F0689

G

Failure to Supervise High-Risk Wanderer Resulting in Elopement and Major Injury

Inglewood, California Survey Completed on 01-14-2026

Penalty

No penalty information released

Summary

The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to ensure an environment free from accident hazards and to provide adequate supervision and monitoring for a resident assessed as high risk for elopement and falls. The resident had dementia, Alzheimer’s disease, generalized muscle weakness, severe cognitive impairment, and a documented history of multiple prior falls. Assessments and care plans identified the resident as at risk for elopement and wandering without purpose, with exit-seeking and searching behaviors, and at high risk for falls due to poor decision making, incontinence, gait/balance problems, multiple medications, and multiple medical conditions. The care plans included interventions such as allowing safe movement in hallways, gently redirecting the resident back to supervised areas, checking the resident’s whereabouts, using a wander guard bracelet with function and placement checks every shift, providing bed and wheelchair alarms, placing the resident in visible areas after activities, providing individualized activities, encouraging the resident to ask for help, and implementing incremental monitoring for safety.

Despite these identified risks and planned interventions, staff did not consistently implement or clearly define the required monitoring and supervision. The fall care plan intervention to “check resident’s whereabouts” and to provide “incremental monitoring” was described by nursing staff and the DON as vague and unclear, and there was no documentation or proof that incremental monitoring was carried out. The DON stated that the intervention for incremental monitoring was not documented and that a written log was not in place to verify implementation. The DON also acknowledged that the fall care plan intervention to place the resident in a visible area was not implemented. The RN and DON both indicated that the resident’s fall care plan interventions to prevent falls and injuries were not followed because the resident was outside the facility and unsupervised at the time of the incident.

On the day of the event, the resident, who required supervision/touching assistance for transfers and ambulation and 24-hour staff assistance with mobility and daily care tasks, was able to move independently in a wheelchair around the unit. The receptionist asked an RN to observe the front door and lobby to ensure resident safety and prevent residents from leaving while the receptionist went on break. The RN reported that she did not see any residents in the lobby and left the lobby area to go to the medication room, from which the lobby and exit door could not be viewed. She did not assign another staff member to supervise the lobby and exit door. Shortly after entering the medication room, the RN heard the wander guard alarm activate at the front door. When she responded, she did not see any residents in the lobby or near the door, then ran outside and observed the resident falling on the sidewalk. Staff reported that they did not hear the resident’s wheelchair alarm prior to the fall, and the DON confirmed that the lobby and exit door were unsupervised when the wander guard alarm sounded. The resident sustained a closed head injury, left frontal scalp hematoma, intracranial hemorrhage, and fractures of the left hand fourth and fifth fingers as a result of the unwitnessed fall outside the facility after eloping without staff knowledge or supervision.

Interviews with multiple staff members corroborated that the resident was not to leave the building without staff supervision and assistance, that the resident had unsteady gait and weakness, and that alarms such as wander guard and wheelchair alarms were in use but did not replace the need for active staff supervision. The Administrator acknowledged that a system-wide approach to prevent elopements and falls required active supervision of the lobby and exit door whenever the automatic-opening exit was unlocked. The facility’s own policies on Safety Supervision of Residents, Comprehensive Care Plan, and Fall Management required identification of individual risks, implementation of targeted interventions including adequate supervision, consistent implementation and evaluation of interventions, and updating care plans when falls recurred. However, the DON stated that these interventions were not correctly and consistently implemented for this resident, and that the resident’s fall and injuries were a major accident caused by lack of staff supervision and assistance when the resident exited the facility unsupervised.