educated out of 108 total staff and completed and the facility utilized no agency staff. All 108 staff were educated electronically and any staff member not present was instructed to sign off on the education prior to the next scheduled shift.
- Education was provided to the Administrator by RDO #315 on elopement management and elopement prevention.
- Education was provided to the Administrator and DON by RDO #315 on management of potential risks and hazards to prevent accidents that include but not limited to safeguarding identified risks/hazards to avoid exposure to residents.
- Education was provided to the Administrator and DON by RDO #315 on supervision of residents when known risks or hazards are identified that include but not limited to one-on-one (1:1) supervision.
- Resident #39 was located in a neighboring community six miles away by STNA #265 who was heading home and familiar with the area. STNA #265 observed the resident with the police and EMS. STNA #265 notified the DON Resident #39 had been located.
- RDO #315 was notified by the Administrator that Resident #39 had been located by STNA #265.
- An unknown Dispatcher at the local Police Department (PD) called the Administrator to provide an update on the status of Resident #39. The PD Dispatcher was instructed to have EMS transport Resident #39 to the local hospital for a psychological evaluation.
- Resident's #39's Guardian was notified by the DON and Administrator Resident #39 had been located and was being transported to the local hospital for a medical and psychological evaluation.
- Psych Physician #316 was updated by the Administrator and DON on the status of the resident being transitioned to the hospital's Psychiatric Unit. Psych Physician #316 reported the hospital would evaluate the resident and determine if he was appropriate for a 72-hour hold (psychiatric admission).
- An unknown ER Nurse at the local hospital called and spoke with the Administrator and DON and informed them Resident #39 would be assessed psychologically and medically.
- Medical Director #317 was updated on Resident #39's status by the Administrator.
- The DON and Administrator reported to the Quality Assurance Performance Improvement (QAPI) committee the findings related to compliance. The QAPI committee consists of the Administrator, DON, SSD #271, RD #252, BOM #207, MDS Coordinator #256, RDO #315, Therapy Manager #258, and MD #317 (via telephone).
- The DON called the local hospital for an update on Resident #39. The hospital noted Resident #39 was assessed, and no new discoveries or diagnoses were determined, thus the resident was set for discharge back to the facility.
- An elopement drill was conducted by the DON and Administrator. No issues were identified.
- Resident #39 returned to the facility. The resident's Guardian and MD #317 were notified of the resident's return with no new orders given.
- Resident #39 was immediately placed on 1:1 observation and will remain until determined by the Interdisciplinary Team (IDT) and MD #317 that 1:1 observation was no longer required. All staff were educated on expectations of the resident being on 1:1 observation by the DON and Administrator.
- An admission assessment was completed (including skin, pain, and a Braden Scale) on Resident #39. A care conference with the facility's IDT and Resident #39's Guardian/mother was scheduled.
- To monitor for ongoing compliance, elopement drills will be completed twice weekly for four weeks, then monthly. The drills will be conducted by the DON or Administrator on day shifts and night shifts.
- A 72-hour care conference was held with the facility's IDT which included SSD #271, DON, Administrator, Therapy Manager #258, MD #317, RDO #315, Registered Dietitian (RD) #252, BOM #275 and Resident #39's Guardian/mother. The Guardian was okay with the new interventions of a room move, 1:1 observation, and a psychiatric consultation. A Brief Interview Mental Status (BIMS) assessment was completed on Resident #39 and noted to be a 12 which indicated the resident was cognitively intact. Resident #39's care plan was updated to show the resident eloped and new interventions include 1:1 observation, educate the resident to speak with staff if he would like to take a walk outside, provide diversionary activities, notify the physician of behavior changes, and offer additional snacks and hydration.
- Resident #39's room change was conducted. Resident remains on 1:1 observation close to the nurse's station.
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.