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
F0603
E

Failure to Assess, Care Plan, and Obtain Consent for Secured Unit Placement

Hartford, Connecticut Survey Completed on 05-19-2025

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 properly assess, care plan, and document the placement of residents on a secured unit, as well as to obtain necessary consents and demonstrate that this setting was the least restrictive option. Observations over multiple days confirmed that the secured unit, identified as Station 2, required a code for egress, effectively restricting residents' ability to leave. For three sampled residents with varying cognitive and psychiatric diagnoses, there was no evidence in their clinical records, care plans, or physician orders that their placement on the secured unit was assessed, justified, or consented to by the residents or their representatives. For one resident with schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, and dementia, care plans and physician orders did not mention secured unit placement, and psychiatric notes indicated the resident was not a danger to self or others. Another resident with Alzheimer's dementia and schizoaffective disorder was assessed as not at risk for elopement, yet was placed on the secured unit without documentation of criteria or consent. A third resident with Lewy Body dementia and severely impaired cognition was also not assessed as an elopement risk, but was placed on the secured unit, with no documentation supporting the need for this level of restriction. Interviews with facility leadership, including the DNS, ADNS, and Medical Director, revealed a lack of established criteria or documented process for determining placement on the secured unit. The facility assessment did not identify the existence of a secured unit or criteria for placement, and the facility was unable to provide requested documentation such as placement consents or assessments. Residents interviewed were aware of their inability to leave the unit, and staff interviews confirmed that decisions for placement were made without formal guidelines or documentation.

An unhandled error has occurred. Reload 🗙