Neglect and Verbal Abuse During Internet Outage
Summary
The facility failed to protect residents from neglect during a forecasted winter storm that caused an internet outage, preventing access to the Electronic Health Record (EHR) system. This outage occurred on January 21 and 22, 2025, and the facility did not have systems in place to ensure continuity of care. As a result, pre-printed paper documentation forms such as physician orders and Medication Administration Records (MARs) were not available for the licensed nursing staff to use for resident care, treatment, and medication administration. Consequently, residents on the second and third floors did not receive their medications as ordered by the physician during this period. The nursing staff, including the nurse supervisor on duty, failed to ensure that residents received their medications and treatments as ordered. They also did not notify management staff or the residents' physicians of their inability to safely administer medications. This lack of communication and failure to implement a backup plan for medication administration during the internet outage led to a situation where residents did not receive necessary medications, including insulin and other significant medications, for more than 24 hours. Additionally, the facility failed to protect a resident from verbal abuse by a Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA). The CNA, who was reportedly tired and frustrated from working a double shift, verbally abused the resident by using derogatory language. The resident reported feeling shocked and stunned by the CNA's behavior. The facility's investigation substantiated the allegation of verbal abuse, and the CNA was subsequently terminated.
Removal Plan
- The medication administration Record (MAR) will be printed monthly by the Director of Nursing Assistant Director of Nursing or Unit Manager.
- The paper MAR will be updated at the time the order is received or confirmed for all current resident and new admits by the RN/LPN who receives the order or confirms the new order for any medication changes including all new orders for new admits.
- The updated MAR will be located by the nursing stations.
- All LPNs and RNs were in-serviced to ensure nurses know where the paper MAR is located and to update it as soon as a new admission or whenever the physician changes an order in the MAR.
- The Director of Nursing and Assistant Director of Nursing began to educate all nurses, all physical therapy staff and administrative staff and provided the education with 1:1 in-service to specific staff.
- The in-services included the policy titled Policy on Computer or Internet Downtime and EHR, the standard of practice to administer medication, monitor blood glucose, the implementation of the prescribing physicians' orders, the importance of documenting medication administration at the time of administration.
- Inservice included calling the physician as well as notify the Director of Nursing or Designee if staff including nurses are unable to carry out a physician's order.
- Inservice included how it led to neglect and the facility's Abuse Policy titled Abuse Policy.
- The in-service was completed for all nurses, PT staff, and administrative staff.
- The nursing staff were all educated by the Director of Nursing or Assistant Director of Nursing and 1:1 in-service to specific staff.
- The in-service included that a printed MAR will be ready for each month.
- A copy of the paper MAR will be kept at each nurses' station for use during downtime.
- Education included that RNs and LPNs who receive an order or confirm a new order for any medication changes including all new orders for new admits will update the paper medication administration records at the time the order is received or confirmed for all current resident and new admits.
- The Administrator educated the Director of Nursing and the Assistant Director of Nursing that both of them are responsible to print the paper MAR to be ready for each month and will be placed by each of the nurse's station.
- A monthly MAR print out schedule was created for clarity.
- The education included that the DON and the ADON will confirm that an accurate MAR for all residents is printed and available for use in the event of a forecasted severe storm or other reason to expect downtime.
- A mock drill was conducted for the nursing personnel on shift.
- The facility replaced the router through its internet provider.
- The entire Medical Record Administration was reprinted in the event of outage and nurses were all educated that any medication changes or new admissions will need to be updated in the paper medical administration records.
- A report was generated from the electronic medical records to see which residents could have been affected.
- All residents that had the potential of being affected by this deficient practice were assessed by the medical director.
- An ad-hoc Quality Assurance meeting which included the entire IDT team was conducted to discuss the deficient practice and plan of correction.
- The nurses that were responsible were immediately educated about the improper practice and on the Policy on Computer or Internet Downtime and EHR access.
- The QA team discussed the needed in services/education for specific staff.
Penalty
Resources
Below are regulatory guidelines relevant to this citation:
An agency NA forcefully pushed a wheelchair-bound resident through a doorway while the resident was caught in the frame, causing the resident’s foot to strike both shins and resulting in bruising, swelling, pain, and an acute right tibia fracture. The resident had dementia, muscle weakness, and required assistance with mobility and transfers. CCTV and the facility’s investigation showed the NA did not follow safety measures during the transfer.
A resident with dementia and a history of aggression assaulted another resident in a hallway, pushing him from a chair onto the floor and then attempting to strike him with a chair while a third resident was nearby. Staff on constant observation and another observer did not intervene until after the resident had already been pushed down, despite the resident being on enhanced supervision for prior resident-to-resident altercations. Both residents had severe cognitive impairment, and interviews showed the assigned aide did not understand the urgency of the constant observation role.
Delayed reporting of resident-on-resident sexual abuse allowed continued nonconsensual sexual contact. A resident with schizophrenia and moderate cognitive impairment reported that his roommate kissed, touched, and sexually assaulted him without consent, while the roommate admitted to sexual contact. A nurse aide heard the allegation but did not report it right away, and the unit manager later confirmed the delay.
Failure to respond appropriately to an alleged sexual abuse incident: a resident with intact cognition alleged a CNA raped them during incontinence care, but the resident remained in the facility for hours without a documented medical or psychosocial assessment. The CNA said they provided care and applied ointment to the resident’s groin and vaginal area, while video showed the CNA in the room for 36 minutes. The resident was later tearful, fearful, and distrustful of staff, and the DON and admin did not report the allegation to DOH because the resident later described rough handling.
Failure to Maintain Separation Between Residents With Known Aggression: A resident with a known hx of resident-to-resident physical aggression struck another resident in the head with a cane in the dining room, causing a bump, laceration, and bruising. The assaulted resident was non-ambulatory, dependent on staff for transfers, and had dementia, while the aggressive resident had intact cognition, used a cane, and had a care plan for prior physical altercations. Staff placed the residents in the same area with limited supervision, and the aggressive resident stated the other resident deserved it and that he would hit him again.
A resident with stroke-related diagnoses and cognitive intact status was transferred to the hospital for weakness, dizziness, pallor, and low K+. After the resident was stable for return, the DON and administrator went to the hospital and, along with the owner and corporate administrator on speaker phone, were reported by the resident and hospital staff to have yelled, been rude and aggressive, and told the resident the facility would not take the resident back because of behaviors and money owed. The resident stated feeling pressured, outnumbered, and insignificant.
Failure to Protect Resident During Transfer Resulted in Right Tibia Fracture
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to protect a resident from abuse and neglect when an agency nurse aide forcefully handled Resident R86 during wheelchair transport. CCTV review showed the aide pulling the resident as she was caught in a doorway, then attempting to push her through the doorway forcefully. During this event, the resident’s right foot became caught on the doorframe and struck her right shin, then her left shin, before she was pushed through the doorway. Resident R86 was admitted to the facility with diagnoses including hypertension, vascular dementia, muscle weakness, and cognitive communication deficit. The resident’s MDS indicated dependence for multiple mobility-related activities and use of a wheelchair. The care plan noted that the resident could move around the facility without supervision but could not exit without supervision, and later documented bruising to both lower extremities, swelling of the lower right extremity, and a right tibia fracture, with bed rest and Hoyer transfers for all transfers. After the incident, bruising was documented on the resident’s lower extremities, including dark purple/green bruising to the right shin and swelling and pain in the right leg. The resident was unable to tolerate range-of-motion assessment because of pain and agitation. X-rays later showed an acute mildly displaced spiral fracture below the level of the tibial prosthetic stem in the right tibia. The facility’s investigation concluded that the nursing aide neglected to follow facility safety measures.
Failure to Prevent Resident-to-Resident Abuse During Constant Observation
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to protect a resident from abuse when a resident with severe cognitive impairment and a history of aggressive behavior assaulted another resident in the hallway. Resident #1 had diagnoses including unspecified dementia with behavioral disturbance, COPD, muscle weakness, and major depressive disorder, and his MDS coded him with a BIMS score of 3 out of 15. Resident #2 also had severe cognitive impairment, with diagnoses including Alzheimer’s disease with early onset, unspecified dementia without behavioral disturbance, hypertension, and muscle wasting and atrophy, and his MDS also coded a BIMS score of 3 out of 15. During the incident, staff heard a chair flip over and a thud, then found Resident #2 on the floor. A video reviewed by the facility showed Resident #1 standing in front of Resident #2 and pushing him out of a chair and onto the floor. The video also showed Resident #1 picking up a chair and attempting to strike Resident #2 with it while Resident #3 was in close proximity. An OSM sitting nearby observed the incident and did not intervene until after Resident #2 had been pushed to the floor, and the chair was only stopped when the OSM placed a hand on it. The record and interviews showed that Resident #1 had been on constant supervision because of prior aggressive behavior and resident-to-resident altercations. The care plan documented behaviors related to aggression during care and a history of pushing another resident. Staff interviews indicated that the Activities Aide assigned to constant observation was watching the incident but did not intervene quickly, and the aide stated she did not think the situation would become physical and did not know what the constant observation was for. The facility’s policy required staff on constant observation to remain within close proximity to intervene immediately if necessary, but that did not occur during the altercation.
Delayed Reporting of Resident-on-Resident Sexual Abuse
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure that a resident was free from abuse when continued nonconsensual sexual contact occurred between two roommates. Resident 1 had diagnoses including schizophrenia and a BIMS score of 9, indicating moderate cognitive impairment. Resident 2 had a BIMS score of 15, indicating normal cognitive function. According to the resident’s statement, Resident 2 kissed his body and engaged in sexual contact that Resident 1 did not consent to, including manual genital manipulation, kissing and licking of his body, and anal penetration. A nurse aide heard Resident 1 say that Resident 2 liked to kiss his body and later questioned him about whether Resident 2 asked him to do things he did not want to do. Resident 1 responded that Resident 2 “jerks me off” and said it happened often. The nurse aide stated that he or she was unsure what to do and did not feel comfortable talking to anyone except the unit manager. The unit manager’s statement indicated that the nurse aide reported the allegation four days after the initial disclosure. Resident 2 also acknowledged sexual contact, stating that he had kissed Resident 1 all over his body and touched his private area, and said the last contact occurred two nights before the interview. The resident was evaluated in the ED for sexual assault, and the facility later substantiated sexual abuse based on the delayed reporting by the nurse aide. The report identified that the delay in reporting allowed further nonconsensual sexual contact to occur before the allegation was acted upon.
Failure to Respond to Alleged Sexual Abuse and Assess Resident Distress
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to protect a resident from abuse, psychosocial harm, and to respond appropriately after an allegation of staff-to-resident sexual abuse. The resident had diagnoses including obstructive and reflux uropathy and hemiplegia and hemiparesis following cerebral infarction. The resident’s MDS documented a BIMS score of 15, indicating intact cognition, and the care plan included psychosocial well-being interventions such as orienting the resident to the environment, introducing compatible peers, and addressing concerns. During incontinence care, the resident alleged that a CNA raped them. The incident report documented that the resident told an LPN they were raped, and the LPN notified a supervisor. The supervisor assessed the resident and noted redness in the perineal area. A nursing progress note later documented that the resident complained of burning in the sacral and vaginal area after incontinence care and that the DON was aware. Video review showed the CNA in the resident’s room for 36 minutes. The CNA stated they provided incontinence care, applied A and D ointment to the resident’s pubis, groin crease, and vagina, and remained in the room because the resident had multiple bowel movements, although the bowel record did not document multiple bowel movements. The resident remained in the facility for about five and a half hours after the allegation without documentation of a medical or psychosocial assessment. Family members reported the resident was hysterically crying, contacted law enforcement, and requested hospital transfer. The resident later stated they felt something enter their anus and vagina, that they told the CNA to stop, and that they became distressed, tearful, fearful, and distrustful of facility staff. The facility concluded abuse did not occur because of conflicting statements, and the DON and administrator stated the allegation was not reported to the state because the resident later described rough handling. The PCP stated the facility should have called law enforcement and the Department of Health if the allegation was rape, and stated a psychosocial assessment should have been completed. The social worker stated they were aware of the incident after it occurred and did not know what interventions should be put in place.
Failure to Maintain Separation Between Residents With Known History of Aggression
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to protect a resident from resident-to-resident abuse when one resident struck another resident in the head with a cane in the main dining room. The assaulted resident was non-ambulatory, dependent on staff for bed-to-chair transfers, used a Broda wheelchair, and had diagnoses including non-Alzheimer’s dementia and depression. He had a BIMS score of 12 out of 15 and was documented as having potential verbally aggressive behaviors toward other residents related to dementia. After the assault, he was found with a 5 cm bump and a 1 cm laceration to the left forehead, along with facial bruising, and he stated he felt unsafe around the other resident. The resident who struck him had a BIMS score of 13 out of 15, walked with a cane, transferred independently, and had diagnoses including stroke and depression. His care plan identified a history of resident-to-resident physical aggression and directed staff to monitor for agitation, assist him to a quiet area, and maintain separation from the other resident. Despite that history, he independently approached the other resident in the dining room and struck him multiple times with the cane. During the interview, he stated the other resident deserved it and said he would hit him again if he saw him, indicating the assault was intentional and unprovoked. The investigation also documented a prior resident-to-resident altercation between the same two residents in which the aggressive resident had struck the other resident in the face with his cane several times, causing bruising to the eye and cheek. Staff statements showed the two residents were placed in the same dining area with limited supervision, and staff were occupied with other residents when the assault occurred. Several staff members stated they believed the aggressive resident was simply walking back to his room and did not realize he would attack the other resident. The facility’s investigation concluded that previously identified supervision and separation interventions were not consistently maintained, allowing the aggressive resident to reach and assault the other resident again.
Verbal Abuse During Hospital Discharge Discussions
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure a resident was free from verbal abuse by facility staff. The resident had diagnoses including frontal lobe and executive function deficit, stroke, atrial fibrillation, cerebrovascular accident, and hemiparesis, and the record also documented the resident as cognitively intact. The resident had been admitted on 01/17/2025 and was transferred to the emergency department on 6/18/2026 for further evaluation and treatment related to possible infection, weakness, dizziness, pallor, and low potassium. After the hospital transfer, the resident stated that facility leaders told the resident the facility would not allow the resident to return because there were no available beds. The resident reported that the administrator and DON came to the hospital, that the administrator, DON, company owner, and corporate administrator were on speaker phone, and that the administrator and DON were verbally abusive, yelled at the resident, and said the resident had behavioral issues, owed the facility a lot of money, and was a bad person. The resident stated feeling pressured, outnumbered, and extremely insignificant, and said the resident never told staff not to return until being told the facility did not want the resident back. Hospital staff corroborated the resident’s account. The hospital social worker stated the facility refused to accept the resident back, that the DON was rude, unpleasant, and harassed the resident in the emergency department waiting room, and that the administrator and DON were aggressive and yelled at the resident during the discussion about returning to the facility. The hospital case manager stated the administrator and DON told the resident about problems the resident had caused for the facility and said the resident could return if the resident paid on the bill. The administrator later stated that staff had to yell because the resident was hard of hearing and acknowledged that the conversation involved reviewing the letter and bullet points about what led to the situation.
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.