Failure to Reassess Bed Safety After Mattress Change
Summary
The facility failed to conduct a necessary inspection of bed rails and mattresses for a resident, identified as Resident #292, who was at risk of entrapment due to a change in the mattress type. The resident, who had limited mobility and utilized bilateral side rails, was admitted with diagnoses including fractures of the left radius and ulna, and dementia. The resident's care plan included the use of a pressure redistribution mattress and bilateral quarter side rails for support, initiated due to the resident's wrist fracture and limited mobility. The deficiency was identified when the surveyor observed that the resident's bed had a foam mattress instead of the previously assessed air mattress. The facility's policy required inspections of bed frames, mattresses, and bed rails whenever there was a change in these components. However, the Maintenance Director confirmed that no new assessment was conducted after the foam mattress was installed, which was a deviation from the facility's policy. The Maintenance Director acknowledged that a Bed Device Test should have been completed to evaluate the safety of the new bed configuration, but it was not done. This oversight placed the resident at risk for possible entrapment, as the bed system was not reassessed for safety following the change in mattress type. The lack of documentation and evaluation of the new bed frame and mattress combination highlighted the facility's failure to adhere to its own bed safety protocols.
Penalty
Resources
Below are regulatory guidelines relevant to this citation:
A resident with multiple medical conditions was found to have a low air loss mattress that overhung the bed frame by about five inches, preventing the installation of a grab bar on one side. The Maintenance Director confirmed the mattress was too large for the frame and not fully supported.
A resident with cognitive impairment and multiple health conditions was found to have a mattress that did not fit the bed, creating a large gap. The facility lacked a program for regular inspections of bed frames, mattresses, and bedrails. The Maintenance Supervisor noted a nine-inch gap, and the DON confirmed the bed was a rental, acknowledging the need for an extender or longer mattress.
A resident with quadriplegia was found to have unsafe gaps between their mattress and bed rails, with measurements of 5.25 inches on the left and 3.25 inches on the right. The DON confirmed these gaps were too large and potentially unsafe, and the facility could not provide manufacturer guidelines for acceptable distances.
The facility failed to assess the use of side rails/enabler bars for two residents with cognitive impairments and multiple diagnoses. Interviews revealed that enabler bars were not assessed for proper fit or need upon admission or routinely thereafter, despite the facility's policy requiring such assessments.
A facility failed to ensure a resident's mattress fit properly on the bed frame, resulting in a 12-inch gap between the headboard and the mattress. The resident, who had multiple diagnoses and was dependent on staff for all ADLs, was at risk due to this safety issue. The facility's policy on mattress inspection and bed safety was not followed.
Incompatible Mattress and Bed Frame Resulting in Unsafe Bed Setup
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure that a mattress and bed frame were compatible for a resident with morbid obesity, muscle weakness, and Type II Diabetes Mellitus. The resident, who was cognitively intact and required a low air loss mattress at all times, reported that the mattress was too large for the bed frame. Observation confirmed that the mattress overhung the bed frame by approximately five inches, and a grab bar could not be installed on one side of the bed due to the mattress's size. The Maintenance Director acknowledged that the mattress was not fully supported by the frame and confirmed awareness of the issue.
Incompatible Mattress and Bed Frame
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure that a mattress was compatible with a bed, affecting a resident with anoxic brain damage, tracheostomy status, and generalized idiopathic epilepsy. The resident, who had moderate cognitive impairment and was dependent on staff for all activities of daily living, was observed to have a mattress that did not fit the bed, leaving a large gap between the end of the bed footboard and the mattress. The Maintenance Supervisor was unsure if the bed was a rental or a bariatric bed from the facility and noted a nine-inch gap between the mattress and the end of the bed. The facility lacked a program for regular inspections of bed frames, mattresses, and bedrails. The Director of Nursing confirmed the bed was a rental and acknowledged the need for an extender or longer mattress, verifying that there should not be a space between the mattress and the bed. The manufacturer's guidelines indicated that the mattress should be sufficiently wide and long enough to prevent any part of the patient's body from falling between the bed and mattress.
Unsafe Bed Rail and Mattress Configuration
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure the safety of bed rails and mattresses for a resident with quadriplegia and acute and chronic respiratory failure. The resident, who was dependent on staff for all Activities of Daily Living (ADLs) and rarely/never understood, was observed lying on an air mattress with significant gaps between the mattress and bed rails. These gaps were measured at 5.25 inches on the left side and 3.25 inches on the right side, which were confirmed by the Director of Nursing (DON) to be potentially unsafe. The deficiency was identified during an observation and confirmed through interviews with staff, including a Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) and the DON. The facility was unable to provide manufacturer guidelines for the acceptable distance between the mattress and bed rails, but the DON acknowledged that the existing gaps were too large and posed a safety risk. This issue affected one of the two residents reviewed for bed rails, highlighting a lapse in ensuring the safety and appropriateness of bed rail and mattress configurations.
Failure to Assess Side Rails/Enabler Bars
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to assess the use of side rails/enabler bars for two residents, leading to a deficiency. Resident #33, who had severe cognitive impairment and required extensive assistance for activities of daily living, was admitted with multiple diagnoses including dementia with behavioral disturbance. The care plan for Resident #33 included a mobility bar to assist with mobility, but no assessments for side rails or enabler bars were completed. Similarly, Resident #58, who had moderate cognitive impairment and was dependent on staff for activities of daily living, had a care plan that included a mobility bar, but no assessments were conducted for side rails or enabler bars. Interviews with the Maintenance Director and Assistant Director of Nursing revealed that enabler bars were not assessed for proper fit or need upon admission or routinely thereafter. The Director of Nursing confirmed that no assessments had been completed for any residents with enabler bars or side rails, despite the facility's policy requiring such assessments at least quarterly or upon significant changes in status. The lack of assessments for side rails and enabler bars was acknowledged as an issue that needed to be addressed throughout the facility.
Improper Mattress Fit on Bed Frame
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure a resident's mattress fit properly on the bed frame, affecting one resident out of the 134 residents in the facility. The resident, who had multiple diagnoses including dementia, epilepsy, and congestive heart failure, was dependent on staff for all activities of daily living and had impaired cognition. A bed safety evaluation revealed the resident had poor bed mobility and difficulty sitting on the side of the bed, and was unable to transfer independently or use a call light for help. An observation of the resident's bed showed a gap of approximately 12 inches between the headboard and the mattress, which was confirmed by a staff member as a safety risk. The facility's policy on the use of support surfaces indicated that mattresses should be inspected regularly to identify areas of possible entrapment and ensure they fit the bed frame properly. However, the policy was not followed in this case, as evidenced by the large gap observed. The Regional Clinical Nurse confirmed that such a gap could pose a safety risk and potentially harm the resident. The facility's failure to adhere to its own policy on mattress inspection and bed safety led to this deficiency.
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.
