Failure to Prevent Resident Elopement Leads to Tragic Outcome
Summary
The facility failed to properly monitor and supervise a resident with a known risk of elopement, resulting in the resident leaving the facility without permission. The resident, who had a history of dementia, bipolar disorder, and PTSD, was cognitively impaired and required supervision to ensure safety. Despite these needs, the resident managed to exit the facility through a fire exit door, triggering an alarm that staff failed to respond to effectively. The resident was later found deceased in an abandoned building, highlighting the severe consequences of the facility's oversight. Interviews and observations revealed that the facility had inadequate security measures in place, such as malfunctioning alarms and easily accessible elevator codes, which residents could use to leave the building unsupervised. Staff members, including the receptionist and nursing staff, were aware of the resident's elopement risk but did not take appropriate actions to prevent the resident from leaving. The facility's elopement risk assessments and care plans were not effectively implemented, and there was a lack of documentation and communication regarding the resident's attempts to leave the facility. The facility's failure to maintain a secure environment and provide adequate supervision for residents at risk of elopement was further compounded by staff's inability to promptly locate the resident after the alarm was triggered. The facility's policies on missing residents and elopement risk were not adequately followed, leading to a tragic outcome. The lack of proper training and awareness among staff members contributed to the facility's inability to prevent the resident's elopement and subsequent death.
Removal Plan
- R1 is no longer at the facility.
- 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 the staff identifies that a resident is missing.
- Facility wide audit was done to identify residents that are high risk for elopement by the DON, 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 have been updated and all elopement binders in all floors. The elopement binder 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 or designee will check all exit doors. Initially done and daily.
- The DON or designee will provide education and competency test to the staff including agency staff. The education items include but not limited to: Code 99, Use of the elopement binders, Exit-seeking behaviors and interventions, Elopement risk and wandering and interventions, Policy on missing resident, Responding to alarms, Resident safety and supervision. The training was 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.
- The DON or designee also reviewed the general orientation to ensure that the following items were included: Code 99, Use of the elopement binders, Exit-seeking behaviors and interventions, Elopement risk and wandering and interventions, Policy on missing resident, Responding to alarms, Resident safety and supervision.
- Ad-Hoc QAPI meeting was completed which were participated by the leadership team which includes the Director of Nursing, ADON, Social services Director, Assistant Administrator, Rehabilitation Manager, and the Activities Director. The Medical Director also participated via telephone. The QAPI team discussed the incident and the corrective actions to prevent similar events.
- Elopement drill was completed by the 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.
- All exit doors in the facility will also be checked by the Maintenance Director to ensure all doors were locked, secure and alarms are functioning. Staff will be stationed at each identified exit until the identified exits have a delayed egress installed. Service has been contacted and scheduled to install egress delays. Door checks will be completed daily, including weekends by the MOD manager or designee. The door checks will be completed by Maintenance Director, or designee. 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/charge nurse or designee 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 or designee 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.
- Staff is stationed at each identified exit until the identified exits have a delayed egress installed.
- The identified exits are emergency exits and will have 15 second delayed egress installed.
- Service with outside vendor has been contacted and scheduled to install egress delays.
- All staff on the unit will respond to the codes. Follow up by the nurse-supervisor.
- Codes were changed to door. Residents do not have access to codes.
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.