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
F0550
D

Failure to Promote Dignity Due to Delayed Response to Toileting Assistance

New Hope, Minnesota Survey Completed on 09-11-2025

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 promote dignity for two residents who required assistance with toileting, as staff did not respond in a timely manner to their requests for help with toileting and hygiene. One resident, who had intact cognition, a history of urinary catheter use, bowel incontinence, and was fully dependent on staff for transfers, experienced significant delays in call light response, with logs showing response times ranging from 15 to 77 minutes. The resident's care plan required prompt response to all requests for assistance, but interviews and documentation revealed that the resident often waited extended periods, resulting in sitting in urine and feces, which caused distress and feelings of lost dignity. Family members and the resident reported long waits and expressed concerns about safety and emotional well-being due to these delays. Another resident, with severe cognitive impairment and incontinence, also experienced delayed responses to call lights, with logs indicating response times between 15 and 63 minutes. This resident required substantial assistance for activities of daily living and care in pairs. The resident reported discomfort and embarrassment from waiting to be changed after incontinence episodes. Staff interviews confirmed that delays occurred, particularly for residents needing two staff members for care, and acknowledged that these delays could result in residents remaining in soiled briefs for extended periods. Staff, including nursing assistants and the RN, acknowledged that while the facility had enough staff to answer call lights, the need for two staff members to assist certain residents contributed to longer wait times. The facility's policy required call lights to be answered as soon as possible, and the expectation was a response within 10-15 minutes. However, documentation and interviews confirmed that this standard was not consistently met, leading to residents experiencing incontinence and loss of dignity while waiting for assistance.

An unhandled error has occurred. Reload 🗙