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
F0640
D

Inaccurate MDS Discharge Documentation

Grantsville, Maryland Survey Completed on 04-11-2025

Penalty

Fine: $13,250
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 accurately document a resident's discharge plan on the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment. Review of the resident's care plan and progress notes indicated that the resident wished to be discharged to their home, specifically to their assisted living apartment. Multiple entries in the medical record, including nursing, social services, and restorative program notes, confirmed that the discharge to assisted living was planned and communicated to the resident and their family. The resident's therapy was concluded, and a home exercise program was provided in preparation for the discharge. Despite this clear discharge plan, Section A of the MDS assessment completed on the discharge date was marked as 'return anticipated,' indicating the resident was expected to return to the facility. During an interview, the MDS Coordinator acknowledged responsibility for completing this section and, upon review, admitted that 'return not anticipated' should have been selected based on the resident's actual discharge plan. The coordinator explained that she often selects 'return anticipated' for residents who frequently return, but recognized this was not appropriate in this case.

An unhandled error has occurred. Reload 🗙