Inconsistent DNR Documentation and Communication
Summary
The facility failed to establish consistent mechanisms for documenting and communicating residents’ advance directive choices, specifically Do Not Resuscitate status, to staff responsible for resident care. During the recertification and extended survey, surveyors found that staff could not appropriately identify DNR orders for 6 of 26 residents with advance directives. The deficiency was cited as Immediate Jeopardy, and the report states the failure created the likelihood of serious adverse outcome to all 64 residents in the facility. Resident #64 was admitted with diagnoses including COVID-19, dementia, and repeated falls. The hospital paperwork included a DNR directive signed on 08/19/2025, but the admitting physician orders on 08/20/2025 did not document code status, and there were no advance directives on the EMR banner when reviewed on 08/22/2025. A DNR/DNI physician order was not entered until later that day. During observation, the resident had no identification wristband, and staff interviews showed inconsistent understanding of how code status was identified. The RN supervisor who completed the admission stated they reviewed hospital referral information, did not see code information, did not enter a code order, and did not attempt to contact the responsible party or discuss advance directives with the resident. Resident #67 was admitted with diagnoses including toxic metabolic encephalopathy, CHF, and dementia. Admission orders did not document code status, and nursing admission notes contained no evidence of code status discussion. A DNR physician order was entered the next day, and a MOLST form was completed several days later with instructions including DNR, comfort measures only, do not intubate, no feeding tube, and limits on IV fluids and antibiotics. The RN supervisor stated the resident arrived with a designated representative who said they had a MOLST and would bring it in, and that the family wanted to discuss DNR with the physician; the RN supervisor also stated CPR would be performed if arrest occurred before a DNR order was entered. The resident’s representative stated the resident had a DNR at the hospital and expected it to continue at the nursing facility. For Residents #9, #16, #28, and #36, surveyors observed black-font door labels and black-font identification wristbands while the EMR contained DNR orders. Staff interviews showed conflicting understanding of how code status was communicated, including expectations that DNR residents would have red-font labels and wristbands, while others stated they relied on the EMR banner or a MOLST book. The DON stated a MOLST form would be obtained and a DNR order placed on admission, with the code status noted on the EMR banner and a care plan created by Social Work, but the Social Worker stated DNR status needed to be addressed within 48 hours and could be missed if a resident was admitted when the Social Worker was not working. The Social Worker also stated they had not been oriented or in-serviced on DNR since starting, and the Social Work Consultant Supervisor stated the admission nurse, ADON, and DON were responsible for getting DNR orders in place and updating the record when Social Work was unavailable.
Penalty
Resources
Below are regulatory guidelines relevant to this citation:
Trusted data from CMS and state health departments
Every citation, penalty and Plan of Correction is sourced from public CMS records (latest release July 29, 2026) and official state health department websites — never guesswork.
In your survey window? See what surveyors are citing.
The Survey-Prep Report maps your facility's risk from 12 months of CMS and state citation data — what's being cited around you and what to check first. $129 one-time.