Failure to Obtain and Implement Timely Physician-Ordered Care for Sacral Pressure Ulcer
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to timely assess and treat a sacral/coccygeal pressure ulcer and to obtain and implement physician-ordered treatment for that wound. A resident was admitted with multiple serious conditions, including dementia, osteomyelitis, sepsis, diabetic foot ulcers, a right heel deep tissue injury, and a history of left great toe amputation. On admission, a weekly skin check and wound assessment documented multiple wounds, including a pressure injury on the coccyx/sacrum, and the care plan initiated the same day identified a pressure ulcer to the coccyx with interventions such as pressure-relieving mattress, weekly skin assessments, and monitoring and reporting changes. An audit of the skin assessment showed that an LPN initially documented a pressure injury on the coccyx, which was later edited by the ADON/RN to indicate a pressure injury on the sacrum. Despite this, there was no corresponding physician order in the electronic record for wound care to the coccyx/sacrum at admission or in the days immediately following. Handwritten paper documents created by the ADON, including a Treatment Plan and Evaluation of Care dated the day after admission and a Formal Wound Assessment log, described cleansing the sacral wound, applying Santyl, oil emulsion, skin prep, sacral dressing, and zinc oxide if full treatment was refused, and referenced enzymatic debridement and sacral foam protection. These documents also contained notations about the resident refusing daily changes and being confused, and later entries indicated refusals of wound assessment and treatment on several consecutive days. However, these handwritten records were not part of the electronic medical record, did not show clearly what wound care was actually performed, and there was no evidence of a physician order for Santyl, zinc, or specific sacral dressing changes during that period. The facility’s standing wound orders did not include Santyl, and the ADON, who lacked prescriptive authority, stated she believed she had told the physician about her treatment recommendations but there was no documented provider order. Late-entry notes by nursing staff documented that the resident refused wound care on multiple days, but did not specify which wounds or treatments were refused, and there was no documentation of resident education, multiple attempts, or provider notification regarding these refusals. Further documentation inconsistencies contributed to the deficiency. A Pressure Ulcer Documentation assessment for the sacral wound, showing an unstageable ulcer measuring 4.3 cm by 5.2 cm with significant slough and moderate exudate, was created and signed more than a week after the admission date and described the visit as an initial assessment. Another pressure ulcer assessment created later again documented the same unstageable sacral ulcer with similar measurements and noted zinc and sacral foam dressings and that new orders for daily Santyl were placed, yet no corresponding physician order was found in the clinical record for that date. The admission MDS, completed by the MDS coordinator using EMR data, recorded that the resident had no pressure ulcers and no pressure-ulcer care, despite the care plan and nursing documentation indicating a coccyx/sacrum pressure ulcer. The MDS coordinator acknowledged that the pressure ulcer appeared to have been missed. Review of the MAR/TAR showed no sacral/coccygeal wound treatments documented for the remainder of the admission month and into the following month until a physician order for coccyx wound care, including Santyl and specific dressing steps, was finally entered with a start date nearly two weeks after admission, and treatments to the coccyx began on that start date. Interviews with nursing staff, the ADON, and the DON confirmed that the resident had an unstageable sacral pressure ulcer on admission, that the ADON kept separate handwritten wound records, that floor nurses did not consistently recognize or document the sacral wound, and that the DON relied on standing wound orders despite the absence of specific physician orders for the sacral pressure ulcer treatment. The facility’s own policies required full assessment and documentation of pressure ulcers, including measurements and exudate description, and required that wound treatments and topical agents be ordered by a physician or other authorized prescriber and recorded as written, dated, and signed orders. Policies also required that wound care documentation include the type of wound care given, date and time, resident position, staff performing the care, changes in condition, and detailed assessment data. In this case, there was no evidence of timely, complete sacral wound assessment in the EMR at admission, no timely physician orders for sacral wound treatment, incomplete and delayed documentation of the sacral pressure ulcer, and missing or nonspecific documentation of wound care actually provided. The combination of undocumented or late-entered assessments, lack of provider orders for Santyl and other sacral treatments, inaccurate MDS coding omitting the pressure ulcer, and absence of MAR/TAR entries for sacral wound care until well after admission constituted the actions and inactions that led to the cited deficiency in providing appropriate pressure ulcer care and preventing further ulcer development. The facility’s standing orders and wound care policies were reviewed and showed that while standard wound preparation, cleaning, and non-sharp debridement techniques were authorized, the use of prescription enzymatic debridement agents such as Santyl required a specific provider order, which was not present for the sacral wound during the relevant period. The ADON’s reliance on handwritten treatment plans and separate wound logs, not integrated into the EMR and not supported by provider orders, further contributed to the lack of clear, timely, and authorized treatment for the sacral pressure ulcer. Interviews with staff revealed confusion about the presence and location of the sacral wound, with at least one LPN stating he did not believe the resident had sacral wounds, and the DON acknowledging that terms like coccyx and sacrum were used interchangeably, which may have affected documentation clarity. Collectively, these documented failures in assessment, physician ordering, EMR documentation, and implementation of wound care for the sacral pressure ulcer formed the basis of the deficiency.
Penalty
Resources
Below are regulatory guidelines relevant to this citation:
Failure to Reposition Resident With Stage 4 Pressure Ulcer: A resident with diabetes, CAD, HTN, and a stage 4 coccyx pressure ulcer was assessed as needing repositioning every 2 hours, but during prolonged observation staff did not offer repositioning while the resident remained in the same position in bed. The care plan called for turning and repositioning per tissue tolerance, but the bedside Kardex did not specify how often to reposition. When the issue was identified, RN and the ADON turned the resident and noted blanchable redness on the left buttocks and upper thigh.
Failure to provide ordered wound care for a resident with an unstageable pressure injury. The resident had chronic venous insufficiency and cellulitis, and the MDS showed the resident was cognitively intact with a pressure ulcer present on admission. A physician ordered xeroform gauze, Dakin's-soaked Kerlix packing, and an ABD pad twice daily, but observations found the wound without the ordered dressing and packing, then later with a soiled dressing and protruding packing. An LPN confirmed the dressing was soiled and undated/untimed, and the ADON acknowledged the findings.
Pressure ulcer prevention and wound care failures were identified for multiple residents. A resident with immobility and diabetes developed a facility-acquired sacral wound that progressed to an infected stage 4 ulcer requiring hospitalization and debridement, while surveyors observed missed wound vac documentation, stool-contaminated dressings, improper offloading, low air loss mattresses on static mode or incorrect weight settings, missing heel protectors, and a wheelchair resident without a pressure-relieving cushion.
Failure to Clean and Monitor a Pressure Injury: The facility failed to promote healing of a resident’s unstageable DTI to the right ischium. During wound care, the DON applied treatment without cleaning the wound first, despite staff and the wound physician stating that cleansing with saline or wound cleanser was appropriate. The record also lacked weekly nursing assessments documenting the wound’s location, stage, size, and description, and the facility relied on intermittent wound physician visits that were missed when the resident was at dialysis or out of the facility.
Failure to Measure and Offload a Right Heel Pressure Injury: A resident with DM, PVD, and a history of skin breakdown developed a right heel PI that was identified as a deep tissue injury and later progressed to stage 2 and then unstageable. Staff did not obtain wound measurements for about two weeks after discovery, several skin reviews lacked wound details, and surveyors observed the resident without ordered offloading boots in the recliner and wheelchair even though staff said the boots were to be worn at all times.
Failure to Prevent and Treat Pressure Ulcers: A resident with impaired cognition, total ADL dependence, incontinence, and high Braden risk developed worsening sacral and heel pressure injuries after staff did not consistently implement wound prevention measures or recognize the change in condition when sacral redness was first noted. The wound progressed to an infected stage IV sacral ulcer with foul odor, drainage, altered mental status, and hospital transfer; interviews and records also showed the wound was not consistently tracked or care planned, and the resident’s skin breakdown was not promptly escalated.
Failure to Reposition Resident With Stage 4 Pressure Ulcer
Penalty
Summary
Provide appropriate pressure ulcer care and prevent new ulcers from developing was not met for a resident with diabetes mellitus, coronary artery disease, hypertension, and a stage 4 coccyx pressure ulcer. The resident’s MDS identified dependence for lower-body dressing, transfers, toileting, and substantial to maximal assistance with rolling in bed. The care area assessment noted chronic pressure ulcers and diabetic foot ulcers, that the resident was often noncompliant with repositioning, and that he often refused to get out of bed. A tissue tolerance lying assessment identified existing wounds to the heels and coccyx and indicated the resident should be repositioned every two hours. The resident’s care plan included an air pressure mattress, nutritional supplements, and turning and repositioning per tissue tolerance, and the bedside Kardex stated the resident needed two staff for turns and boosts with a lift sheet, but it did not include how often to reposition him. During continuous observation from 7:06 a.m. to 9:51 a.m., the resident remained in the same position in bed while staff entered and exited the room for breakfast, lab work, snacks, and visits. No staff member offered to reposition him during that observation period, and he remained on his back with pillows supporting his sides and lower legs throughout the observation. When the surveyor informed the clinical manager that the resident had not been repositioned as care planned, RN-A and the ADON entered the room, checked the resident’s skin, and assisted him to turn onto his right side. RN-A noted redness on the left buttocks and upper thigh that was blanchable. During interviews, NA-C stated the usual practice was to assist the resident with repositioning every 2 to 3 hours, RN-A confirmed the tissue tolerance assessment called for repositioning every two hours, and the DON stated staff needed education to check on and reposition the resident following the care plan. The facility policy on pressure ulcers/injuries described pressure injuries as resulting from prolonged pressure or pressure with shear, but it lacked interventions for care and prevention of pressure ulcers.
Failure to Provide Ordered Wound Care for Pressure Injury
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure a resident with an unstageable pressure injury received the physician-ordered wound treatment needed to promote healing. Resident 5 was admitted with chronic peripheral venous insufficiency and cellulitis of the right lower leg, and the admission MDS dated June 10, 2026, documented that the resident was cognitively intact with a BIMS score of 15 and had one unstageable pressure ulcer present on admission. A physician order dated July 3, 2026, directed staff to apply xeroform gauze to the distal aspect of the right buttock wound, pack the wound with Kerlix gauze soaked in Dakin's solution, and secure the dressing with an ABD pad twice daily and as needed for soiled or dislodged dressings. During an observation on July 8, 2026, the wound was not covered with xeroform gauze and had no wound packing in place. During a second observation on July 9, 2026, the dressing was visibly soiled with a yellow-colored substance and the wound packing was protruding from the wound; an LPN confirmed the dressing was soiled and could not determine when it had last been changed because it was not dated or timed. The ADON later reviewed and acknowledged these findings.
Pressure ulcer prevention and wound care failures
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to provide appropriate pressure ulcer care and to prevent new ulcers from developing for multiple residents, including residents with severe cognitive impairment, immobility, ventilator dependence, diabetes, and existing pressure injuries. The report states that staff failed to implement preventive interventions to maintain skin integrity, failed to ensure low air loss mattresses were on the correct settings while in use, failed to ensure multiple linen layers were not beneath residents on low air loss mattresses, failed to timely identify skin integrity impairments, failed to follow physician orders, and failed to document or administer prescribed treatments for 10 of 33 residents reviewed for pressure ulcers. For one resident with a facility-acquired sacral pressure ulcer, the record shows the resident was dependent on staff for rolling, had a stage 3 sacral wound identified as in-house acquired, and later developed a stage 4 sacral wound with odor, heavy purulent drainage, necrotic tissue, and signs of infection. The physician documented surgical excisional debridement, noted the wound decline over one week, and recommended transfer to the emergency department. The resident was hospitalized for an infected sacral wound and later records referenced systemic inflammatory response syndrome due to the infected sacral ulcer and a plan for surgical debridement. Survey observations also found the resident lying on a low air loss mattress without the sacral wound offloaded, with a wound vac canister full of blood nearby, and staff observed the wound vac dressing was not adhered and the dressing area was covered with stool. The report also describes multiple other residents whose pressure-relief measures were not maintained as ordered. One resident’s low air loss mattress was observed on static mode and set to an incorrect weight setting; another resident’s mattress was also on static mode; and several residents were observed with heels resting directly on the mattress or with only one heel protector boot available. A resident in a wheelchair was observed without a pressure-relieving cushion despite being at risk for pressure ulcers. For another resident, wound vac treatments were not documented on two scheduled days, and staff statements showed confusion about who was responsible for wound care and when wound vac orders should be carried out. The facility policy stated that residents should receive timely, individualized risk assessments, appropriate preventive interventions, and ongoing monitoring, and that skin changes should be addressed by licensed nurses, but the observations and record review showed these measures were not consistently implemented.
Failure to Clean and Monitor a Pressure Injury
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to provide care and services to promote healing of a pressure injury for one resident with an unstageable deep tissue injury to the right ischium. The resident was cognitively intact on the most recent MDS, with a BIMS score of 14 out of 15, and the assessment documented one unstageable deep tissue injury that was not present on admission. The resident told surveyors that staff had been applying cream to a diaper rash wound on the buttocks and said it had been there for a while. During wound care observation, the DON performed treatment to the right ischium wound but did not clean the wound before applying the dressing. The DON stated she did not clean it because the physician order did not specify cleaning with anything, and said she would have used normal saline or wound cleanser if it had been ordered. The wound physician later stated that nursing staff should use their judgment for cleaning the pressure injury and could generally use wound cleanser or house stock saline. An RN also stated that she cleansed the wound with normal saline or wound cleanser because a wound should always be cleaned before treatment. The record also failed to show weekly monitoring of the wound with the required location, staging, sizing, and description. The wound physician notes showed assessments on some dates, but several visits were rescheduled because the resident was at dialysis or out of the facility, and one refusal was documented. The clinical record did not contain additional assessments or refusals to account for weekly monitoring. Facility policy required weekly evaluation and documentation of the pressure injury by a licensed nurse and/or practitioner, including wound location, stage, measurements, tissue type, drainage, surrounding tissue, pain, and interventions to promote healing.
Failure to Measure and Offload a Right Heel Pressure Injury
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure appropriate pressure injury care and failed to prevent worsening of a resident’s right heel wound. The resident had diagnoses including type 2 diabetes mellitus with diabetic chronic kidney disease and peripheral vascular disease, and had a history of pressure injuries and skin blistering. The resident’s Braden score was 13 on 1/29/25, indicating moderate risk for pressure injury development. The care plan included interventions for skin integrity, including offloading boots to both feet when in bed and in the recliner at all times, weekly skin checks, and monitoring for skin changes. On 4/1/26, the nurse practitioner identified a wound on the right heel and documented it as a deep tissue pressure injury with surrounding dark tissue and sanguineous drainage. Orders were entered for offloading boots and wound care. However, the first wound measurements were not obtained until 4/14/26, about two weeks after the wound was discovered. The weekly skin reviews on 4/2/26 and 4/9/26 documented the wound as open, but did not include wound measurements or wound characteristics. Later wound assessments showed progression from a stage 2 wound with granulation tissue and moderate drainage to an unstageable wound with eschar covering most of the wound bed. Survey observations on 6/29/26 showed the resident in a recliner and later in a wheelchair without the ordered offloading boots in place; the boots were observed sitting in the windowsill next to the bed. Staff interviews confirmed that the boots were expected to be worn at all times, including in bed, the recliner, and the wheelchair. Staff also stated that wound measurements should be completed weekly, but acknowledged that measurements were not started until the wound was classified as a pressure injury on 4/14/26. The record also showed a missed skin assessment on 6/23/26 and several wound entries without descriptions of wound bed characteristics.
Failure to Prevent and Treat Pressure Ulcers
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure a resident with multiple risk factors for skin breakdown received necessary wound prevention and treatment services after readmission and after a later change in condition. The resident had impaired cognition, was dependent for all ADLs, used a wheelchair, was incontinent of bowel and bladder, and was identified as at risk for pressure injuries. The record also showed a Braden score indicating moderate to high risk, with documentation that the resident was bedfast, had very moist skin, and required frequent linen changes and repositioning. The resident’s records showed that weekly skin observations and care planning did not consistently reflect the development and progression of the sacral wound. A skin observation documented redness on the sacrum, and later documentation described an open area with necrotic eschar, foul odor, drainage, and worsening deterioration. The wound was later documented as an unstageable pressure ulcer to the sacrum, with bilateral heel deep tissue injuries also identified. The record review also noted that the resident was not care planned for linens being changed every shift per the Braden Scale, and the initial tracking and trending wound list did not list the resident’s wounds even though the wounds were later found to have been acquired. The resident’s condition worsened to the point that the wound became infected, cultures identified multiple organisms, and the resident was transferred to the hospital with altered mental status and a stage IV sacral decubitus ulcer with infection. Interviews reflected that staff and the wound care nurse believed the wound could have been prevented with more frequent turning and incontinence care, and the wound care nurse stated the resident should have been sent out earlier when the sacral redness was first noted. The hospital physician stated the wound was severe, had exposed bone, had a horrible odor and drainage, and appeared to have been present long before the resident was sent out.
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.