Failure to Prevent Elopement of Cognitively Impaired Resident
Summary
A cognitively impaired resident, identified as high risk for elopement, was able to leave the facility on two separate occasions without staff knowledge. The first incident occurred when the resident, who had a history of wandering, confusion, and impaired decision-making, was found by police 0.5 miles from the facility after staff were unaware of his absence until contacted by law enforcement. The resident's medical record indicated a high elopement risk score, documented episodes of wandering, and family concerns about his tendency to leave, yet no interventions or care plan addressing elopement risk were in place at the time. Following the first elopement, the resident was returned to the facility and placed on one-to-one supervision, but there was no physician order for this intervention, and the resident was returned to a non-secured unit. Documentation revealed that cognitive assessments were not completed upon his return, and the care plan still lacked interventions for elopement risk. The facility also failed to submit a Self-Reported Incident (SRI) related to this event, and the incident was not documented in the facility's incident/accident log. A second elopement occurred when the resident, who was supposed to be on 15-minute checks, left the facility again and was missing for over 17 hours before being found by police 2.6 miles away. There was no documented evidence that the required 15-minute checks were performed, and staff interviews confirmed that checks were not consistently documented or performed as ordered. The facility did not report this elopement to the state health department, and the incident was again omitted from the SRI and incident/accident log. The lack of timely and appropriate interventions, failure to follow physician orders, and inadequate documentation contributed to the deficiency.
Removal Plan
- The facility initiated a search for Resident #10.
- The facility initiated a head count, and all residents were accounted for except for Resident #10.
- The facility administrator notified the police of Resident #10's absence.
- The police requested assistance from another police department who had access to a device with thermal capabilities.
- The Bureau of Criminal Investigations was contacted and a silver alert was completed and sent out statewide.
- The Sheriff's Office was notified and assisted with the search for Resident #10.
- The facility conducted an AD HOC Quality Assurance and Performance Improvement (QAPI) meeting.
- Resident #10 was found and transported to a hospital for an evaluation.
- The facility reviewed and updated the elopement policy to reflect clearer definitions on elopement, more concise instructions to staff on reporting elopement, investigation procedures, and notification to appropriate agencies and medical staff.
- Resident #10's care plan was updated to reflect resident now resides on the secured unit.
- The facility staff completed a whole house head count as part of the facility's daily audits of residents. All residents were accounted for.
- Resident #10 was placed on the facility secured unit.
- Resident #10 was assessed by the facility nurse with no significant injuries. The assessment revealed two open areas on the right foot assessed as abrasions.
- A whole house audit of all residents was completed to ensure all residents were accurately assessed for elopement risk and no new residents were identified as being high risk for elopement. All residents who were previously identified as being high risks had their care plans reviewed for accuracy and no inaccuracies were found.
- Facility Unit Manager initiated education on the facility elopement policy which included one Registered Nurse, four Licensed Practical Nurses, and two Certified Nursing Assistants.
- The facility continued education for all staff on the facility elopement policy. Five Licensed Practical Nurses, two Certified Nursing Assistants were educated in person. Director of Nursing and the Administrator were educated on the facility Elopement Policy. Medical Director and Certified Nurse Practitioner were educated on the Elopement Policy via the telephone.
- Sixteen Licensed Practical Nurses, thirty Certified Nursing Assistants, three Activity Employees, eight Housekeepers, ten Dietary Staff, four Office Staff, twenty-one Therapists, five Speech Therapists, and one Maintenance Director were educated on the facility Elopement Policy via the telephone.
- Two Registered Nurses, eleven Licensed Practical Nurses, twenty-seven Certified Nursing Assistants, three Dietary Staff, four Housekeeping Staff, two Office Staff, seven Therapists, and one Maintenance Staff were educated in person on the facility Elopement Policy.
- All residents who were assessed as a high risk for elopement had their care plans reviewed for accuracy and updated as necessary. No inaccuracies were found.
- The facility checked the elopement binders and verified they reflected the status of the residents in the facility. No changes were identified.
- The facility reviewed the Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) for residents who were deemed at high risk for elopement to ensure the assessments were accurate. There were no changes made to the resident's assessments.
- The facility completed a second check of all Elopement Risk Assessments and Elopement Care Plans for Accuracy.
- One Licensed Practical Nurse, one Certified Nursing Assistant and one Office Staff member were educated on the facility Elopement Policy.
- No staff will be permitted to work at the facility who have not received and reviewed the updated facility Elopement Policy. Facility education on the Elopement Policy will be ongoing.
- All new hired employees will be educated on the facility Elopement Policy as part of the general orientation.
- Elopement drills and head counts were completed at various times/shifts. Staff knowledge and review of the drill was completed. The Administrator reviewed and verified no actual elopements occurred.
- The facility's Interdisciplinary Team members reviewed elopement care plans to ensure interventions were in place. No identified concerns were noted.
- The facility will complete weekly elopement drills with the drills rotating between day and night shift to ensure each shift will have at least four elopement drills. Drills will be done monthly and randomly thereafter.
- The facility will conduct head counts daily as part of their midnight census procedure which ensures that all residents are accounted for daily.
- All new residents will be assessed by the facility nursing staff and follow up completed to ensure proper assessments and interventions are in place for residents deemed to be high risk for elopement.
- Telephone interviews with staff verified they all had received education on the policies/procedures for elopement. All staff had knowledge of how to respond to an elopement situation. Staff reported there had been no elopements. The LNHA verified he had continued on-going training/education/drills for all staff on elopement policies/procedures.
- Review of the audits revealed elopement drills were completed successfully and on-going monitoring continued.
- The facility denied any further elopements.
Penalty
Resources
Below are regulatory guidelines relevant to this citation:
Unsafe Cord Placement and Failure to Follow Fall Interventions: A resident with cognitive impairment and wheelchair use had a TV power cord stretched tightly across the closet doorway, blocking access and creating an environmental hazard when staff had to lift the cord to open the closet. Another resident with severe cognitive impairment and a fall-risk care plan repeatedly ran barefoot in the hallway while staff observed but did not consistently provide planned interventions such as gripper socks, footwear, ambulation assistance, or redirection.
A resident with impaired cognition, cancer, non-Alzheimer's dementia, extensive ADL needs, and a fall history was identified as a high fall risk with care plan interventions including removing a movable bedside table. After a fall, the resident was found using the table as a walker, yet observations showed the table still placed beside the bed on multiple occasions, including when staff were present. Staff interviews confirmed they were unaware of the current fall prevention interventions and that the table remained at bedside for meals despite the care plan.
Failure to complete a restraint assessment before using a wheelchair alarm for a resident with muscle weakness, difficulty walking, repeated falls, and dementia. The care plan included the alarm as an intervention, but the record lacked an initial Restraint Evaluation, and the CNO confirmed the assessment had not been completed before the alarm was placed.
A resident with cognitive deficits, dementia, Alzheimer's disease, fracture, and repeated falls was dependent for toileting and care planned for an EZ stand with 2-person assist. During observed transfers, staff placed the harness and straps correctly, but the resident only rose to about 135 degrees and never came to a full stand, while staff remained by the bathroom door during privacy periods and continued the transfer despite the resident not standing fully. An RN stated the resident was expected to stand straight up with the EZ stand and that staff should sit the resident back down and try again if not.
A resident with Alzheimer's disease and dementia was found wandering in the parking lot after leaving the building unsupervised. A family member visiting another resident saw her looking into car windows and alerted staff, who were not aware she had exited until the report. Staff interviews showed the resident had been seen earlier eating in the dining room, but no one was actively looking for her or knew she had left the facility.
A resident with parkinsonism and Alzheimer's disease, severe cognitive impairment, and a fall history was pushed in her wheelchair without foot pedals and was not assisted when she called out for help. Nursing notes and staff interviews showed a CNA propelled the resident multiple times without foot pedals, including one instance where her socked foot hit the floor, and staff acknowledged that foot pedals should be used when pushing a resident.
Unsafe Cord Placement and Failure to Follow Fall Interventions
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure a television power cord was properly secured and maintained so it did not create an environmental accident hazard for R46. R46’s quarterly MDS identified moderate cognitive impairment, maximum assistance needed for dressing, grooming, and toileting hygiene, moderate assistance with transfers, and wheelchair use. During observation, R46 was in his room with the television mounted on the wall between the bathroom and closet, and the power cord ran across the closet doors and across the upper drawer of the dresser to a surge protector on top of the dresser. When R46 tried to open the closet doors, the cord was stretched tightly across the doorway and prevented the doors from opening fully unless the cord was lifted away. A later observation showed NA-D had to lift the cord above the closet door to open it and retrieve clothing. NA-D stated the cord had been positioned that way for about one year and could be dangerous if R46 pulled on it, and maintenance staff stated they were only notified that day that the television needed to be fixed. The facility also failed to ensure fall interventions were followed for R13, who had severe cognitive impairment with disorganized thinking and inattention, verbal behaviors toward others, and dependence on staff for footwear and partial to moderate assistance with dressing. R13’s care plan identified her as at risk for falls and included interventions such as ambulating with the resident, encouraging gripper socks, obtaining slip-on shoes, reducing noise, offering snacks, assisting her back to her room when running in the hallway, offering a wheelchair, and redirecting her to slow down. During observations, R13 repeatedly exited her room barefoot and ran through the hallway, including multiple times over an extended period, while staff observed but did not provide gripper socks or shoes, walk with her, redirect her to slow down, or offer other care-planned interventions. Staff interviews indicated they had difficulty redirecting her because she became agitated, and the DON stated the care plan should be followed to ensure safety.
Failure to Follow Fall Prevention Care Plan
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to implement care planned interventions to prevent further falls for one resident who was reviewed for falls. The resident had moderate impaired cognition, diagnoses including cancer and non-Alzheimer's dementia, required extensive assistance with ADLs including toileting, transfers, and locomotion, and had a history of falls. The resident's care plan identified the resident as a high fall risk related to de-conditioning, cognitive deficits, and prior falls, and included interventions such as anti-rollbacks on the wheelchair, appropriate footwear, keeping a wheelchair behind the resident when ambulating, and removing the mobile bedside table from beside the bed. After a fall in which the resident was found on the floor by the room doorway with the mobile bedside table in the hallway next to him, the resident stated he had been using the table as a walker. Despite the care plan and post-fall assessment identifying removal of the mobile bedside table as an intervention, observations showed the movable bedside table still placed alongside the bed on multiple occasions, including when staff were present in the room. Staff interviews confirmed they were unaware of the current fall prevention interventions, acknowledged the table was movable, and stated it remained at the bedside to facilitate meals. The DON confirmed the table had been at the bedside and was removed only after the surveyor discussed it with staff.
Failure to complete restraint assessment before wheelchair alarm use
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to complete a restraint assessment before implementing a wheelchair alarm for Resident #18. Resident #18 was admitted with multiple diagnoses including muscle weakness, difficulty walking, repeated falls, and dementia. The care plan for impaired mobility and fall risk, dated 3/8/26, included a wheelchair alarm as an intervention. A Bed Safety and Transfer Device Evaluation dated 4/28/26 documented that the bed/chair alarm did not restrict mobility, but the record did not include an initial Restraint Evaluation dated on or around 3/8/26 to identify the comprehensive evaluation of the chair alarm. On 7/9/26, the CNO stated that a Restraint Evaluation had not been completed prior to the chair alarm being placed for Resident #18.
Inadequate Supervision During EZ Stand Transfers
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure adequate supervision and assistance for one resident during transfers with an EZ stand lift. The resident had cognitive deficits and was dependent for toileting, with diagnoses including Alzheimer's disease, dementia, fracture, and repeated falls. The care plan identified a moderate fall risk related to weakness and directed toileting with an EZ stand and 2-person assist. During observation, nursing assistants placed the harness, safety belt, straps, and loops appropriately and assisted the resident with the lift, but the resident stood only to approximately 135 degrees and never came to a full stand. On two observed transfers, staff remained by the bathroom door while the resident was given privacy, then re-entered to continue the transfer and complete care. In both observations, the resident never achieved a full standing position despite encouragement and repeated attempts. One nursing assistant stated the transfer was safe because two staff were assisting, while the RN case manager stated she expected the resident to stand straight up when transferred with the EZ stand and that staff should sit the resident back down and try again if the resident did not. The RN case manager was unaware of any concerns about the resident transferring safely with the EZ stand. Facility policy was requested but not provided.
Resident Left Unsupervised and Was Found Wandering in Parking Lot
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to recognize that a cognitively impaired resident had left the building unsupervised and was wandering in the parking lot. The resident had diagnoses including Alzheimer's disease, dementia, and anxiety disorder, and records showed she had moderately impaired cognition, walked and transferred independently, and had no documented wandering behaviors during the MDS lookback period. Although an elopement evaluation had previously concluded she was not at risk for elopement, the care plan identified confusion, impaired cognition, and lack of awareness of safety needs. On the day of the event, a family member visiting another resident saw the resident outside in the parking lot looking into car windows and walking from car to car with a jacket and pocketbook on her arm. The family member stated the resident appeared to be looking for someone and was in the middle area of the parking lot before she reported it to staff. Nurse #3 was notified and went to check on the resident, who was then brought back inside the facility. Staff interviews showed they were not actively looking for the resident and did not know she had exited the facility unsupervised until the family member reported seeing her outside. Staff accounts indicated the resident had been seen earlier in the dining room eating, but no one was aware she had left the building. Nurse #2 and NA #1 both stated they were not aware the resident was missing until the report from the family member. The administrator stated the resident exited through the front entrance doors, but it was not known whether she pushed the button behind the receptionist desk or was let out by a visitor. The previous NP stated the resident needed someone with her if she was outside the facility and could have wandered away if left alone.
Failure to Respond to Help Requests and Use Foot Pedals During Wheelchair Transport
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure a safe environment free from accident hazards for R25 when staff did not respond to her requests for help and did not provide foot pedals while propelling her wheelchair. R25 had diagnoses of parkinsonism and Alzheimer's disease, and her records documented severely impaired cognition, including a BIMS score of four on a quarterly MDS. Her care plan stated she was independent with locomotion in her manual wheelchair, but other documentation reflected a history of falls and need for staff assistance with wheelchair mobility. The care plan also lacked documentation regarding foot pedals. Nursing notes and staff interviews showed multiple instances in which R25 was pushed in her wheelchair without foot pedals. On one occasion, a CNA propelled her out of the restroom and her socked foot hit the floor when the wheelchair was pushed. On another occasion, R25 was seated in her wheelchair, holding onto the back of a recliner and calling out for help, while the CNA walked by her. The CNA later propelled R25 down the hallway without foot pedals and at one point pushed the chair and let it go. Staff interviews confirmed that residents should have foot pedals when staff are pushing them, and the CNA stated she should not push R25 without foot pedals.
Trusted data from CMS and state health departments
Every citation, penalty and Plan of Correction is sourced from public CMS records (latest release August 26, 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.