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:
Failure to Follow Fall Interventions: A resident with dementia, ESRD on dialysis, impaired mobility, and a history of falls was observed ambulating and self-transferring in her room and bathroom without staff assistance, despite orders and a care plan requiring one-person assist with a walker, call light use, frequent safety checks, and skid strips by the bed. Staff interviews confirmed the resident was transferring independently and that the skid strips were not in place as documented.
A resident assessed as high risk for falls did not receive the physician-ordered fall mat on the right side of the bed. Surveyors observed no mat during multiple checks, and the TAR did not reflect the intervention. The resident said the mat had been removed after a new bed was placed, while an RN and the DON acknowledged the order remained in place even though the mat was no longer being used.
Smoking safety interventions were not consistently implemented for four residents who smoked. Two residents were observed smoking with staff supervision but without the smoking aprons listed in their assessments and care plans, and two other residents were also observed smoking in wheelchairs without aprons despite care plan interventions requiring them. The DON confirmed the apron requirement for two of the residents, while the ADON stated residents sometimes complained about the aprons and that he did not know when smoking assessments were completed.
A resident with cerebral palsy, severe cognitive impairment, wheelchair use, and a care plan requiring a mechanical lift for all transfers was manually transferred by a CNA instead of using the lift. During observation, the CNA lifted the resident by the upper back and moved him between the wheelchair and bed without mechanical assistance, despite having completed lift competency training and despite the DON confirming the resident required a mechanical lift for all transfers.
Failure to supervise a resident at risk for elopement led to repeated exit-seeking and wandering events, including being found off the unit and near exterior areas. The resident had dementia with cognitive impairment, hemiplegia, and diabetes, and staff notes described missing documentation of several wandering episodes, an incomplete care plan intervention, and incidents involving a broken alarmed door, a Wanderguard, and an unknown visitor letting the resident off the unit.
A resident with severe cognitive impairment fell during a lift transfer when a sling strap came loose and the chest strap clip broke, and two other residents were observed being transferred with total body lifts using slings that were not verified against their care plans or mobility assessments. Staff interviews showed some CNAs relied on the sling already in the room or on how it fit, rather than consistently checking the care plan or Kardex for the correct sling size and transfer method.
Failure to Follow Fall Interventions
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure that a resident's fall interventions were in place for one resident reviewed for falls. The resident had diagnoses of dementia and end-stage renal disease requiring dialysis, was documented as having intact cognition but needing supervision with ADLs, transfers, and walker use, and was identified as a fall risk due to ESRD, impulsive behavior, and impaired mobility. The resident's nursing and provider orders directed staff to assist with ambulation, remind the resident to use the call light and wait for staff, and complete frequent safety checks each shift. The resident had a documented fall in which she was found sitting on the floor between her drawer and walker with bleeding from a forehead injury and a skin tear to her jaw, and she was transferred to the hospital where she received stitches. The incident report stated the resident lost her balance when she walked to her drawer to close it. The resident's care plan later identified a self-care performance deficit related to actual falls, weakness, and impaired mobility, and included interventions such as assistance from one staff member with a walker and gait belt, assistance with transfers and toileting, use of assistive devices, skid strips next to the bed, and frequent monitoring for safety. During observations, the resident was seen ambulating and self-transferring in her room and bathroom without staff assistance and at times without using her walker or call light. Staff observed the resident walking independently in her room, and an unidentified staff member passed by without entering the room. The resident stated that she walked and used the bathroom by herself and did not need to follow instructions. Staff interviews confirmed that the resident transferred independently and ambulated without a walker or staff assistance, while another nurse stated the resident was not supposed to self-transfer and that skid strips were not present despite being listed in the care plan. The DON stated that staff were expected to follow resident orders and care plans for safety.
Missing Ordered Fall Mat for High-Fall-Risk Resident
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure a resident assessed as high risk for falls received the physician-ordered fall prevention intervention of a fall mat positioned on the right side of the bed. Resident #50 was admitted with diagnoses including orthostatic hypotension, lack of coordination, reduced mobility, and communication deficit. The resident’s fall risk assessment showed a score of 50, indicating high risk for falling, and the care plan identified the resident as at risk for falls and fall-related injury due to a history of falls with fracture, cognitive impairment, and decreased safety awareness. During multiple observations, the resident was seen at the bedside and no fall mat was present on the right side of the bed or located in the room. The physician order dated 6/7/2026 specified a mat on the right side of the bed, but the MAR and TAR did not reflect the fall mat as an implemented intervention. The resident stated the fall mat had been removed after a new bed was placed and had been gone for a long time. An RN stated the resident was a fall risk and that the order for the fall mat should be followed or cancelled if no longer needed. The DON stated the bed had been changed out and the mat would get in the way, and the order should have been cancelled.
Smoking Safety Interventions Not Followed
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure adequate assessment and implementation of smoking safety interventions for four sampled residents who smoked. Residents #12 and #85 were observed smoking in the designated smoking area with staff supervision on multiple occasions, but neither was observed wearing a smoking apron even though the smoking binder and care plan indicated they needed one. During an interview, the ADON confirmed both residents were listed as needing aprons and stated the residents sometimes complained about the apron, but they should not smoke unless they put it on. The ADON also stated he does not go out with smokers often and does not know when assessments are completed. Resident #12 had diagnoses including COPD, muscle weakness, and epilepsy, and smoking evaluations noted tobacco use and balance problems while sitting or standing; smoking was added to the care plan with a clothing protector intervention. Resident #85 had diagnoses including hemiplegia and right-hand contracture, and although initial smoking evaluations indicated tobacco use with no impairments, smoking was later added to the care plan with a clothing protection requirement. Resident #52, who had CVA with right-sided weakness and paralysis, diabetes, mood disorder, major depressive disorder, and right hand and upper arm contracture, was observed smoking in a wheelchair without a smoking apron despite a care plan intervention requiring one. Resident #11, who had TBI, schizoaffective disorder, major depressive disorder, paraplegia, and upper extremity contractures, was also observed in the smoking area in a wheelchair without a smoking apron, and no attempt was made by the smoking monitor to get the apron on. The DON confirmed that Residents #52 and #11 were supposed to wear smoking aprons when smoking, and the facility smoking policy required residents to be educated and evaluated for smoking upon admission, re-admission, and quarterly.
Failure to Use Required Mechanical Lift for Resident Transfer
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure Resident #5 was transferred with a mechanical lift as required. Resident #5 was admitted with diagnoses including cerebral palsy, BPH, and hypertension, and a quarterly MDS showed severe impairment in thinking with a BIMS score of 4. He required substantial to maximal assistance with toileting hygiene, used a wheelchair for mobility, and his care plan documented a history of falls with interventions initiated for a mechanical lift for all transfers to wheelchairs. A POC task also indicated he required a mechanical lift for transfers every shift, and he was listed among residents requiring a sling/mechanical lift. During observation, CNA C provided incontinent care and transferred Resident #5 from his specialized wheelchair to the bed and back without using a mechanical lift. Instead, she manually lifted him by placing her arms around his upper back and interlocking her fingers. In interview, CNA C stated she had been employed for a month, had completed lift competency during orientation, but did not use the lift because she felt comfortable transferring him without assistance and had never used the mechanical lift on him, although other staff did. The DON stated Resident #5 required a mechanical lift for all transfers and that staff could see this in the POC. The facility policy stated mechanical lifting devices shall be used for lifting and moving residents when necessary.
Failure to Supervise Resident at Risk for Elopement
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to provide adequate supervision to prevent resident elopement for a resident who was identified as at risk for elopement and did not reside on a secured unit. The resident had diagnoses including hemiplegia, diabetes, and dementia, and the MDS indicated cognitive impairment. The record showed multiple elopement evaluations with changing results, including several assessments that identified the resident as at risk for elopement in July 2026, while earlier assessments had indicated not at risk or were incomplete. The care plan identified the resident as an elopement risk/wanderer related to impaired safety awareness, but the record contained only one incomplete intervention related to wandering, and no resident preferences were included. Behavior monitoring documented exit-seeking and wandering behaviors on multiple occasions in May, June, and July 2026, but progress notes did not document the behaviors noted on 5/21/26, 6/21/26, and 7/14/26. A physician order for a Wanderguard was created after the resident was found wandering outside on the curb, and staff notes described discussions with family and assessments after the resident was returned to the unit. The resident was later involved in additional elopement-related events. Staff statements and progress notes described the resident being found near a door, in the front hall, in the assisted living area, and off the unit near common areas, with staff searching for her after she was reported missing. One note stated the resident could escape through a security door because the alarm was broken and had not been fixed yet. Another investigation note stated the resident was found off the unit in a common area adjacent to the unit after being let off by an unknown visitor. The facility determined that the resident was cognitively unable to recognize the door requiring a code and would be physically unable to open it without assistance. The report states the facility was out of compliance with resident safety and supervision since 4/12/26.
Failure to verify correct sling size and safe lift use during resident transfers
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure staff followed accident prevention interventions and safe device use for three sampled residents who required total body lift transfers. The report states that four certified nursing assistants did not verify the correct sling size before transferring residents, despite care plans and the lift’s sling-size identification system directing staff to use specific sling sizes based on resident weight and transfer needs. Resident 39 had severe cognitive impairment, Alzheimer’s disease, dementia with behavioral disturbance, anxiety disorder, and muscle weakness. Her care plan and mobility assessments showed a progression from sit-to-stand lift use to total body lift use with two staff members and a medium sling. On 5/1/26, she was transferred from her wheelchair to her bed by a CNA using a sit-to-stand lift when the sling strap came loose from the hook on the lift and the chest strap clip broke, causing her to fall backward onto the floor. She sustained a skin tear on her right forearm, bruising to the right side of her face, redness to the right side of her body, and a bruise on her right frontal scalp. She was sent to the ER, where X-rays showed no acute findings or fractures. Observations later showed resident 39 being transferred with a total body lift using a large sling, and resident 8 and resident 25 were also observed with large total body lift slings on. Resident 8 had paraplegia, moderate cognitive impairment, and a care plan directing total body lift transfers with a medium and extra-large sling, while his mobility assessment indicated an extra-large sling and two staff members. Resident 25 had vascular dementia and muscle weakness; her care plan directed total body lift transfers with two staff members, and her mobility assessment indicated a large sling. Interviews with CNAs showed that staff sometimes relied on the sling already in the room or judged sling size by how it fit, rather than consistently referring to the care plan or Kardex. The DON and MDS coordinator stated that staff were expected to use the resident’s care plan or Kardex to determine sling size for safe transfers.
Trusted data from CMS and state health departments
Every citation, penalty and Plan of Correction is sourced from public CMS records (latest release October 8, 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.