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
F0641
D

Inaccurate MDS Assessments for Mental Illness and Hospice Status

Tracy, Minnesota Survey Completed on 04-16-2025

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 Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessments accurately reflected the clinical status of two residents. For one resident, the diagnosis list indicated bipolar disorder and a Level II PASARR assessment confirmed criteria for severe mental illness. However, the significant change MDS did not correctly indicate the resident's PASARR status, marking that the resident had not been evaluated for serious mental illness, despite documentation to the contrary. This discrepancy was acknowledged by nursing staff, who confirmed the error in MDS coding. For another resident, the significant change MDS assessment failed to identify that the resident was on hospice care, despite medical records and care plans clearly documenting hospice admission and related interventions. Previous MDS assessments had correctly indicated hospice status, but the most recent significant change assessment omitted this information. The DON confirmed that the MDS did not accurately reflect the resident's hospice status.

An unhandled error has occurred. Reload 🗙