Failure to Prevent Elopement of Cognitively Impaired Resident Due to Lapses in Supervision and Wander Guard Use
Summary
A severely cognitively impaired resident, with diagnoses including senile degeneration of the brain, anxiety disorder, encephalopathy, and type 2 diabetes mellitus, was identified as high risk for wandering and elopement upon admission. The resident's assessments indicated severe cognitive impairment, disorientation, and a history of wandering, with interventions including the use of a wander guard device. On the night of the incident, the resident had experienced a seizure and was transported to the hospital by paramedics, during which the wander guard was removed. Upon the resident's return from the hospital, there was no verifiable evidence that the wander guard was reapplied, and the nurse responsible for re-admission was unaware of the need for the device. Throughout the night, staff observed the resident wandering the building, attempting to redirect him with snacks, television, and conversation, but were unsuccessful in keeping him in his room. Multiple staff members noted the resident's persistent wandering and attempts to exit, with door alarms sounding at various times. Despite these behaviors and the resident's known risk, staff did not verify the presence or function of the wander guard, and there was no documentation indicating it was reapplied after the hospital visit. Additionally, staff allowed family members of other residents to enter and exit the facility using the door code without staff assistance, which created an opportunity for the resident to follow someone out of the building. The resident ultimately exited the facility unnoticed during the early morning hours and was found by a concerned citizen walking in the middle of the road, approximately 0.55 miles away from the facility, dressed in a t-shirt, pajama pants, and without shoes, in 46-degree weather. Facility staff were unaware of the resident's absence until notified by local law enforcement. The facility's failure to ensure the wander guard was in place and to provide adequate supervision and control of exit doors directly led to the resident's elopement.
Removal Plan
- Local law enforcement called facility and spoke with Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #107 to notify about Resident #12 being found and taken to the hospital.
- LPN #107 and Registered Nurse (RN) #108 completed a head count of all residents to ensure all were present and accounted for.
- LPN #107 attempted to notify Resident #12's Responsible Party and left a message.
- LPN #107 notified RN Manager #109 of Resident #12 leaving the facility and being taken to the hospital; RN Manager #109 notified the Administrator.
- RN Manager #109 attempted to contact Resident #12's Responsible Party and left a message.
- RN Manager #109 called and spoke with the hospital nurse for an update on Resident #12.
- RN #111 spoke with Resident #12's Responsible Party and notified them of the incident.
- Resident #12 returned to the facility accompanied by paramedics; RN #111 obtained vital signs and assessed Resident #12.
- Resident #12's wander guard was placed back on by RN #111 and Resident #12 was placed on one-on-one (1:1) supervision.
- Facility staff were educated on the Wandering/unsafe resident policy, Behavioral Assessment, Intervention, and Monitoring policy, ensuring interventions were in place for residents with exit seeking behaviors, ensuring interventions were put back in place when residents returned from the hospital, and not giving residents or families the door code.
- RN #101 audited resident orders and care plans for wander guards; any variances were corrected immediately.
- Receptionist #114 and Maintenance Director #115 audited all residents with wander guards for functioning, placement, and expiration; all were placed properly, functioning appropriately, and not expired.
- Maintenance Director #115 audited all exit doors and the wander guard system at all doors to ensure proper function.
- RN #101 audited current resident progress notes to ensure if behaviors consistent with exit seeking were noted, then residents had appropriate interventions in place.
- Resident #12's Nurse Practitioner (NP) #116 was notified of Resident #12 leaving the facility and being taken to hospital by law enforcement with return to facility.
- Administrator audited the facility records of exit door function checks.
- ADON #103 completed elopement and wandering risk assessments on all in-house residents.
- An elopement drill was completed by Maintenance Director #115.
- An ad hoc Quality Assurance and Performance Improvement (QAPI) meeting was held to review the facility correction plan including ongoing compliance.
- ADON #103 educated all current resident responsible parties via phone that they were to ensure staff let them in and out the doors when the front door was locked and should not enter the code themselves or let anyone else out without staff assistance.
- SecureCare was called and the front door code was changed by Maintenance Staff #117.
- The Care Conference form was updated by the Administrator to include education for new families and a reminder for others to request staff assistance with doors when locked, not put in code themselves or assist anyone else out of facility.
- Resident #12's care plan was updated by RN #101 to include wandering and elopement risk with interventions including 1:1 as needed, monitor and report changes in behaviors, orient to new surroundings, provide diversional activities of interest as needed, redirect as needed, and wander guard with placement and function checks as ordered.
- Nursing staff would monitor the effectiveness of interventions for Resident #12 by reviewing point of care (POC) documentation and conducting a review for weekend POC.
- CNAs would report behaviors to the charge nurse if behaviors were not resolved with interventions.
- 1:1 (staff) supervision would continue for Resident #12 until discharge.
- If a call off occurred for a person doing 1:1 supervision, the Administrator would be immediately notified and re-assign floor staff, management staff, or other department staff to cover 1:1 as appropriate. The Administrator would oversee 1:1 coverage scheduling.
- All new hires and agency staff would be educated regarding the facility's Wandering/unsafe resident policy, Behavioral Assessment, Intervention, and Monitoring policy, ensuring interventions are in place for residents with exit seeking behaviors, ensuring interventions are put back in place when residents return from the hospital, and not giving residents or families the door code.
- The Administrator or designee would review all door checks to ensure all doors were checked and functioning appropriately. All variances would be corrected upon discovery and education/follow-up would be provided as deemed necessary.
- Maintenance Director #115 or designee would conduct elopement drills to ensure staff respond accordingly. All variances would be corrected upon discovery and additional education/follow-up would be provided as deemed necessary.
- The DON or designee would assess all residents with wander guards to ensure proper placement, function and expiration. All variances would be corrected upon discovery and additional education/follow-up would be provided as deemed necessary.
- The Administrator or designee would audit the wander guard system and resident accessible exit doors to ensure they were functioning properly to ensure all doors were intact and functioning properly, including alarm. All variances would be corrected upon discovery and additional education/follow-up would be provided as deemed necessary.
- The DON or designee would complete elopement and wandering risk assessments for facility residents to ensure no changes in behavior patterns or acute changes in condition affecting mental status were present placing residents at risk for elopement and ensuring that appropriate and effective interventions were in place. All variances would be corrected upon discovery and additional education/follow-up would be provided as deemed necessary.
- The DON or designee would audit progress notes to ensure any residents with behaviors that increase risk for elopement or exit seeking have appropriate interventions in place.
- The Administrator or Designee would interview visitors to ensure visitors were aware they were not to enter door codes when the door was locked and should wait for staff assistance to exit facility, as well as not let anyone else out without staff assistance.
- The facility Quality Assurance (QA) committee would review audits to ensure compliance. Variances would be corrected immediately upon discovery and education provided.
- Results of these audits would be reported to the facility quality assurance committee. Ongoing compliance would be maintained by recommendations of the facility quality assurance committee.
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.