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 ensure effective fall alarms and supervision: two residents had Smart Caregiver monitoring devices set to LOW volume, and one resident's bed alarm did not alert staff before the resident was found on the floor after an unwitnessed fall. One resident had dementia, osteoporosis, prior TIA, and cognitive impairment and was fully dependent on staff, while staff also found that a second resident's bed and recliner alarms did not activate properly during testing.
Failure to assess the safety of perimeter mattresses for two residents. Both residents had severely impaired cognition and significant mobility limitations, and both care plans included use of a perimeter mattress to define the edges of the bed. However, their Mobility, Physical Device, and Fall Risk assessments lacked documentation of a perimeter/defined edge mattress assessment. Staff interviews showed inconsistent understanding of the required order, IDT review, engineering review, and safety assessment before use.
Improper Mechanical Lift Transfers: A resident with dementia, spinal cord dysfunction, and dependence for transfers was supposed to be moved with a full-body mechanical lift and two staff members, but a TMA stated she transferred the resident alone. The resident reported that staff sometimes used only one person for lift transfers because of staffing shortages, while other staff and the DON stated this was unsafe and against policy.
Two residents were involved in accident-hazard deficiencies. One resident with cancer, PVD, and Alzheimer’s disease was observed in a wheelchair with feet extending past short footrests, with the lower legs resting against the hard footrests despite a care plan entry for padding. Another resident with dementia and a hx of falls had an unwitnessed fall, but ordered orthostatic BP monitoring was not completed accurately and staff reported no post-fall PT referral was received.
A resident was given a new electric wheelchair without a prior therapy assessment and could not stop the chair, causing it to strike a bed frame and resulting in a leg laceration, tibia/fibula fractures, and a syncopal episode from blood loss. Another resident with cognitive impairment and high fall risk continued to self-transfer and fall, but the care plan was not updated with new fall interventions after repeated incidents.
A CNA used a Hoyer lift alone to weigh one resident, and another CNA was observed using a Hoyer lift alone to weigh a second resident. One resident’s care plan called for a 2-assist Hoyer lift, and the facility’s lift competency checklist and policy both required two caregivers for mechanical lift use; the DON and Director of Therapy also stated that two staff members are always required.
Failure to Ensure Effective Fall Alarms and Supervision
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to provide adequate supervision and effective use of assistive fall-prevention devices for two residents who were reviewed for fall precautions. One resident had diagnoses including unspecified dementia, age-related osteoporosis, a history of transient ischemic attack, and cognitive impairment, and was described by the POA as weak, bedbound, and unable to participate in physical therapy after a prior right femur fracture. The resident was completely dependent on staff for eating, hygiene, mobility, and toileting, and the care plan included a bed alarm per orders. The resident was found on the floor next to the bed after an unwitnessed fall. The POA reported receiving a call from the facility that the resident had been found on the floor and was not injured, and stated the resident frequently forgot to ask for help and had tried to get up without assistance before. A nurse stated the bed alarm was not heard when the resident fell, and the facility was unable to provide evidence that the bed alarm functioned as intended or alerted staff before the resident was found on the floor. The event report identified the fall as unwitnessed and did not indicate that a bed alarm alerted staff. The facility also failed to ensure the Smart Caregiver sensor pad monitoring system used for another resident was functioning properly and set at an audible volume. Two Smart Caregiver monitor boxes at the nurses' station for that resident's bed and recliner were observed set to LOW volume, and the chime settings faced the back wall of the desk. When a CNA tested the recliner alarm from the resident's room, the monitor at the nurses' station did not illuminate or sound an alert on either attempt. The CNA changed the batteries but did not retest the device, and both CNAs stated they could hear alarms only if they were near the nurses' station and did not recall training on operation or testing of the devices. The facility director stated the facility did not perform preventive maintenance on the devices and relied on staff to ensure they functioned properly.
Failure to Assess Safety of Perimeter Mattresses
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure that 2 residents with perimeter mattresses were assessed for safety. One resident had a significant change MDS showing severely impaired cognition, dementia, reduced mobility, muscle weakness, and need for assistance with bed mobility, sitting, standing, and transfers. That resident’s care plan identified limited physical mobility related to dementia with mood disturbance and anxiety, a genetic muscle disorder, spinal stenosis, and osteoarthritis, and included use of a perimeter mattress to help find the edges of the bed for bed mobility. However, the resident’s Mobility, Physical Device, and Fall Risk assessment lacked documentation of an assessment for a perimeter/defined edge mattress. The second resident’s annual MDS showed severely impaired cognition, dementia, multiple sclerosis, repeated falls, and need for partial to moderate assistance with bed mobility. The care plan identified limited physical mobility related to weakness, falls, incontinence, hypertension, renal disease, dementia, MS, depression, and delusional disorder, and included use of a bariatric sized bed with a perimeter mattress to define the edges of the bed. That resident’s Mobility Physical Device and Fall Risk assessment also lacked documentation of an assessment for a perimeter/defined edge mattress. During observation, the resident was in bed asleep with a perimeter mattress. Staff interviews showed differing understanding of whether a physician order, assessment, IDT review, engineering review, and safety assessment were required before use of a perimeter mattress, and the DON confirmed both residents’ most recent assessments lacked documentation of a perimeter/defined edge mattress assessment.
Improper Mechanical Lift Transfers
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure transfers were performed according to R24’s assessed needs, care plan interventions, and facility policy. R24’s records showed she had diagnoses including non-traumatic spinal cord dysfunction, diabetes, dementia, depression, heart failure, and asthma. She was dependent on staff for toileting and transfers, was frequently incontinent of bowel and bladder, and had care plan directions for assistance with transfers using a full-body mechanical lift and two staff members. During interviews, a TMA stated she transferred R24 with the full-body mechanical lift by herself because R24 needed to use the bathroom and she felt the transfer was safe. R24 stated staff sometimes transferred her with only one staff member and said they told her there was not enough staff. Other staff interviewed stated transfers with the full-body mechanical lift using one staff member were unsafe and should not occur. The facility policy for using a mechanical lift stated that at least two trained associates are needed to safely move a resident with a mechanical full-body floor-based lift or ceiling/overhead full-body lift.
Unsafe Wheelchair Fit and Incomplete Post-Fall Monitoring
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to provide an environment free from accident hazards for two residents. Resident 27 was readmitted with diagnoses including cancer, peripheral vascular disease, and Alzheimer's disease and was sometimes able to make needs known. On multiple observations, Resident 27 was seated in a slightly tilted back wheelchair with feet extending beyond the footrests, and the back of the lower legs rested against the hard footrests above the ankle/heel area. A pillow was observed either on the floor or behind the legs rather than padding the footrests. The focused care plan for skin integrity included padding to wheelchair footrests, and staff interviews confirmed the footrests were too short and needed adjustment or replacement, but staff had not notified therapy or otherwise addressed the wheelchair fit. Resident 50 was admitted with diagnoses including dementia, history of falls, and UTI and was sometimes able to make needs known. The care plan identified the resident as at risk for falls. After an unwitnessed fall in the 300 hallway, the incident investigation added interventions to monitor orthostatic blood pressures and refer to physical therapy. However, the record showed an orthostatic blood pressure order on 05/20/2026 was not completed, and subsequent orthostatic blood pressures recorded the same blood pressure and pulse for all three positions on 05/22/2026, 05/23/2026, and 05/24/2026. Staff later stated they had not received a post-fall therapy referral, and the DNS stated the resident should have had orthostatic blood pressures taken accurately to rule out orthostatic hypotension.
Failure to assess electric wheelchair use and update fall interventions
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to comprehensively assess a resident for the use of an electric wheelchair and failed to develop new interventions to reduce fall risk for another resident. The report states that the facility’s policies required a device evaluation before an electric wheelchair was initiated, resident education and consent, and an updated service plan identifying device use and other interventions. The fall management policy required individualized care plan updates, a systematic review after each fall, identification of root cause, and review of prior interventions when new interventions were implemented. Resident 73 was admitted with weakness and lymphedema and had an above-the-knee left leg amputation, requiring assistance with bed mobility, transfers, and locomotion. The resident’s record showed cognitive intactness, lower extremity impairment, supervision or touch assistance for bed-to-chair transfers, and use of a manual wheelchair. On 4/17/26, a newly issued electric wheelchair was delivered and the resident was assisted into it. The resident reported that the representative showed how the chair worked but not enough, and that the resident did not know how to stop it. The resident then returned to the room, could not stop the chair, and the chair continued forward into the bed, causing the resident’s right leg to strike the metal bed frame. The resident sustained a five-centimeter laceration to the right anterior lower leg, fractures of the right tibia and fibula, and a brief syncopal episode secondary to blood loss. The resident also received an anticoagulant, which contributed to significant bleeding. The clinical record contained no evidence that the resident had been assessed to safely operate the electric wheelchair before use. Resident 3 was admitted with a right total hip replacement with deep hardware removal and post-traumatic osteoarthritis of the right hip. The resident had a high fall risk on Morse Fall Scale assessments, cognitive impairment on OT evaluation, and a PT evaluation showing a score of zero on the Short Physical Performance Battery, indicating high fall risk and increased risk of mobility disability. The resident fell on 3/31/26 after getting up independently and sustained a right femur fracture requiring surgical repair, and fell again on 5/12/26 after getting up independently and sustained a skin tear to the right elbow. The care plan identified fall risk and included reminders to use the call light, non-skid socks, and one-person assistance for toileting and transfers, but revisions to the care plan did not add new or amended fall prevention interventions. Staff statements indicated the resident continued to self-transfer and toilet without assistance, staff believed the resident was independent, and the existing fall prevention interventions were ineffective.
Unsafe One-Person Use of Mechanical Lift
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure safe use of a mechanical lift for 2 of 3 residents reviewed for accidents. During an observation on 6/2/2026 at 8:42 AM, Resident #4 was lying on his bed on top of a Hoyer pad while CNA Staff K stood on the right side of the bed with a mechanical lift; the lift hand bags were observed over the resident, and no other staff member was in the room. Staff K stated that he was weighing Resident #4 and that normally only one person uses the Hoyer lift for weights, although the resident’s care plan documented a Hoyer lift with 2 assist. On 6/4/2026 at 10:15 AM, CNA Staff D was observed using a Hoyer lift alone to obtain Resident #13’s weight, with the resident lifted approximately 12 inches off the mattress in the sling and no other staff present. Staff D stated that he was performing weekly weights and most of the time did the weights using the Hoyer lift by himself. Resident #13’s MDS Section GG coded the resident as dependent, and the facility’s mechanical lift competency checklist stated that two caregivers are present, while the facility policy for using a mechanical lifting device stated that at least two nursing assistants are needed to safely move a resident with a mechanical lift. The DON and Director of Therapy both stated that a mechanical lift should always be used by two staff members.
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.