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
F0657
D

Failure to Revise Care Plan for Incontinence Management

Danbury, Connecticut Survey Completed on 06-09-2025

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 revise the care plan for a resident with overactive bladder, urge incontinence, and congestive heart failure to reflect the resident's current status and needs. Despite multiple quarterly Bowel and Bladder Program Screeners and urology consults indicating the resident was a good candidate for scheduled toileting (timed voiding), the care plan continued to state the resident was unable to cognitively or physically participate in a retraining program due to impaired mobility. The resident was cognitively intact and required substantial assistance with toileting, but no trial of a toileting program was initiated, and the care plan was not updated to reflect recommendations from the urologist or the results of the screeners. Physician orders and specialist recommendations advised interventions such as timed toileting, limiting nighttime fluids, and avoiding irritants, but these were not incorporated into the care plan. The Director of Nursing Services confirmed that the care plan had not been updated to reflect the resident's candidacy for retraining or the recommendations from the urologist, and that the resident had not been interviewed regarding their wishes for a toileting program. Facility policy required ongoing revision of care plans as resident conditions changed, but this was not followed in this case.

An unhandled error has occurred. Reload 🗙