Stay Ahead of Compliance with Monthly Citation Updates


In your State Survey window and need a snapshot of your risks?

Survey Preparedness Report

One Time Fee
$79
  • Last 12 months of citation data in one tailored report
  • Pinpoint the tags driving penalties in facilities like yours
  • Jump to regulations and pathways used by surveyors
  • Access to your report within 2 hours of purchase
  • Easily share it with your team - no registration needed
Get Your Report Now →

Monthly citation updates straight to your inbox for ongoing preparation?

Monthly Citation Reports

$18.90 per month
  • Latest citation updates delivered monthly to your email
  • Citations organized by compliance areas
  • Shared automatically with your team, by area
  • Customizable for your state(s) of interest
  • Direct links to CMS documentation relevant parts
Learn more →

Save Hours of Work with AI-Powered Plan of Correction Writer


One-Time Fee

$49 per Plan of Correction
Volume discounts available – save up to 20%
  • Quickly search for approved POC from other facilities
  • Instant access
  • Intuitive interface
  • No recurring fees
  • Save hours of work
F0578
E

Deficiency in Documenting and Accessing Residents' Code Status

Clio, Michigan Survey Completed on 04-11-2025

Penalty

No penalty information released
tooltip icon
The penalty, as released by CMS, applies to the entire inspection this citation is part of, covering all citations and f-tags issued, not just this specific f-tag. For the complete original report, please refer to the 'Details' section.

Summary

The facility failed to ensure that the code status of six residents was documented and accessible in their medical records, which could lead to miscommunication regarding their treatment preferences. For Resident #12, the electronic medical record (EMR) did not clearly indicate the resident's code status, and the physician's order only referred to a Preferred Treatment Option without specifying the details. Additionally, the care plan for Resident #12 did not mention the code status, and similar issues were found for Residents #21, #53, #79, and #158, where the EMR contained forms with options but lacked specific orders or care plans reflecting the residents' wishes. Resident #92, who had moderate cognitive loss and was receiving hospice services, also had no clear documentation of code status in the medical record. The Clinical Care Coordinator acknowledged the absence of specific orders or care plans for code status and mentioned that staff would need to search through the EMR or refer to a binder at the nurse's desk to find this information. However, the binder was not part of the official medical record, and the process of locating a resident's code status was cumbersome due to the binder's organization. During interviews, it was revealed that the binders containing code status information were difficult to navigate, and some documents, like the one for Resident #92, were of poor quality and unreadable. The facility's policy on Advanced Directives did not provide a clear process for ensuring that residents' code status was easily accessible in the medical record, contributing to the deficiency in maintaining accurate and accessible documentation of residents' treatment preferences.

An unhandled error has occurred. Reload 🗙