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
F0657
D

Failure to Review and Revise Care Plans After Change in Condition

Richmond, Virginia Survey Completed on 10-22-2025

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

Facility staff failed to review and revise the care plans for two residents following significant changes in their conditions. For one resident who experienced a fall, the care plan was not updated to include the new intervention of fall mats, despite documentation in the clinical record that fall mats were implemented after the incident. Observations confirmed that fall mats were not present at the bedside during subsequent checks, and staff interviews revealed a lack of awareness regarding the need for this intervention. The director of nursing acknowledged that the care plan should have been reviewed and revised after the fall, as it provides essential guidance for staff care. In another case, a resident with paraplegia and other significant diagnoses was care planned for fall prevention with interventions such as ensuring the resident wore shoes when ambulating. However, the resident was dependent for bed mobility and transfers, did not ambulate, and used a wheelchair. Staff interviews confirmed that the care plan did not accurately reflect the resident's needs, as the intervention to ensure the resident wore shoes when ambulating was not appropriate for someone who could not walk. The care plan was not revised to reflect the resident's actual functional status. Facility policy required care plans to be updated as changes occurred and reviewed quarterly, but documentation and staff interviews indicated that these requirements were not met for the two residents. The deficiencies were identified through observation, staff interviews, facility document review, and clinical record review, and were communicated to facility leadership during the survey.

An unhandled error has occurred. Reload 🗙