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
F0880
D

Failure to Post Isolation Sign for Resident on Contact Precautions

Lancaster, California Survey Completed on 04-22-2025

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 maintain an effective infection prevention and control program by not posting an isolation sign near the room of a resident who was under contact precautions for a multidrug-resistant E. coli urinary tract infection. The resident's care plan and physician's orders specified the need for contact isolation and the posting of a precaution sign, in accordance with facility policy. However, during observation, although an isolation caddy with PPE was present on the door, there was no sign indicating the type of precautions or required PPE for entry. Interviews with facility staff, including an LVN, the Infection Preventionist Assistant, and the Director of Nursing, confirmed that an isolation sign should have been posted to alert staff and visitors of the necessary precautions. The facility's own policy also required such signage to inform staff of the type of precaution required. The absence of the sign was acknowledged by staff as a failure to follow protocol, which could have led to improper use of PPE and increased risk of infection transmission.

An unhandled error has occurred. Reload 🗙