Failure to Provide Effective Communication for Non-English Speaking Resident
Summary
The facility failed to ensure the right to a dignified existence, self-determination, and effective communication for a resident with limited English proficiency. The resident, a Spanish-speaking male with diagnoses including diabetes mellitus, diabetic arthropathy, and a cognitive communication deficit, was unable to communicate effectively with staff who did not speak Spanish. The care plan identified the resident's communication needs and included interventions such as the use of visual cues, gestures, flash cards, and a communication board, as well as contacting family or friends for assistance. However, observations revealed that these interventions were not effectively implemented, as the communication board was not accessible or useful to the resident, and staff frequently relied on ad hoc methods such as sign language or seeking out Spanish-speaking staff when available. Multiple staff interviews confirmed that most staff, including those on evening and night shifts, did not speak Spanish and found the communication board ineffective. Staff reported difficulty in assessing the resident's needs, including pain levels, and often depended on non-verbal cues or attempted to find a Spanish-speaking colleague, which was not always possible. The Director of Rehabilitation, who was a Spanish speaker, acknowledged concerns about the lack of Spanish-speaking staff during certain shifts and the resulting communication barriers. The Director of Nursing and Administrator also recognized the importance of communication but indicated that the primary tools available were the communication board and the ability to call a Spanish-speaking staff member by phone, which was not consistently utilized. Review of facility policy confirmed the right of residents to communication and access to services, but no specific policy for non-English speaking residents was provided when requested. Observations and interviews demonstrated that the resident was unable to reliably communicate his needs or understand staff instructions, and the interventions outlined in the care plan were not effectively supporting his communication needs.
Penalty
Resources
Below are regulatory guidelines relevant to this citation:
Two residents on physician-ordered modified diets (pureed and mechanical soft with nectar-thick liquids) were given Regular Menus listing items such as fresh fruit, salad greens, and grilled cheese that were not compatible with their diet orders. Both residents selected items from these Regular Menus, but the facility either could not provide the chosen foods due to diet restrictions or substituted different items (e.g., canned peach halves instead of fresh fruit), despite the residents’ expressed preferences. The RD and dietetic technician confirmed that Regular Menus were routinely provided to all residents, including those on mechanically altered diets, leading to menu choices that did not align with ordered diet consistencies.
A resident with a history of chronic pancreatitis, Whipple procedure, splenectomy, prior Serratia bacteremia, and a recently removed surgical drain developed progressively worsening abdominal pain, distention, fevers, chills, and inability to tolerate PO intake after returning to the facility. The RN/Unit Manager reported that staff noted pain after drain removal, applied a dressing that later came off, and treated the resident with pain and nausea medications while following a practice of assessing changes in condition and reviewing VS to see if issues could be managed in-house. The resident ultimately called 911 independently to go to the hospital, rather than staff initiating the transfer, and the RN/Unit Manager stated she did not know what happened or the resident’s condition on hospital admission, reflecting the events leading to the cited resident rights deficiency.
A resident with an indwelling urinary catheter for urinary retention, and care plan interventions requiring the drainage bag to be properly secured with a dignity cover, was observed seated in a chair with the catheter drainage bag uncovered and containing visible dark yellow urine that could be seen from the hallway. Later, an LPN confirmed the catheter bag was lying directly on the floor without a dignity cover. This situation occurred despite facility policy requiring care to be provided in a manner that respects and enhances each resident’s dignity and personal privacy.
A resident with a history of cerebral infarction, schizophrenia, and depression was observed seated in a wheelchair during a lunch meal while a CNA stood over her and fed her with a spoon, contrary to facility policy requiring staff to sit at the resident’s eye level. The CNA later acknowledged she was expected to obtain a chair and sit beside the resident for comfort, and the DSD confirmed that staff are required to position themselves at eye level and not stand over residents when providing feeding assistance, as outlined in the facility’s dignity and meal-assistance policies.
A resident with severe cognitive impairment who used a wheelchair for mobility was observed being quickly pulled backward down a hallway while reclined in a geriatric chair, instead of being pushed forward in a dignified manner. The NA reported he pulled the chair backward because he felt it was harder to push forward, and he was unaware of any equipment problems. A SW later tested the same geriatric chair and found it functioned properly. Facility leadership, including the Staff Development Director, DON, and Administrator, stated that staff are educated on residents’ rights, dignity, and wheelchair use, and confirmed the expectation that residents be pushed forward in wheelchairs and geriatric chairs at a normal, dignified pace.
Multiple residents reported that staff frequently ignored call lights, delayed or refused assistance with toileting and transfers, and left individuals in soiled briefs or on bedpans for extended periods, causing discomfort and skin irritation. Residents described staff using cell phones and earbuds instead of attending to care needs, sitting in breakrooms while residents waited in the dining room late into the evening, and rushing care, including cleaning a resident with a pillowcase due to lack of washcloths. Several residents stated they felt dehumanized, invisible, and fearful of retaliation if they complained, and one noted that discussions with administration focused on profit rather than patient care. The administrator acknowledged that the facility failed to provide services in an atmosphere of dignity and respect for multiple residents.
Failure to Honor Diet-Appropriate Menu Choices for Residents on Modified Diets
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to provide residents with menu choices that matched their physician-ordered diet textures and liquid consistencies. One resident with severe cognitive impairment had a physician order for a controlled diet with pureed texture and honey-thick liquids. During a noon meal observation, this resident’s meal ticket was stapled to a Regular Menu listing items such as lettuce and tomato salad, stir-fried vegetables, and a grilled cheese sandwich, none of which were appropriate for the resident’s ordered diet. The Registered Dietitian and the Dietetic Technician confirmed that Daily Menu printouts with Regular Menu options were provided to all residents, including those on mechanically altered diets, resulting in residents being offered choices that could not be honored due to diet restrictions. Another resident with moderate cognitive impairment had a physician order for a mechanical soft diet with nectar-thick liquids. This resident’s lunch tray ticket was also stapled to a Regular Menu that included salad greens, which are not allowed on a mechanical soft diet. On a separate breakfast observation, the same resident’s Regular Menu included fresh fruit as a choice, which the resident circled, but the tray contained canned peach halves instead. The resident stated she wanted her chosen fresh fruit rather than the peaches and reiterated her food preferences during the interview. Photographic evidence was obtained to document these discrepancies between ordered diets, menu offerings, and the food actually provided.
Plan Of Correction
Preparation and/or execution of this plan does not constitute admission or agreement by the provider that a deficiency exists. This response is also not to be construed as an admission of fault by the facility, its employees, agents or other individuals who draft or may be discussed in this response and plan of correction. This plan of correction is submitted as the facility's credible allegation of compliance and Soley because it is requiredF05501. Resident #54 and Resident #56 were immediately assessed by the Registered Dietitian (RD) & CDM (Certified Dietary Manager) for food preferences on Residents #54 and #56 were offered meal choices consistent with the prescribed diet. No adverse outcomes were identified. 2. 100% audit of all residents with therapeutic diets was completed on [R] by CDM to ensure menus and meal selections consistent with physician-ordered diets.On [R] , CDM provided in-service provided to dietary aides, certified nursing assistants, nurses, managers on new selective menu processes. 3. The facility implemented a diet-specific menu system and pre-meal diet verification process by reviewing the diet in tray ticket program IMPAC and PCC. Copies of the menus to be provided as part of the audits.Diet Menu was revised to include a mechanically altered diet to be consistent with physician orders. Therapeutic diets menus are available and offered to each resident according to physician orders. The Dietary Manager or designee will conduct weekly audits of 4 residents on therapeutic diets x 4 weeks then monthly x 2months, to verify the correct menu is offered and served. 4. The Dietary Manager or designee will report findings at the monthly QAPI meeting. The Administrator is responsible for confirming implementation and compliance with this POC and [R] , and resolving any variances that occur.
Resident With Post-Surgical Abdominal Complications Called 911 After Facility Response to Change in Condition
Penalty
Summary
A deficiency occurred when the facility failed to ensure a resident’s right to appropriate, respectful care and self-determination in the context of post-surgical complications and worsening abdominal symptoms. The resident had a complex medical history including chronic pancreatitis, a Whipple procedure, splenectomy, prior Serratia bacteremia with suspected urinary or abdominal source, and a recent surgical drain that was later removed. After drain removal, the resident experienced gradually increasing abdominal distention and pain at the drain site, followed by significant abdominal pain, swelling, fevers, chills, and inability to tolerate oral intake in the 24 hours prior to hospital evaluation. Hospital assessment documented leukocytosis with left shift and CT findings of gastritis with inflammation near the prior drain site and two postoperative fluid collections or possible pseudocysts, raising concern for infected fluid collections or recurrent pancreatitis-related complications. Within the facility, the RN/Unit Manager reported that the resident was there for recovery after laparoscopic surgery, had complications at home requiring readmission and a drain, and then returned with the drain removed “without complications,” later developing pain. The RN/Unit Manager stated there was an order for a dressing that came off and that the resident “was fine,” and described the facility’s usual process when a resident has a change in condition and wants to go to the ER as assessing first, reviewing vital signs, and determining if the issue can be treated in the facility. For this resident, staff provided pain and nausea medication, but the resident ultimately called 911 independently to go to the hospital, rather than the nurse initiating the call as is “usually” done. The RN/Unit Manager stated, “I don’t know what happened,” and did not know the resident’s condition upon admission to the hospital, indicating a lack of clear facility action and communication around the resident’s change in condition and transfer, in the context of the resident’s right to appropriate care and access to needed services.
Plan Of Correction
Corrective Action for Resident Affected: The resident was transferred and evaluated for appropriate medical services. Resident #5 no longer resides in the facility. Identification of Other Residents at Risk: An audit was conducted on residents with recent changes in condition, emergency transfers, and documented requests for outside medical services from the past 30 days to identify any additional requests to be sent out for medical necessity. No other residents were identified. Systemic Changes Implemented: The Director of Nursing or designee re-educated licensed nurses, and interdisciplinary staff on resident rights related to accessing medical care and services outside the facility, including timely physician notification, emergency response procedures to prevent delayed emergent care, and honoring resident/responsible party requests for outside medical evaluation. Monitoring to Ensure Compliance: The Director of Nursing/designee will audit return to hospital/transfers change in condition and resident requests for outside medical services weekly for four
Uncovered Urinary Catheter Drainage Bag Compromises Resident Dignity
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to maintain a resident’s right to privacy and dignity related to management of an indwelling urinary catheter. A resident admitted with malignant neoplasm of the esophagus and type II diabetes mellitus had a care plan identifying risk for urinary tract infection and catheter-related trauma due to an indwelling catheter for urinary retention. The care plan interventions included ensuring the catheter tubing was secured and the drainage bag was properly secured with a dignity cover in place. Physician orders directed that the resident’s 16 French indwelling urinary catheter be changed every 30 days and as needed, and the comprehensive MDS documented that the resident had an indwelling catheter and was cognitively intact. During observation, the resident was seen seated in a chair with the urinary catheter drainage bag hanging from the chair without a dignity cover, and dark yellow urine was visible in the bag from the hallway. In a later observation and interview, an LPN confirmed that the catheter bag was lying directly on the floor and did not have a dignity cover. Attempts to interview the resident to confirm cognitive status were unsuccessful, as the resident was unable to answer screening questions. Review of the facility’s “Resident Dignity & Personal Privacy” policy stated that the facility should provide care in a manner that respects and enhances each resident’s dignity, individuality, and right to personal property, which was not followed in this instance when the catheter drainage bag was left uncovered and visible.
Plan Of Correction
The Laurels of Athens wishes to have this plan of correction submitted as our written allegation of compliance. Preparation and/or execution of this plan of correction does not constitute admission to nor agreement with, either the existence of, or the scope and severity of, any of the cited deficiencies or conclusions set forth in the statement of deficiencies. This plan is prepared and/or executed to ensure continuing compliance with regulatory requirements. Our alleged date of compliance is 5/13/2026. 1. On 4/6/26, Resident #92's catheter bag was removed from the floor, the bag changed and covered for dignity by the licensed nurse. Resident #92 discharged from the facility on 4/11/26. 2. Like Residents are identified as residents who utilize urinary catheters. An audit will be completed by the Director of Nursing or designee for like residents utilizing the Urinary Catheter Audit Tool which was created on 4/20/26 by the Director of Nursing for the purpose of this POC to ensure catheter bags are covered for dignity and not laying directly on the floor. This audit along with identified corrections will be completed on or before 5/13/26. 3. The Director of Nursing or designee will re-educate licensed nurses on the Indwelling Urinary Catheter Policy as well as Resident Dignity & Personal Privacy Policy to include privacy covers are in place for urinary catheters and that the catheter is not laying on the floor. This education will be completed on or before 5/13/26. 4. Utilizing the Urinary Catheter Audit Tool which was created on 4/20/26 by the Director of Nursing for purpose of this POC, the Director of Nursing or designee will complete an audit of all residents with catheters weekly for four weeks, beginning 5/14/26 to ensure catheter bags are covered for dignity and not laying directly on the floor. Any catheters found to be touching the floor or uncovered will be removed from the floor, the bag changed and covered for dignity. Negative findings to be addressed immediately and negative trends or system wide issues will be reported to the QAPI committee, and the action plan will be adjusted as needed.
Failure to Maintain Resident Dignity During Feeding Assistance
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure a resident was treated with dignity and respect during mealtime when a CNA provided feeding assistance while standing over the resident. The resident, who had been admitted with diagnoses including cerebral infarction, schizophrenia, and depression, was seated in a wheelchair in her room during a lunch meal. At that time, the CNA remained standing and continued to feed the resident with a spoon from a standing position rather than positioning herself at the resident’s eye level. During an interview, the CNA acknowledged that she was expected to obtain a chair and sit beside the resident while assisting with meals and stated that sitting at eye level was important for resident comfort. The Director of Staff Development confirmed that staff were expected to position themselves at the resident’s eye level when providing feeding assistance and stated that the CNA should have obtained a chair and sat beside the resident to avoid the resident feeling intimidated. Review of the facility’s “Quality of Life-Dignity” policy indicated residents are to be treated with dignity and respect at all times, and the “Assistance with Meals” policy specified that staff should not stand over residents while assisting them with meals.
Plan Of Correction
This Plan of Correction (POC) serves as our Credible Allegation of Compliance. Preparation and/or execution for this Plan of Correction does not constitute conclusions set forth in the Statement of Deficiencies. The facility will be in substantial compliance on or before 5/9/2026. The Plan of Correction is submitted as part of Federal Regulations. Title 42, Section 489.13, State Operations Manual, Section 2612 and California Health and Safety Code, Section 1280 and the facility does not waive its right to contest or pursue an appeal of the deficiency as allowed by the Federal and State Law. F550-Resident Rights. How Corrective action will be accomplished for those residents found to have been affected: C.NA #1- was in-serviced 1:1 by the DON and DSD on 04/13/2026 regarding Resident's Rights to treat them with respect and dignity when feeding residents by sitting down and providing the assistance at eye level. Each resident shall be cared for in a manner that promotes and enhances his or her sense of well-being level of satisfaction with life, feeling of self-worth and self-esteem. Resident #47 – on 04/14/2026 resident was being assessed by the licensed nurse with regards to his rights as a resident that should be treated with respect and dignity when being fed. Resident has no concerns. How The facility will identify other residents having the potential to be affected by the same deficient practice and what corrective action will be taken: All the residents have the potential of being affected by this deficient practice. The consequent meal observations revealed that no other residents were being affected by the same deficient practice. What measures will be put in place or what systemic changes will you make to ensure that the deficient practice does not recur: The Nursing staff were in-serviced by the DON and DSD on 04/13/2026-05/01/2026 regarding Resident's Rights to treat them with respect and dignity when feeding residents by sitting down and providing the assistance at eye level. Each resident shall be cared for in a manner that promotes and enhances his or her sense of well-being level of satisfaction with life, feeling of self-worth and self-esteem. On 04/14/2026 the DSD and/or designee will conduct daily rounds to ensure continued compliance with the proper practice and report any deficient practice to DON. How the facility plans to monitor its performance to make sure the solutions are sustained and to ensure deficiency practice will not recur: The DON shall review compliance with the DSD rounds and report any deficient practiced to the monthly QAA committee to assure further and continued compliance monthly x 3 months then every 6 months and then annually until compliance is met and sustained. Completion Date :5/8/2026
Resident Dignity Compromised During Transport in Geriatric Chair
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves a failure to maintain a resident’s dignity and right to a dignified existence and self-determination when a nurse aide transported the resident in a manner inconsistent with facility expectations. The resident, who had clear speech but severe cognitive impairment and required a wheelchair for mobility, was observed during a continuous observation being quickly pulled backward approximately 30 feet down the South Hall from the day room to her room while reclined in a geriatric chair. A reasonable person would have expected to be treated with dignity and to be wheeled forward in the chair. During interviews, the nurse aide stated he chose to pull the resident backward because he felt it was harder to push the reclined geriatric chair forward and reported no awareness of problems with the chair. The social worker later pushed the same geriatric chair forward and backward in the hallway and noted no functional concerns, stating the chair worked fine and needed no repairs. The Staff Development Director reported that staff receive education on residents’ rights, dignity, and wheelchair use, including speed and footrest use, and acknowledged the resident should not have been pulled backward in the geriatric chair. The DON and Administrator both stated they expected staff to push residents in wheelchairs and geriatric chairs forward, at a normal pace, and in a dignified manner.
Failure to Provide Dignified, Responsive Care and Respect Resident Rights
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to provide care in an atmosphere of dignity and respect and to protect residents’ rights to be free from neglect, interference, and dismissal of their needs. A facility document outlining resident rights states that residents must be treated with dignity and respect, be able to make their own schedules, and be free from abuse and neglect. A letter signed by nine residents reported that aides and other employees were frequently on their cell phones or wearing earbuds, talking, eating, watching videos, or listening to music instead of working. The letter described residents being left in the dining room until late in the evening while aides sat in breakrooms on their phones, residents not being fed, being left in dirty briefs for hours, waiting hours to be transferred from wheelchairs to beds, staff carrying hot plates in one hand and cell phones in the other while residents waited, and aides vaping in hallways and in the employee bathroom. During a resident group interview, 13 of 14 residents reported that staff ignored their care needs, turned off call lights without providing care, and that when concerns were brought to administration, they were told “We will look into it,” but residents stated this did not occur. Residents reported staff using phones while providing care, widespread delays in assistance getting in and out of bed, and feeling dismissed, dehumanized, and fearful of retaliation if they filed complaints. Individual residents described specific incidents: one resident reported waiting until late at night to be put to bed after being placed in a chair in the morning, despite ringing for help for a long time, and feeling completely ignored and “like a table.” Another resident reported being left on a bedpan through dinner after staff refused to assist, and another stated they were left sitting in urine and feces for about eight hours, developing a rash and being inadequately cleaned, with cream applied repeatedly without proper washing. Additional interviews reinforced these concerns. One resident reported having to call a family member to get staff to respond after being left in a room with the door shut, waiting an hour to an hour and a half for assistance. Another resident stated that staff would answer the call light, say they would return, and then never come back. A resident reported that during a meeting with the Administrator, the focus was on profit rather than patient care. Several residents described feeling that staff did not care about them, being rushed during care, being cleaned with a pillowcase due to lack of washcloths, and being left in soiled briefs long enough to cause skin irritation. One resident, who stated she was not incontinent, reported repeatedly waiting a long time for help to use the bedpan, not always receiving fresh water, and seeing staff walk by without entering her room, leading her to feel ignored and unworthy. The Nursing Home Administrator confirmed that the facility failed to provide services in an atmosphere of dignity and respect for multiple residents identified in the survey.
Plan Of Correction
Resident R9 is no longer in the facility. The social worker interviewed R21, R26, R63, R64, and R86. Any voiced concerns will be investigated without fear of retaliation. The social worker will document the follow-up of these investigations in the appropriate location The administrator requested that she attend the resident council meeting regularly. Will review with each current resident their preferred time to get out of bed and return to bed. This will be documented in the nurse aide documentation system and care planned. The social worker and the administrator will interview the current resident population to address any areas of concern or complaints. Resident interviews/satisfaction surveys/follow-up resident council interview will be completed to ascertain if the changes made have improved the life of the residents related to care. We will interview Five residents a week for four weeks and then monthly ongoing The staff have been educated on timely completion of ADL and incontinent care per care plan, The facility staff will be educated on the cell phone/earbud policy: they are not permitted in resident care areas. And that No Vaping is allowed in the facility. Signs indicating No Vaping have been posted at the front and back entrances. Facility Staff will be educated on the Call light policy and their requirement to assist answering call lights to their level of ability. Sensitivity training will be completed with the Nursing staff. Agency staff will also be required to view this training. Audits for the Cellphone/Earbud policy, Vaping, and call light response times will be completed by the DON/Designee four times weekly two audits per shift and monthly times three, with two audits per shift. occurring on varying units and times of the day.
Trusted data from CMS and state health departments
Every citation, penalty and Plan of Correction is sourced from public CMS records (latest release June 24, 2026) and official state health department websites — never guesswork.
Trusted by long-term care providers and associations.
Self-audit
Pick a level of detail and, optionally, what to focus on — then generate a survey-ready checklist distilled from the most recent citations.
Beta · AI-generated — for reference only, not professional advice. Verify against current CMS guidance before relying on it. Assisto accepts no responsibility for how this checklist is used.