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
F0711
E

Delayed Physician Documentation in Medical Records

Woodcliff Lake, New Jersey Survey Completed on 05-06-2025

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 physicians accurately dated their progress notes at each required visit, resulting in discrepancies between the effective date of service and the date the notes were created in the electronic medical record (eMR). For three residents with varying degrees of cognitive impairment and chronic medical conditions, physician progress notes were entered into the eMR days to months after the actual date of service. For example, one resident's progress note had an effective date a month prior to its creation date, while another resident's notes were created weeks after the documented visit. In one case, multiple progress notes for a resident were entered on the same day, but with effective dates spanning several months prior, indicating a significant delay in documentation. Interviews with facility staff confirmed that physicians visited regularly and were responsible for entering their own progress notes into the eMR. One physician explained that their documentation was maintained in a separate electronic health record system, accessible only to select staff, and was later transferred to the facility's eMR. The Director of Nursing acknowledged concerns regarding the timely availability of medical records. The facility's policy requires that physician progress notes be maintained according to professional standards, but the observed practice did not align with this requirement.

An unhandled error has occurred. Reload 🗙