Stay Ahead of Compliance with Monthly Citation Updates


In your State Survey window and need a snapshot of your risks?

Survey Preparedness Report

One Time Fee
$79
  • Last 12 months of citation data in one tailored report
  • Pinpoint the tags driving penalties in facilities like yours
  • Jump to regulations and pathways used by surveyors
  • Access to your report within 2 hours of purchase
  • Easily share it with your team - no registration needed
Get Your Report Now →

Monthly citation updates straight to your inbox for ongoing preparation?

Monthly Citation Reports

$18.90 per month
  • Latest citation updates delivered monthly to your email
  • Citations organized by compliance areas
  • Shared automatically with your team, by area
  • Customizable for your state(s) of interest
  • Direct links to CMS documentation relevant parts
Learn more →

Save Hours of Work with AI-Powered Plan of Correction Writer


One-Time Fee

$49 per Plan of Correction
Volume discounts available – save up to 20%
  • Quickly search for approved POC from other facilities
  • Instant access
  • Intuitive interface
  • No recurring fees
  • Save hours of work
F0628
D

Failure to Provide Required Written Discharge Notices and Appeal Rights

Austin, Texas Survey Completed on 09-05-2025

Penalty

No penalty information released
tooltip icon
The penalty, as released by CMS, applies to the entire inspection this citation is part of, covering all citations and f-tags issued, not just this specific f-tag. For the complete original report, please refer to the 'Details' section.

Summary

The facility failed to provide written notification to two residents and their representatives regarding facility-initiated discharges, including the reasons for the move, the right to appeal, and the required contact information for the State Long-Term Care Ombudsman. In both cases, the residents and their families were not given written notice in a language and manner they understood, nor was the notice provided at least 30 days in advance as required. Additionally, the facility did not send a copy of the discharge notice to the Ombudsman for either resident. One resident, a male with a history of tracheostomy, cerebral infarction, and respiratory failure, was discharged to another skilled nursing facility. The resident's family reported receiving only a phone call from the social worker on the day of discharge, with no written notice or options for alternative placements. The family was not informed of the actual discharge date or the final destination, and there was confusion regarding which facility the resident was transferred to. Documentation in the electronic medical record did not include a discharge notice, and the family learned of the discharge after it had already occurred. Another resident, a female with hemiplegia, hemiparesis, cognitive communication deficit, and acute respiratory failure, was sent to an acute care hospital and subsequently not allowed to return to the facility. The family was informed by phone that the resident would not be readmitted due to staffing limitations, but did not receive written notice, information about the discharge location, or the resident's appeal rights. The facility's own policies required consultation with the resident or representative, provision of discharge details, and notification of the Ombudsman, none of which were followed in these cases.

An unhandled error has occurred. Reload 🗙