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
F0690
D

Failure to Ensure Timely Urology Follow-Up and Catheter Assessment

Kissimmee, Florida Survey Completed on 04-17-2025

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

A deficiency occurred when the facility failed to ensure timely assessment and follow-up for the removal of an indwelling urinary catheter for a resident admitted with a diagnosis of acute urinary tract infection and urinary retention. The hospital discharge paperwork specified that the urinary catheter, placed prior to admission, needed to be changed every 30 days and that a follow-up appointment with a urology specialist was required. Despite these instructions, there was no documentation in the resident's medical record indicating that a urology consult had been scheduled or that any interventions for catheter removal, such as intermittent catheterization, had been attempted since admission. Interviews with facility staff, including the DON and the Scheduler, confirmed that no urology consults had been scheduled and no actions had been taken to address the removal of the catheter. The DON stated that the APRN had advised against removing the catheter until a urology consultation occurred, but attempts to contact the APRN were unsuccessful. Review of the facility's clinical protocol indicated that evaluation for catheter removal should have been performed, but this was not documented or carried out for the resident.

An unhandled error has occurred. Reload 🗙