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
F0657
E

Failure to Update and Revise Care Plans After Changes in Resident Status and Falls

Chamberlain, South Dakota Survey Completed on 06-12-2025

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 care plans were reviewed and revised to reflect the current care needs for two residents. For the first resident, who had severe cognitive impairment and multiple diagnoses including dementia, Alzheimer's disease, and Parkinson's disease, there were repeated falls over a two-month period. Despite multiple falls and high fall risk assessments, the care plan was not updated with new interventions after several incidents. Documentation showed that interventions were either not implemented or not recorded after many of the falls, and post-fall investigation tools were often left incomplete. The care plan was only updated after a significant delay, and did not reflect the ongoing changes in the resident's condition or the interventions that were (or should have been) put in place following each fall. For the second resident, who was also severely cognitively impaired and had a history of falls, the care plan was not updated to reflect changes in transfer status, fall prevention interventions, or hospice status. After a change in transfer method and two falls—one resulting in a hip fracture—there was no evidence that the care plan was revised to include new interventions or to address the resident's current needs. Additionally, the care plan still referenced equipment (an air mattress overlay) that was no longer in use, and did not reflect the resident's re-admission to hospice services. Interviews with staff revealed confusion and inconsistency regarding who was responsible for updating care plans and how interventions were communicated. While some staff referenced the care plan in the electronic medical record to guide care, others were unsure where to find updated interventions. The facility's policy required care plans to be revised as residents' needs changed, but this was not consistently followed, resulting in care plans that did not accurately reflect the residents' current care requirements.

An unhandled error has occurred. Reload 🗙