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
F0686
D

Failure to Follow LALM Protocols for Pressure Ulcer Prevention

Studio City, California Survey Completed on 04-04-2025

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 provide care consistent with professional standards to prevent pressure ulcers for a resident who was at risk due to multiple medical conditions, including diabetes mellitus, heart failure, and severe cognitive impairment. The resident was dependent on staff for all activities of daily living and was always incontinent of bowel and bladder. Despite a physician order for a low air loss mattress (LALM) to manage and prevent pressure ulcers, staff placed multiple layers of linen and padding—totaling eight layers—between the resident and the LALM, contrary to both the manufacturer's instructions and facility policy, which specified no excessive padding should be used. Observations and interviews revealed inconsistent understanding among staff regarding the correct number of linen layers to use with the LALM. A CNA identified eight layers, while an RN believed four layers were appropriate, and the Infection Preventionist and DON both stated that only two layers, including the incontinence brief, should be present. Facility policy and the LALM operation manual both emphasized the importance of avoiding excessive padding to prevent interference with the mattress's pressure-relieving function. This failure to follow established protocols had the potential to contribute to the development or worsening of pressure ulcers for the resident.

An unhandled error has occurred. Reload 🗙