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
F0550
D

Failure to Maintain Resident Dignity in Use of Behavior Contract

Grand Junction, Colorado Survey Completed on 12-09-2025

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 ensure that care was provided in a manner that maintained or enhanced the dignity of a resident, specifically by using a behavior contract in a way that was perceived as a threat. The resident in question, who was cognitively intact but dependent on staff for several activities of daily living due to a history of stroke with left-sided paralysis and aphasia, expressed concern about being removed from the facility. During interviews, the resident repeatedly asked if he was in trouble and referenced a fear of being discharged, indicating anxiety related to the behavior contract and its implications. Review of the resident's care plan and behavior contract revealed that the contract, initially set with a specific goal date, remained in place beyond that date without updates. Documentation showed that after an incident where the resident expressed frustration over waiting for assistance, staff reminded him of the behavior contract and stated that another aggressive episode could result in consideration of transfer to another facility. This interaction contributed to the resident's ongoing concern about his status and potential discharge. Staff interviews confirmed that the resident was the only one in the facility with a behavior contract and that there was a lack of clarity regarding the contract's current status and purpose. The social services director and MDS coordinator were unaware of the resident's uncertainty about the contract and the previous communication that linked contract violations to possible discharge. The behavior contract was not updated as intended, and the resident was not adequately informed about his standing, leading to a failure to support his right to a dignified existence and self-determination.

An unhandled error has occurred. Reload 🗙