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
F0551
D

Failure to Obtain Consent for Resident's Haircut

Hayward, California Survey Completed on 08-28-2025

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 resident's responsible party was given the opportunity to exercise the resident's rights regarding personal care decisions, specifically related to haircuts. The resident, who was mildly cognitively impaired and had right-sided weakness requiring substantial assistance with personal hygiene, received a haircut against her wishes. The resident reported that she had expressed her desire not to have her hair cut to staff, but staff insisted and proceeded with the haircut, citing the length and her inability to care for it herself. The resident stated that the haircut made her feel terrible due to her cultural preference for long hair. Interviews with facility staff revealed that the process for determining which residents needed haircuts involved asking residents directly or, for those unable to make decisions, contacting the responsible party or nurse. In this case, the activity staff and co-director acknowledged that the resident had refused haircuts when offered and that the responsible party was not contacted for consent prior to the haircut. The responsible party confirmed she was not informed about the haircut beforehand and would have refused the service if consulted, as she typically maintained the resident's hair during visits. Record review showed documentation of the haircut appointment and payment, but there was no evidence that consent was obtained from either the resident or her responsible party, as required by the facility's own policy. The policy stated that consent should be obtained for treatments and procedures, and refusals should be addressed by the interdisciplinary team. Despite this, the facility proceeded with the haircut without proper consent or consideration of the resident's and responsible party's preferences.

An unhandled error has occurred. Reload 🗙