Failure to Prevent Resident Elopement
Summary
The facility failed to implement adequate safety measures for a resident at risk for wandering, resulting in the resident eloping from a locked unit and exiting the facility without supervision on two separate occasions. The resident, who was cognitively impaired with diagnoses including moderate vascular dementia and unspecified psychosis, was able to leave the facility unnoticed by staff. On the first occasion, the resident left the facility, walked past a pond and across a thoroughfare, and was found in a movie theater parking lot over an hour later. The facility was unaware of how the resident managed to exit the locked unit. The resident's history showed a pattern of exit-seeking behavior, including standing by the elevator and attempting to board it. Despite being assessed as at risk for elopement, the facility did not effectively monitor or prevent the resident from leaving the premises. On the second occasion, the resident again managed to leave the facility, walking past the receptionist and into the parking lot. The receptionist did not notice the resident leaving and failed to call a code green for resident elopement. The facility's policies and procedures for managing elopement and monitoring residents at risk were not adequately followed or enforced. The resident's care plan and risk assessments were not updated in a timely manner to reflect the resident's exit-seeking behaviors. The lack of supervision and failure to activate door alarms contributed to the resident's ability to elope from the facility, resulting in Immediate Jeopardy being declared.
Removal Plan
- Resident was reassessed for elopement risk after the elopement occurred and deemed an elopement risk. The resident elopement risk assessment was reviewed by Memory Care Director with no changes warranted.
- Resident was located and returned to the facility. A head-to-toe assessment was completed by the assigned nurses, with no signs of injury on either occurrence.
- The Resident care plan was updated pertaining to the elopement that occurred, by the Memory Care Director and further reviewed and updated by the MCD.
- The DON, Administrator, ADON, and Medical Director reviewed the facility policies related to the occurrence: Elopement, Routine Resident Checks, Exit Seeking, and Incidents/Accidents. No changes were made.
- The Memory Care Director and Social Service Director updated the assessments and care plans for elopement risk residents. The assessments were completed.
- The Administrator initiated further education that a resident exhibiting exit seeking behaviors should be placed on enhanced monitoring including 15 minute checks and 1:1 supervision until the behavior subsides or alternate measures are put into place. Staff were educated to alert the nurse of exit seeking behaviors who would then implement increased intervention.
- All residents were reassessed for elopement risk and completed.
- All new admissions will have an elopement risk assessment that will be completed within 24 hours upon admission and interim care plan will be initiated based off the assessment, and will be reassessed every three months, and as needed by MCD.
- All residents that are identified as-risk for elopement during admission had a review of their care plan and updates were made where applicable, completed and further reviewed.
- Pictures of at-risk residents were placed in a binder on all nursing stations and the receptionist desk which was completed and reviewed by MCD.
- All residents determined to be at-risk for elopement and with active exit-seeking behaviors will be evaluated for a possible room change to the secured unit to limit access to the front entrance door.
- Interviews were conducted by the Administrator with staff to determine further potential risk and completed. Additional interviews were initiated and completed to further identify any potential risk factors.
- All staff and managers are being reeducated on routine resident checks, exit seeking, incidents/accidents, elopement policy and procedure and where to locate the at risk of elopement binders. The reeducation was provided and was completed.
- All staff and managers are being reeducated on elopement risk and reporting behaviors or changes in factors related to elopement risk to appropriate discipline. This was started and completed.
- All reception staff were reeducated on monitoring the front doors and resident safety and proper procedure for code green completed.
- Exit doors will be monitored by staff when unalarmed. The receptionist will monitor the front entrance door. Door will be armed by receptionist and monitored by 1st floor nurses through the duration of that time.
- Exterior door alarms will be checked daily by the maintenance director and EVS Supervisor to ensure they are in working order and secured. Completed and checked again.
- After initial elopement resident was placed on 15 minute checks for 24 hours. During that time the facility met with daughter and discussed new interventions. A plan was established and implemented.
- 1:1 Visual monitoring was initiated by staff for the resident. Intervention will remain in place until the facility's wandering management system is installed and determined to be effective to prevent further incident.
- Elevator monitor was initiated. Elevator will remain monitored 24 hours a day until wandering management system is installed and determined to be effective to prevent further incident.
- A review of compliance using Quality Assurance Audit tool for elopement started by the Administrator. The Audits will be done daily for two weeks then twice weekly for four weeks, then monthly, and evaluated at the monthly QAPI meeting to determine compliance. Audits to be completed by members of the IDT team and turned into Administrator who will ensure audits are being completed.
- A review of results of audit regarding elopement and door alarm working condition with the facility's interdisciplinary team started. Audits will be done weekly for four weeks, then monthly, and then randomly by Administrator/designee until goal is attained. Results of these audits will be reviewed at the monthly QAPI to determine compliance.
- Administrator to Audit daily that exterior front door alarm is being activated each day by receptionist prior to leaving.
- A facility wandering management system install was initiated.
- During orientation of new hires, the facility Business Office Manager will educate newly hired staff on elopement and conduct competency quizzes.
- The facility Quality Assurance Team/ IDT including Medical Director, Administrator, Social Services, DON, ADON and facility consultant shall meet at least monthly to review elopement risk residents, trends, patterns and develop and implement action steps as necessary.
- The QA meeting is held monthly, then quarterly and as needed. An emergency QA meeting was held by the Administrator with the Interdisciplinary Care Team and Medical Director. The Elopement from the facility were discussed along with the Removal Plan. The Medical Director and Interdisciplinary Care Team approved this Removal Plan. This will be monitored by the Administrator, DON, ADON, and Social Services.
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.