Failure to Ensure Safe Discharge Planning for Cognitively Impaired Resident
Summary
The facility failed to administer its resources effectively and efficiently to ensure the highest practicable well-being of a resident who was discharged home. The Administrator (ADM) and Director of Nursing (DON) directed staff to discharge a resident with a diagnosis of dementia, confusion, and altered mental status, who had no power of attorney (POA), to her home without confirming appropriate supervision or care arrangements. The Interdisciplinary Team (IDT) did not notify the nurse practitioner (NP) or physician (MD) about the resident's discharge home alone and without services. The discharge planning process did not include a thorough assessment of the resident's cognitive and functional abilities at the time of discharge, and the discharge Minimum Data Set (MDS) was incomplete and unsigned by authorized personnel. The resident's care plan indicated she required assistance with activities of daily living (ADLs), supervision for mobility and transfers, and was at risk for falls due to her cognitive impairment. Despite these documented needs, the resident was discharged via a ride-share service to an apartment that, according to family, lacked electricity and was unsanitary. The family member who was listed as an emergency contact expressed concerns about the resident's ability to live alone and the unsafe home environment, but these concerns were not adequately addressed by the facility. The facility did not ensure that home health services or necessary durable medical equipment were arranged prior to discharge, and other potential family contacts were not involved in the discharge planning process. Interviews with facility staff and family revealed that the discharge was driven by the end of the resident's insurance coverage, and the ADM did not investigate the home environment or seek alternative family support before proceeding. The resident arrived home without a walker or wheelchair and was left alone, with the family member only able to assist after the fact. The NP later confirmed that the resident's confusion was progressive and that she required supervision if discharged home. The facility's actions resulted in the resident being returned to an unsafe environment without adequate planning or support, as documented by multiple staff and family interviews.
Removal Plan
- Residents and family members will be instructed to provide their own transportation upon discharge. Courtesy transportation will no longer be provided.
- Discharge paperwork will be presented to the power of attorney, responsible party, and/or resident if they are their own RP with intact cognition to be reviewed and signed upon discharge.
- A discharge summary/plan of care will be provided to the cognitively intact resident, responsible party, and/or power of attorney.
- Post discharge services such as home health will be set up prior to discharge.
- Physicians and NPs will be notified of discharges to address resident's needs.
- An in-service will be completed with the Administrator by the Regional President of Operations that details the entire discharge planning process including the completion of discharge summaries, contacting RP/POA's, confirmation of transportation, and home health set up confirmation.
- An in-service will be completed with the Social Worker and Case Manager by the Administrator that details the entire discharge planning process including the completion of discharge summaries, contacting RP/POA's, confirmation of transportation, and home health set up confirmation.
- An in-service will be completed with the IDT by the Administrator regarding the completion of the discharge summary, notifying the Physicians and NPs of discharges to address resident's needs, providing discharge paperwork to the power of attorney, responsible party, and/or resident if they are their own RP with intact cognition to be reviewed and signed upon discharge.
- All discharges will be reviewed by the IDT in a weekly standards of care meeting to ensure care/summary was completed, Discharge Summary completed, signatures on the discharge summary by the appropriate party, confirmation of home health orders, and means of discharge transportation were completed.
- All residents that are not cognitively intact and do not have a Power of Attorney or Responsible Party at the time of discharge, the facility social worker and/or administrator will contact the ombudsmen and seek assistance if needed for guardianship.
- The DON/Designee will review all discharge orders for upcoming discharges for completion.
- The DON/Designee will communicate with the NP/Physician prior to discharge to address any additional post discharge needs.
- The Administrator/Designee will audit all discharges for discharge summaries, discharge location, means of transportation, and confirmation of home health.
- A Quality Assurance and Performance Improvement review of the removal plan will be completed with the Medical Director for agreement with this plan.
Penalty
Resources
Below are regulatory guidelines relevant to this citation:
The NHA and DON failed to manage the facility effectively to protect a resident known to be at risk for elopement. A resident exited the assigned nursing unit unsupervised, and the report states this created an Immediate Jeopardy situation for one of fourteen residents documented as elopement risks. The NHA and DON confirmed the administrative failure during interview.
Ineffective administration led to multiple failures in fall management, staffing, nutrition, immunization education, and abuse prevention. The facility did not follow fall interventions or complete accurate fall assessments and investigations, and two residents sustained serious injuries, including rib fractures and a thoracic burst fracture after an improper transfer. The report also cites inadequate RN coverage, insufficient staffing, missed dialysis transport, inaccurate documentation, falsified bathing records, failure to provide snacks and adaptive equipment, and abuse-related issues including verbal abuse and misappropriation of resident funds and property.
Failure to Timely Report Abuse and Neglect Allegations: The facility failed to maintain an effective system for timely reporting allegations of abuse and neglect after a prior F609 citation for the same issue. Surveyors found nine late reports involving multiple residents, and staff and the administrator acknowledged ongoing difficulty tracking when reports were due, with most late reports occurring during the monitoring period after the earlier deficiency.
A resident with dementia and wandering tendencies was not protected from elopement after staff failed to follow instructions to place a Wander Guard and move him to the Secured Memory Unit. The resident was seen in the lobby, later could not be located, and was found miles from the facility after leaving unsupervised; the front entry door also lacked an operational Wander Guard system.
Failure to Ensure Supervision and Elopement Prevention: The facility failed to consistently supervise and maintain safety interventions to prevent elopement for residents. Review of records, job descriptions, and staff interviews showed the NHA and DON did not effectively manage the facility to ensure proper supervision and elopement prevention interventions were implemented, and they failed to fulfill their essential duties to ensure federal and state guidelines and regulations were followed.
Unqualified Social Service Director Hired: The facility failed to ensure the Social Service Director met the stated qualification of a bachelor's degree and 1 year of social services experience. The Administrator stated the current SSD was still in school and had not completed her degree, while a behavioral health director with a degree only helped with social services at times and was not the SSD. The job description and facility policy did not align with current regulatory requirements, and the facility census was 182 residents.
Failure to Protect a Known Elopement Risk
Penalty
Summary
The Nursing Home Administrator (NHA) and Director of Nursing (DON) failed to effectively manage the facility to protect residents from elopement. Review of the facility’s job descriptions showed that the NHA was responsible for supervising department heads, ensuring compliance with regulatory guidelines, and reviewing complaints and trends, while the DON was responsible for directing nursing services, coordinating care, overseeing staffing, and investigating and reporting incidents and complaints. Despite these responsibilities, the facility failed to prevent and protect residents from exiting their assigned nursing unit unsupervised. The deficiency involved Resident R1, who was documented as an elopement risk. Survey findings showed that R1 exited the resident’s assigned nursing unit without supervision. During an interview, the NHA and current DON confirmed that facility administration failed to effectively manage the facility to protect residents from elopement. The report states that this failure created an Immediate Jeopardy situation for one of fourteen residents documented as elopement risks.
Ineffective Administration Affecting Falls, Staffing, Nutrition, Immunizations, and Abuse Prevention
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to administer operations in a manner that used resources effectively and efficiently, with ineffective administration affecting multiple residents across several care areas. The report states that the facility did not maintain effective systems for fall prevention and accident hazard control, including failure to follow fall interventions and the smoking policy, and failure to complete accurate fall assessments, investigations, and care plans. These issues affected Residents #6, #9, #24, #56, #113, and #115, and the report notes actual harm to Resident #56, who sustained multiple right and left rib fractures, a hematoma to the right chest wall, bruising across the breasts, right flank, back, both arms, both sides of the ribs, and both legs, with no actual determination of the cause of injuries. The report also describes a serious injury to Resident #113 after a fall from bed, when staff inappropriately transferred the resident and she was thrown onto the bed. The resident sustained a thoracic burst fracture and multiple ecchymoses on both hands, wrists, forearms, and upper extremities. In addition, Residents #6, #9, #24, and #115 had falls with inadequate investigations, incomplete documentation, updated care plans, and inaccurate assessments. The facility also failed to provide effective dietary services by not ensuring substantial snacks for the secured memory care unit, honoring food preferences, and providing needed adaptive equipment, affecting Residents #29, #49, #80, #83, #86, #96, and #99. Other findings included inadequate nursing services and staffing, with no RN coverage at least eight hours daily and insufficient staffing to meet resident needs, affecting Residents #6, #12, #13, #16, #39, #40, #45, #88, #93, #99, and #110. The report states that nursing staff did not implement care-planned interventions for Resident #45, did not follow discharge instructions or provide timely incontinence care for Resident #13, did not ensure dialysis transport for Resident #106, did not accurately document advance directives for Resident #93, and did not accurately transcribe a physician order that led to a significant medication error for Resident #88; it also states that bathing documentation for Resident #88 was falsified. Additional deficiencies involved an ineffective immunization program for Residents #9, #24, #32, and #72, and failures in abuse, neglect, misappropriation, and exploitation prevention, including verbal abuse toward Resident #93, misappropriated funds from Resident #61, misappropriated personal property from Resident #117, unnecessary medications for Residents #25 and #30, and delayed abuse reporting and investigations for Residents #56, #82, #93, and #117.
Failure to Timely Report Abuse and Neglect Allegations
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure an effective system for timely reporting allegations of abuse and neglect after a previous F609 deficiency for the same concern. Based on interview and record review, the facility continued to submit late reports for allegations involving 9 of 19 residents, identified as residents 4, 5, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, and 16. The report states that the late reporting placed residents at risk for delays in notification, investigation, protection, and response following allegations of abuse or neglect. A prior F609 deficiency dated 1/29/26 showed the facility had already been cited for late reporting of allegations of neglect and abuse for three residents. During an interview on 7/29/26, staff member A stated, "I'm still learning . there's been a lot going on here ." The administrator also stated, ". I need to develop a system, so I know when they are due." The current complaint investigation found that the facility administrator and staff continued to report allegations throughout the plan of correction monitoring period, and eight of the nine late reports occurred between 2/22/26 and 5/22/26.
Failure to Protect Resident from Elopement
Penalty
Summary
The facility administration failed to manage the facility in a manner that protected residents and safeguarded them from elopement. The Administrator and DON job descriptions stated they were responsible for directing and overseeing facility operations in accordance with federal, state, and local regulations, but the facility was aware that the front entry door did not have an operational Wander Guard system and corrective measures were not implemented. The report identified this as an Immediate Jeopardy related to F689 and F835, with the noncompliance beginning on July 16, 2026. Resident 1 was admitted with a dementia diagnosis and an elopement assessment was completed on admission, with staff noting wandering tendencies and that the resident was suitable for the Secured Memory Unit. On July 16, 2026, the resident was seen in his room at 3:30 AM, then in the front lobby at 4:30 AM, and was later unable to be located at 5:45 AM. The elopement protocol was initiated at 6:10 AM, and the resident was found about one hour later three miles from the facility. The Administrator stated the resident had been instructed to be placed on a Wander Guard device and moved to the Secured Memory Unit, but those instructions were not followed. The receptionist also stated she did not recognize the resident as a resident and thought he was a visitor.
Failure to Ensure Supervision and Elopement Prevention
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to consistently supervise and maintain safety interventions to prevent elopement for residents. Based on review of facility records and job descriptions, and staff interviews, the Nursing Home Administrator (NHA) and the Director of Nursing (DON) did not effectively manage the facility to ensure proper supervision and elopement prevention interventions were implemented. The NHA job description stated that the NHA directs the overall operations of the care community in accordance with current local, state, and federal regulations to ensure the highest level of quality care is provided to each resident, and the DON job description stated that the DON manages and directs resident care within the nursing department to maintain resident standards of care and ensure each resident functions at his/her highest level. The report states that the NHA and DON failed to fulfill their essential job duties to ensure federal and state guidelines and regulations were followed.
Unqualified Social Service Director Hired
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to administer the facility by failing to ensure a qualified individual was hired as the social service director. During interview, the Administrator stated the requirement for the social services director was a minimum of a bachelor's degree and 1 year of experience in social services, and stated that the current Social Service Director, V4, was still in school and had not completed her bachelor's degree. The Administrator also stated she did the hiring and hired V4 in collaboration with the facility consultant. The Administrator further stated that a behavioral health director helped with social services at times, but that person had a degree and was not the social service director. The facility's Social Service Director job description listed qualifications of a high school diploma or GED and knowledge of federal and state LTC social service regulations, and the facility policy did not align with current regulatory requirements for the position. The Facility Assessment Tool dated 7/13/26 identified a Social Service Director as a needed resource, and the staffing plan included one social service director, one social service designee, and one behavioral health director. The Facility Data Sheet dated 7/24/26 showed a census of 182 residents.
Trusted data from CMS and state health departments
Every citation, penalty and Plan of Correction is sourced from public CMS records (latest release October 8, 2026) and official state health department websites — never guesswork.
In your survey window? See what surveyors are citing.
The Survey-Prep Report maps your facility's risk from 12 months of CMS and state citation data — what's being cited around you and what to check first. $129 one-time.