Failure to Prevent Resident Elopement and Inadequate Supervision
Penalty
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.