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
F0684
E

Failure to Clarify Hold Parameters for Antihypertensive Medications

South Gate, California Survey Completed on 07-18-2025

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 clarify hold parameters for the administration of amlodipine and lisinopril, both antihypertensive medications, for a resident with diagnoses including type 2 diabetes mellitus and hypertension. The resident's medication orders specified to hold the medications if systolic blood pressure was less than 110 mmHg, but did not include instructions regarding pulse rate. Despite this, the electronic medication administration record prompted nurses to check both blood pressure and pulse prior to administration, and it was standard practice among nursing staff to hold these medications if the pulse rate was less than 60 bpm. However, there were multiple documented instances where the resident received both medications even when their pulse rate was below 60 bpm, as well as instances where the medications were held for low pulse without a corresponding order parameter. Nursing staff, including the RN interviewed, acknowledged that the lack of specific hold parameters for pulse rate in the physician's orders should have prompted them to notify the physician for clarification. The Director of Nursing also confirmed that the orders should have included parameters to hold the medications for low pulse. Facility policy required medications to be administered safely and in accordance with effective order writing, but the absence of clear instructions regarding pulse rate led to inconsistent administration practices and a failure to clarify orders with the physician when indicated.

An unhandled error has occurred. Reload 🗙