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
F0606
D

Failure to Remove Employee After Unsatisfactory Background Checks

Douglasville, Georgia Survey Completed on 06-27-2025

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 ensure that staff hiring was preceded by a completed and satisfactory background check, as required by its Abuse Prevention policy. Specifically, the Dietary Manager (DM) was allowed to continue working after two unsatisfactory criminal background checks were received. The policy mandates pre-screening all potential new employees for a history of abusive behavior, but records show that the DM's background checks, dated 11/21/2022 and 2/11/2025, both returned unsatisfactory results. Interviews with the Human Resource Director (HRD) and Administrator revealed that the first unsatisfactory background check was brought to the attention of the previous Administrator, who approved the DM to continue working. The HRD was aware of the unsatisfactory status and, after the DM was promoted, requested an appeal, which also resulted in an unsatisfactory finding. Despite this, the DM was allowed to remain employed after the HRD informed the current Administrator and consulted with Regional Human Resources, who again approved continued employment.

An unhandled error has occurred. Reload 🗙