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
F0756
D

Lack of Documentation for Physician's Rationale on Pharmacy Recommendation

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Survey Completed on 08-01-2025

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 a rationale was documented in response to a pharmacy recommendation for one resident. According to the facility's policy, the pharmacy consultant is required to review all resident charts monthly and suggest therapeutic changes as needed. If a physician or nurse practitioner declines a pharmacy recommendation, the policy requires that the reason for not accepting the recommendation be documented in the resident's progress notes. In this case, the clinical record review for a resident with diagnoses of Type 2 diabetes, heart disease, and hypertension showed that the consultant pharmacist recommended discontinuing sliding scale insulin (SSI) due to minimal use and current geriatric guidelines. The pharmacist requested that, if no changes were made, the physician should provide a comment. The physician disagreed with the pharmacist's recommendation but did not provide any rationale or comment in the resident's clinical record, as required by facility policy. This omission resulted in a lack of documentation explaining the physician's decision to continue the current diabetes management regimen. The deficiency was identified during a review of the resident's clinical record and the facility's pharmacy consultation policy.

An unhandled error has occurred. Reload 🗙