Failure to Address Flooring Hazards Leads to Resident Injury
Summary
The facility failed to maintain a safe environment for its residents, particularly in the memory care unit, where a clean-out drain in a high-traffic area was not properly repaired. This oversight led to an unsafe walkway, resulting in a resident tripping and suffering a significant injury. The resident, who had a history of difficulty walking and other medical conditions, was ambulating in the hallway when she tripped over the uneven flooring and tape that was not adequately securing the area. This incident caused a significant change in the resident's ability to walk independently and perform activities of daily living, necessitating surgical intervention. The facility's maintenance records revealed that a work order was created to address the missing clean-out cover, but the issue was not resolved promptly. Instead, temporary measures such as placing a metal sheet and tape over the area were used, which proved inadequate. The Director of Maintenance acknowledged the delay in obtaining the necessary materials to fix the problem and admitted to attempting to handle the repair in-house before calling in professional plumbers. This delay in addressing the hazard contributed to the resident's fall and subsequent injury. Interviews with staff members indicated that the area was known to be a hazard, yet it remained unrepaired for an extended period. The staff, including the Director of Nursing and Certified Nursing Assistants, were aware of the incident and the resident's condition post-fall. The facility's failure to promptly and effectively address the flooring issues and provide adequate supervision and assistance devices placed the resident and others at risk for serious injury.
Plan Of Correction
Immediate action(s) taken for the resident(s) found to have been affected include: Flooring was repaired to prevent further accidents. Resident # 6 is no longer resides in the facility. 2. Identification of other residents having the potential to be affected: NHA and Director of Maintenance performed rounds of the facility to identify any hazardous areas. Identified hazards removed and/or repaired. 3. Actions taken/ systems put in place to reduce the risk of future occurrence include: DCS/Designee provided education on Accidents and Supervision policy, redirecting residents with from environmental hazards, and recognizing and reporting potential environmental hazards. An additional staff member has been assigned to memory care unit as Hall Monitor to increase supervision. 4. How the corrective action(s) will be monitored to ensure the practice will not reoccur: Administrator/Director of Maintenance/Designee will complete facility assessment rounds to make certain facility is free of hazards once weekly x 8 weeks; then every w weekly x 4 weeks and will continue weekly rounds ongoing. Quality reviews will be completed once a week x8 weeks and then every 2 weeks x1 month. Quality reviews will be reviewed by the QAPI committee monthly x 3 months or until substantial compliance is met along with quarterly reviews.
Removal Plan
- Immediate Action: Environmental rounds completed, identified areas of concern noted.
- Summoned Corporate Plant Operations support team for assistance.
- Quality review completed for all current residents sustaining a fall to ensure plan of care is in place, no discrepancies noted.
- Medical Record Review of all residents with falls with major injury conducted: no discrepancies noted.
- 99.5% of all facility staff were educated.
- Initiated and assigned direct care staff member as 'Hallway Safety Monitor' on secure unit for additional supervision.
- Identification of others at risk was accomplished by reassessing all residents residing in the facility for fall risk via Fall Risk Evaluation.
- Facility implemented Activities Invitation Rounds for residents identified at risk for falls.
- The Care Plan Coordinator(s) completed review of care plans to ensure all residents identified as 'at risk' for falls had safety measures, as well as resident specific interventions in place.
- Quality review completed for monitoring of environmental hazards with a focus on uneven surfaces and hazards.
- Identified environmental concerns addressed by priority level, initiated repairs and ongoing.
- Record review of Resident #6 completed.
- Actions to Prevent Occurrence/Recurrence: NHA, DCS, and Plant Operations/Maintenance Director re-educated on ensuring resident environment is free of hazards with emphasis on timely completion.
- Regional DCS educated the DCS on the facility's Fall Prevention Program, all facility related policies, how to conduct an RCA, and how to ensure incident investigations are timely and complete.
- DCS/designee re-educated staff on facility Fall Prevention Program guidelines, following care plan/Kardex interventions, as well as all facility related policies.
- DCS/Designee re-educated staff on Abuse, Neglect, and Exploitation Policy.
- DCS/Designee re-educated staff on Residents' Rights.
- DCS/Designee re-educated staff on Accidents and Supervision Policy.
- DCS/Designee re-educated staff on Recognizing & Reporting Hazards.
- DCS/Designee re-educated staff on Redirecting Residents with Dementia from Environmental Hazards.
- DCS/Designee re-educated staff on securing hazardous areas until plant ops clears, ensuring no harm.
- The Director of Clinical Services/designee to conduct quality monitoring of new admission fall risk evaluation completion to ensure that risk factors, safety measures, and resident specific interventions are reflected on the care plan and Kardex.
- A Performance Improvement Plan (PIP) has been initiated to report on the above monitoring and auditing procedures.
- NHA/Plant Ops/Designee will round to ensure facility is free of hazards.
- DON/designee will review all falls at the clinical meeting with the IDT (interdisciplinary) to ensure appropriate interventions are implemented, the resident's care plan has been reviewed and revised, and the Kardex has been updated.
- Regional DCS will review to ensure a RCA (root cause analysis) has been conducted and that resident specific interventions are reflected in the care plan as well as updated on the Kardex.
- Verification of the facility's removal plan was conducted by the survey team.
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.