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
F0565
E

Failure to Address Resident Council Concerns on Staffing and Call Light Response

Salisbury, Maryland Survey Completed on 10-17-2025

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 adequately address ongoing concerns raised by the Resident Council regarding staffing levels and call light response times over a nine-month period. Resident Council minutes repeatedly documented complaints about insufficient staff on weekends, delayed responses to call lights, and staff not assisting residents with getting up or providing care during certain shifts. Despite these recurring concerns, the facility's responses were limited to general statements, requests for more specific information, or references to individual cases, without evidence of comprehensive investigation or resolution. Documentation such as call bell audits and records of supervisory rounds or spot checks, which were cited as part of the facility's response, were not provided for review. Observations during the survey confirmed that call lights were left unanswered for extended periods, and staff sometimes turned off call lights before residents' needs were met. For example, one resident's call light remained on and flashing for a prolonged time, and the resident reported that their need was not met even after the call light was answered. Another resident waited over an hour for acetaminophen after activating their call light. Staff interviews corroborated that call lights were not always answered promptly, often due to multiple simultaneous calls and insufficient staffing. Interviews with facility leadership revealed a lack of clear policies or targets for call light response times, and there was no evidence that the concerns raised by the Resident Council were systematically addressed through the facility's Quality Assurance and Performance Improvement (QAPI) process. The Regional Director of Operations and Regional Nurse Consultant were unable to provide documentation of corrective actions or performance improvement plans related to these issues. The facility's grievance policy required prompt investigation and resolution of complaints, but there was no documentation that this process was followed for the Resident Council's ongoing concerns.

An unhandled error has occurred. Reload 🗙