Failure to Address Significant Weight Loss in Resident
Summary
The facility failed to ensure that the medical care of Resident #5 was adequately supervised by their Primary Physician, particularly in monitoring changes in the resident's medical status. Resident #5 experienced an 8.48% significant weight loss over a 90-day period, from October 2024 to January 2025, which was not addressed by their Primary Physician. The facility's policy required that significant weight changes be identified and referred to the attending Physician by the Clinical Dietitian for further review and interventions. However, the Clinical Dietitian did not identify the significant weight loss in a timely manner, and the Primary Physician did not document the resident's weight during their monthly review, leaving the weight change portion of the visit blank. Interviews revealed that the Clinical Dietitian focused primarily on month-to-month weight changes and did not have time to document significant weight loss notes for January 2025. The Charge Nurse was not informed of the significant weight loss, and thus did not notify the Primary Physician. The Primary Physician admitted to not realizing the omission in their documentation and stated they were not informed of the significant weight loss. The Medical Director emphasized that the Primary Physician should have documented the resident's weight and addressed any significant weight loss with appropriate interventions.
Plan Of Correction
Plan of Correction: Approved February 12, 2025 **NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** A: Immediate Correction Action 1. Resident #5 who still resides at the facility was affected by this deficient practice. 2. Resident #5 was immediately placed on weekly weights. 3. Laboratory values ordered on [DATE] to identify any contributing factors. Values were in normal limits. 4. Physician #1 addressed weight loss in his monthly note. 5. Clinical Dietician #1 was counseled and re-educated to identify weight loss and follow facility Weight Monitoring Policy and Procedure. B: Identification of Others 1. All residents’ weights were reviewed and assessed for weight loss as outlined in the Weight Monitoring Policy and Procedure. No resident was identified as potential for this deficient practice. 2. The RN Educator re-educated the Physician, Dieticians, and Nursing staff to identify residents with weight loss as outlined in the Weight Monitoring Policy and Procedure. Upon identification of residents with weight loss, proper notification and documentation of weight loss is mandated. C: Systematic Review to prevent re-occurrence 1. The facility Weight Monitoring Policy and Procedure was reviewed by the Interdisciplinary Care Planning Team and no changes were made. 2. The DNS developed a Weight Monitoring Audit tool to identify residents with weight loss identified by this deficient practice to ensure communication and documentation. Ten residents will be audited weekly and thereafter ten residents will be audited quarterly for one year or until 100% compliance. D: Quality Assurance 1. The DNS/Designee will review the findings of the Weight Monitoring Audit. Negative findings will be immediately addressed by the DNS/Designee with onsite in-service and disciplinary action as needed. 2. The DNS/Designee will report the findings of this Weight Monitoring Audit quarterly at the QAPI meeting. 3. The DNS/Designee is responsible for ensuring the correction of this deficient practice.
Penalty
Resources
Below are regulatory guidelines relevant to this citation:
Failure to provide physician reassessment after a significant change in condition: a resident with a large, foul-smelling scalp lesion was found to have maggots in the wound. Staff notified the MD, who gave wound care instructions by phone, but did not come to assess the resident or document a reassessment before the resident’s outpatient surgery visit.
A resident with sleep apnea, chest pain, and abnormal EKG had cardiology-ordered diagnostic tests entered into the chart, including a nocturnal desaturation study, Lexiscan MIBI stress test, and echocardiogram. Staff stated the attending physician had to sign off on the cardiologist’s recommendations before the appointments could be scheduled, but the orders were not signed in a timely manner and the signed fax was sent to the wrong number, leaving no record of scheduled appointments or results.
Delayed Physician Response for Resident With UTI Symptoms: A resident with a UTI diagnosis and severe cognitive impairment reported burning and pain with urination, but the physician did not respond promptly to repeated nursing calls. Staff waited for orders, urine testing was delayed and required recollection, and an initial antibiotic order was later stopped when the resident’s PCN allergy was identified. The first dose of the alternate antibiotic was given nearly three days after symptoms were first reported, and the DON stated the Medical Director should have been contacted after unanswered attempts.
A facility failed to ensure physician orders were in place for residents admitted to the Alzheimer's secure care unit, and one resident also lacked a qualifying dementia diagnosis for that placement. Records showed several residents in the secure unit without the required order, while staff interviews confirmed the admission nurses, nurse managers, ADON, and DON were responsible for obtaining and monitoring those orders. The DON stated the orders had not been properly entered into the system, and the MD said residents admitted to secure units should have physician orders and a medical diagnosis of dementia before placement.
Failure to Obtain Physician Orders for Weight Monitoring: A resident with chronic respiratory failure, ventilator dependence, heart failure, and obesity had a major unplanned weight gain over several months, but the chart showed no physician notification, no orders for daily/weekly/monthly weights, and no documented follow-through on weight monitoring. CNA, LPN, and RD interviews confirmed the resident was not on a weight-monitoring list and no physician orders were present in the record.
A resident developed a Stage 3 sacral pressure ulcer that was documented by nursing and the wound NP, but the resident’s primary MD and facility NP repeatedly failed to identify or assess the wound during multiple visits. The facility policy required the attending physician to evaluate and document wound healing, and the DON confirmed the concern. The NP stated she did not include the wound in her notes because the wound team was following it.
Failure to Provide Physician Reassessment After Maggot-Infested Scalp Wound
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure physician supervision and ongoing clinical oversight after being notified of a significant change in condition for one resident with a large scalp lesion. During observation, the resident had multiple black-colored lesions on the scalp, including a large central lesion about the size of a tennis ball that was partially covered with brown material and had yellowish, foul-smelling drainage. Staff reported that the resident was admitted with the lesion, that it intermittently drained, and that on 6/12/26 a staff member found maggots in the wound. After the maggot infestation was reported, a staff member assessed the resident and called the physician, who instructed staff to clean the area with soap and water, apply petroleum jelly, and cover the wound. The resident received a shower and the lesion was dressed per orders, but the physician did not come to the facility to assess the resident after notification. The physician later stated he did not evaluate or reassess the resident because an outpatient general surgery appointment was already scheduled. Record review showed no physician progress note documenting reassessment of the resident’s condition between the report of maggots and the outpatient surgical evaluation.
Physician Orders for Diagnostic Tests Were Not Timely Signed
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure necessary physician services were provided for one resident when cardiology-ordered diagnostic tests were not promptly signed by the attending physician for scheduling. The resident was admitted and readmitted to the facility, had capacity to understand and make decisions, and had a cardiology appointment that resulted in new orders for a nocturnal desaturation study, a Lexiscan MIBI stress test, and an echocardiogram for sleep apnea, chest pain, abnormal EKG, and chest pain. The resident’s nursing progress note stated the orders were noted and carried out, and the order summary showed the three diagnostic tests were entered. However, the medical record did not show scheduled appointments or results for the tests. During interview and record review, RN staff stated the facility needed the attending physician to sign off on the cardiologist’s recommendations before appointments could be scheduled, and that multiple attempts were made to contact the physician. The resident’s orders were not signed until later by another attending physician, and the physician office staff stated the signed orders had been faxed to the wrong fax number and were not accurately received by the facility.
Delayed Physician Response for Resident With UTI Symptoms
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure a physician responded to staff phone calls or that the Medical Director was contacted when a resident reported pain and burning with urination. The resident had a diagnosis of UTI and severe cognitive impairment, and the MDS indicated the resident was not assessed for toileting hygiene due to medical conditions or safety concerns. The resident’s SBAR documented the urinary symptoms, and the physician was notified later that evening. Alert charting showed the resident was still waiting for orders the next day, and the physician’s order to collect urine for UA/C&S was not entered until later that afternoon. The urine specimen required recollection because of incomplete labeling, and a new UA/C&S was collected after that. The physician then ordered Cephalexin for UTI symptoms, but nursing staff later identified that the resident was allergic to penicillin and notified the physician, who discontinued the medication and ordered Macrobid instead. The resident received the first dose of Macrobid nearly three days after the urinary symptoms were first reported. During interviews, an LVN stated she called the physician in the evening and again the next morning but did not know to call the Medical Director when there was no response. An RN stated she made multiple attempts to reach the physician before receiving orders. The DON stated staff should have contacted the Medical Director after one to three unanswered attempts within an hour, and the facility policy required contacting the Medical Director if a timely or appropriate response was not received.
Missing physician orders and qualifying diagnosis for secure unit placement
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure physician orders were in place for residents admitted to the Alzheimer's certified secure care unit and failed to ensure one resident had a qualifying diagnosis for placement in that unit. Resident #7 had diagnoses including Parkinsonism, dementia, bipolar disorder, Alzheimer's disease with late onset, major depressive disorder, and anxiety, but the physician orders reviewed did not include an order to admit her to the secure care unit. Resident #9 had diagnoses including major depressive disorder, dementia, and anxiety, but likewise had no physician order to admit her to the secure care unit. Resident #44 had dementia and no physician order to admit her to the secure care unit was found in the record. Resident #24 was observed in the 400 hall Alzheimer's secure care unit even though her diagnoses did not include Alzheimer's disease or another related dementia. Her admission MDS showed moderate cognitive impairment, but Section I of the MDS did not indicate Alzheimer's disease or non-Alzheimer's dementia. Her physician orders also did not include an order to admit her to the secure care unit, and her care plan did not address secure unit placement. The report states the DON later obtained a diagnosis for Resident #24 on the day of the interview, but that diagnosis and order had not been obtained before she was placed in the secure unit. Observations showed Resident #7 and Resident #9 in the 100 hall Alzheimer's secure care unit and Resident #24 and Resident #44 in the 400 hall Alzheimer's secure care unit. Interviews with the LVN, ADON, DON, RCN, ADMN, and MD confirmed that residents on the secure units should have physician orders and qualifying diagnoses, and that the admission nurses, nurse managers, ADON, and DON were responsible for obtaining and monitoring those orders. The DON stated the orders for Resident #7, Resident #9, Resident #24, and Resident #44 had not been properly entered into the system, and that Resident #24's qualifying diagnosis and order should have been obtained before admission to the secure unit.
Failure to Obtain Physician Orders for Weight Monitoring
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure Resident #18’s care was adequately supervised by a physician by not obtaining, initiating, or implementing physician orders for weight monitoring despite significant documented changes in nutritional status and body weight. Resident #18 was admitted with chronic respiratory failure, ventilator dependence, and heart failure, and her care plan identified her as having a high BMI related to obesity with interventions to observe, monitor, and report changes, follow physician orders, and monitor weights. Her weight increased from 398.9 lbs to 557.8 lbs over about five months, but there was no documentation of physician notification or orders for daily, weekly, or monthly weights, and no comprehensive assessment or monitoring was documented in response to the change. The record also showed that nutrition assessments dated 10/31/25 and 01/23/26 were identical and did not reflect updated recommendations despite the resident’s ongoing nutritional risks and marked weight gain. A progress note documented a weight of 573 lbs after hospitalization, yet no physician notification or follow-up orders were documented. A later nutrition review noted a BMI of 90 and stated the weight gain required confirmation with daily weights, but there were still no corresponding physician orders, attempts to obtain orders, or weight-monitoring follow-through. CNA #570, LPN #513, and RD #630 confirmed the resident was not on a weight-monitoring list, had no orders for daily, weekly, or monthly weights, and the RD verified no physician orders were present in the medical record.
Failure to Assess and Document a Resident’s Pressure Ulcer
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure that a resident’s primary care provider(s) assessed and monitored a Stage 3 sacral pressure ulcer after it was identified by nursing staff and the wound NP. The resident’s medical record showed a new sacral pressure ulcer documented by nursing assessment and a Stage 3 pressure ulcer documented by the wound NP. The resident was then seen multiple times by the primary care MD and the facility NP over the following months, but their progress notes did not identify or assess the pressure ulcer in the physical examination, assessment and plan, or diagnoses sections. The facility policy stated that the attending physician and nursing staff would assess and document significant risk factors for pressure sores and that the physician would evaluate and document wound healing during resident visits, especially for complicated, extensive, or non-healing wounds. During interview, the DON acknowledged that the resident’s primary care provider was responsible for overall care and confirmed the concern that both the MD and NP failed to identify or assess the pressure ulcer during their visits. The NP stated she saw everyone, was one of the resident’s primary care providers, and admitted she had not included the wound in her notes because the wound team was following it.
Trusted data from CMS and state health departments
Every citation, penalty and Plan of Correction is sourced from public CMS records (latest release August 26, 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.