F0656

E

Failure to Individualize Fall Prevention Care Plans and Investigate Falls for Cognitively Impaired High-Risk Residents

Bellflower, California Survey Completed on 01-16-2026

Penalty

No penalty information released

Summary

The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to develop and implement effective, measurable care plan interventions for two cognitively impaired residents at high risk for falls, and failure to investigate falls and causal factors as required. Resident 1 was admitted with multiple conditions including diabetes mellitus, speech and language deficits, repeated falls, hemiplegia and hemiparesis following a stroke, and was assessed on the MDS as having severe cognitive impairment. He was dependent on staff for toileting hygiene, required moderate assistance for personal hygiene, and maximum assistance for walking up to 10 feet. His fall risk assessment identified him as high risk for falls. His At Risk for Falls care plan, dated 10/5/2025, identified poor balance and gait as risk factors and included interventions such as ensuring the call light was within reach and encouraging him to use it for assistance.

On 10/13/2025, Resident 1 fell in the restroom. The SBAR and Post-Event IDT Review documented that he was found on the restroom floor and reported that his foot became stuck between the wheelchair while trying to wash his hands, causing him to lose balance and fall. He also stated he did not want to use the call light because he did not want to bother anyone and thought he could manage by himself. An Actual Fall care plan dated 10/13/2025 identified the fall as due to poor balance and set a goal for him to resume usual activities without further incident, with interventions including educating him to call for assistance when needed. Despite this, a subsequent SBAR dated 10/28/2025 documented that he was found sitting on the floor mat after falling from the left side of the bed while turning. Staff interviews revealed that Resident 1 was sometimes confused, always needed assistance to walk, used a cane and wheelchair, and, according to CNA 1, had never used the call light. RN 1 stated that Resident 1 was a high fall risk who would get up unassisted even when encouraged to use the call light.

Resident 2 was also identified as high risk for falls and severely cognitively impaired. His diagnoses included encephalopathy, dementia, altered mental status, and a history of unspecified fall. The MDS indicated severe cognitive impairment and a need for moderate assistance with ambulation up to 10 feet. His fall risk assessment also identified him as high risk. An At Risk for Falls care plan dated 11/13/2025 cited dementia, right eye cataract, and history of falls as contributing factors, with goals to minimize risk of injury and interventions including keeping the call light within reach and encouraging him to use it for assistance. A PT note dated 11/21/2025 documented that he required contact guard assistance for mobility. On 11/22/2025, a nursing note recorded that he had an unwitnessed fall and was found sitting on the floor in his room after stating he fell on his buttocks when attempting to sit down. An Actual Fall care plan dated 11/22/2025 set a goal for him to resume usual activities without further incident and included interventions to determine and address causative factors of the fall.

Interviews with staff highlighted inconsistencies and failures in implementing appropriate, individualized interventions and in investigating falls. CNA 1 reported that Resident 1 never used the call light and that she checked on him at least once an hour if possible. CNA 2 stated that Resident 1 liked to be independent, ambulated in his room, and went to the bathroom by himself, and that due to a past fall they were told to keep an eye on him, which she interpreted as checking at least once an hour, though this was not specified. CNA 2 also stated that Resident 2 ambulated on his own and required assistance only to the restroom, while the Director of Rehabilitation stated Resident 2 was not allowed to walk alone and needed someone within arm’s reach when ambulating because of high fall risk, cognition, and need for moderate assistance. The DOR stated that rehab did not evaluate Resident 1 after his second fall on 10/28/2025 and therefore had not discussed this with the IDT. The DON acknowledged that both residents had cognitive impairment and was unsure if they had been assessed for their ability to understand and follow instructions on using the call light, and stated that because they had not used the call light when needing help, the intervention was ineffective and other interventions such as more frequent rounds and monitoring should have been in place. The DON also stated that Post-Event IDT notes and investigations were not completed after Resident 1’s second fall on 10/28/2025 or Resident 2’s fall on 11/22/2025, despite facility policies requiring comprehensive person-centered care planning with measurable interventions and IDT review of fall incidents to determine probable causal factors.