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
F0656
E

Failure to Implement Comprehensive, Person-Centered Care Plans and Interventions

Roanoke, Virginia Survey Completed on 04-24-2025

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

Facility staff failed to develop and implement comprehensive, person-centered care plans that addressed residents' specific preferences and needs, as documented in their advance directives and clinical records. Several residents had clearly stated wishes to decline certain treatments, such as oral suctioning and oxygen, particularly in end-of-life care situations. Despite these documented preferences, the care plans for these residents did not include interventions reflecting their choices. For example, multiple residents with advance directives explicitly refusing oral suction and oxygen did not have these preferences incorporated into their care plans, even though their cognitive status and ability to participate in care planning varied from severely impaired to cognitively intact. In addition to failures in care planning related to advance directives, the facility did not ensure that specific safety interventions were implemented as outlined in residents' care plans. One resident, identified as high risk for falls, had an intervention for Dycem (a non-slip material) to be used in their wheelchair, but repeated observations showed the Dycem was not present. Staff were unaware of the missing intervention and speculated that the resident may have been removing it, but no alternative intervention was documented or implemented at the time of the survey. Another resident, dependent on staff for transfers and requiring a two-person assist with a mechanical lift, experienced a fall during a transfer when only one staff member was present. The care plan clearly stated the need for two staff during mechanical lift transfers, and facility policy reinforced this requirement. The staff member involved admitted to performing the transfer alone due to perceived staffing shortages, which was contradicted by staffing records. These failures demonstrate a lack of adherence to individualized care plans and facility policies, resulting in unmet resident needs and unaddressed safety risks.

An unhandled error has occurred. Reload 🗙