Failure to Prevent Resident Elopement and Inadequate Supervision
Summary
The facility failed to provide adequate supervision and intervention to prevent resident elopement, resulting in two separate incidents where residents left the facility unsupervised and without proper authorization. In the first incident, a resident with a history of psychiatric hospitalization, cognitive disorder, and a court-appointed guardian was admitted to the facility and immediately expressed a desire to leave. Despite being assessed as an elopement risk and having a guardian who instructed staff not to allow unsupervised departures, the resident was permitted to sign out for a leave of absence (LOA) without a physician order or guardian consent. The resident's whereabouts were unknown until police returned him to the facility later that day. Documentation revealed that staff relied primarily on cognitive assessment scores and did not consistently consult with guardians or follow clear protocols for LOA, especially for new admissions or residents with guardianship in place. In the second incident, another resident with severe dementia, mood disorder, and a history of confusion was allowed to exit the facility unsupervised after a CNA entered the door code for him to go outside and smoke. The resident was last seen at the facility in the evening and was later found by police the next morning, disoriented and sleeping behind a gas station half a mile away. The facility's records showed that the resident was not previously identified as an elopement risk, and staff did not recognize the need for increased supervision or the use of a wanderguard. The delay in identifying the resident as missing and the lack of immediate notification to police further contributed to the deficiency. Additionally, the facility lacked adequate systems to identify and manage risks associated with residents leaving the facility unsupervised. There was inconsistency in how staff determined which residents could safely leave, with reliance on cognitive scores and incomplete communication with guardians and families. The facility also failed to individualize fall interventions for another resident and did not adequately supervise several residents regarding smoking and possession of smoking materials, further indicating lapses in accident prevention and supervision.
Removal Plan
- Administrator provided all staff education related to the facility elopement policy and procedures.
- Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON) #805 completed wandering assessments for all residents.
- Administrator conducted a facility elopement drill.
- ADON #805 spoke with Resident #13's guardian, related to the resident's ability to leave the facility with supervision.
- DON, Unit Manager #844 and ADON #805 re-assessed all residents for elopement risk.
- The door codes were changed by the door company.
- All residents were reviewed to determine if they were able to go on LOA supervised or unsupervised and orders were written to reflect the findings.
- DON, ADON #805 and Unit Manager #844 consulted with resident families/guardians and physicians to determine resident LOA status.
- DON/designee placed a list of residents (#4, #8, #9, #10, #11, #13, #22, #25, #31, #33, #34, #36, #43, #51, #53, #55, #61, and #66) who were not permitted to go on leave of absence (LOA) unsupervised at both nurses' stations and at the front receptionist area.
- Regional RN #869 reviewed and updated the elopement binders on all units.
- All staff were educated by Regional RN #869, LPN #865, Mobile Business Office Manager #890, Administrator, DON, ADON #805, Regional Director of Environmental Services #891, Dietary Manager #876, and Regional Dietary Manager #892 regarding all residents being required to have a physician order for LOA and if the LOA was required to be supervised or could be unsupervised.
- All staff were educated that nobody was to assist any resident out of the facility for any reason without consulting with the charge nurse who was assigned to that resident.
- Once a staff member confirmed with the nurse that a resident was permitted to go LOA, the staff member must enter the code without the resident seeing the code.
- At no time was it appropriate to give the code to a resident or family.
- Education included the facility door codes would be changed weekly.
- Education included not permitting residents to smoke in front of the facility and only permitting smoking in the designated courtyard.
- DON/designee were assigned to review the LOA list daily in clinical meetings Monday through Friday and updates were to be completed if needed. A new list would be placed at both nursing stations and front desk on an ongoing basis.
- A process was initiated for the DON/designee to review new admissions in clinical meeting for LOA status on an ongoing basis.
- Human Resources (HR) #851/designee was assigned the duty to ensure all new hires were educated on the LOA process on an ongoing basis.
- The facility implemented a plan to conduct elopement drills by the DON/designee on a weekly basis each shift for four weeks then on an as needed basis.
- The DON/designee was scheduled to interview five staff members on the LOA process weekly for four weeks then on an as needed basis.
- The results of all audits were to be reported, reviewed and trended for compliance through the facility Quality Assurance Committee for a minimum of six months then randomly thereafter for further recommendation.
- The Administrator/designee was to observe five smokers weekly for four weeks then on an as needed basis to ensure they were smoking in the appropriate areas.
- The results of all audits were to be reported, reviewed and trended for compliance through the facility Quality Assurance Committee for a minimum of six months then randomly thereafter for further recommendation.
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.