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 Obtain Timely Urology Consultation for Resident with Recurrent UTIs

Lake Worth, Florida Survey Completed on 06-06-2025

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 obtain a timely urology consultation for a resident with significant medical conditions, including quadriplegia, paraplegia, neuromuscular dysfunction of the bladder, and an indwelling Foley catheter. The resident experienced multiple urinary tract infections (UTIs), including infections with Extended Spectrum Beta-Lactamase (ESBL) producing bacteria and Proteus Mirabilis, and was treated with antibiotics on more than one occasion. Despite physician and nurse practitioner documentation indicating the need for a urology consult, there was no evidence in the progress notes that a urologist consultation was requested or completed. Interviews with the resident and staff confirmed that the resident had not seen a urologist and was not informed of any scheduled appointment. The resident expressed awareness that a consult had been ordered but was unaware of any follow-up or arrangements for transportation, which he required due to his physical limitations. Staff interviews revealed uncertainty about whether a consult had been requested, and the Assistant Director of Nursing was unable to provide documentation of a urology consult by the end of the survey.

An unhandled error has occurred. Reload 🗙