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
F0627
D

Failure to Honor Resident's Discharge Preferences and Goals

Carbondale, Pennsylvania Survey Completed on 05-15-2025

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 the discharge process for a resident with diagnoses including Wernicke's Encephalopathy, alcohol-induced psychotic disorder, alcoholic cirrhosis, and nicotine dependence honored the resident's preferences and goals. The resident, who was cognitively intact, expressed a clear desire to be transferred to a local skilled nursing facility that permitted smoking. Documentation showed that the social worker communicated this preference to the resident's guardian, who authorized the release of records to two local facilities. However, the resident was ultimately transferred to a facility several hours away, contrary to his stated wishes. There was no documentation provided to justify why a local placement was not pursued or why the facility could no longer meet the resident's needs. The social worker was unable to explain the decision to transfer the resident to a distant facility and there was no evidence that the resident was meaningfully involved in the discharge decision-making process. Additionally, the facility could not produce documentation confirming the resident's guardianship status during the survey.

An unhandled error has occurred. Reload 🗙