Failure to Supervise High-Risk Wanderer Resulting in Unnoticed Elopement
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to protect a resident from neglect related to elopement. A cognitively impaired resident with dementia, severe disorientation, and a history of wandering exited the building from the fourth floor to the outside, unnoticed by staff. The resident was ambulatory, able to walk significant distances independently with a steady gait, and had documented wandering behaviors, including going into other residents’ rooms and requiring frequent redirection for safety. Despite these characteristics and prior identification as an elopement risk on risk evaluations, the resident did not have an active electronic monitoring device in place at the time of the incident. The resident’s records showed that she had previously been identified as an elopement risk and had an elopement-focused care plan that included use of an electronic monitoring device and monitoring of that device for function. Physician orders for checking the electronic monitoring device each shift had been in place earlier in the year but had ended months before the elopement. The care plan, however, still reflected interventions related to an electronic monitoring device. Staff interviews revealed that the resident typically wandered on the fourth floor, was easily redirected, and had not been seen off the unit before. Multiple clinical providers, including the primary care provider, ARNP, PMHNP, and therapy staff, described the resident as ambulatory, oriented only to person, unable to care for herself, and at risk for following others toward exits or elevators. On the day of the incident, staff on the unit saw the resident around change of shift and redirected her to her room, but they were unaware that she had left the floor and the building. An alarm sounded from a stairwell exit door on the lower level, but staff did not initially know why it was sounding or whether a resident had gone out. Another cognitively intact resident, who was outside on a leave of absence, observed the confused resident walking around the west side of the building in a hospital gown and blanket, approached her, and brought her to sit on a bench at the front of the building, where a staff member then saw them and assisted the resident back inside. Facility leadership and staff were unable to determine how the resident traveled from the fourth floor to the first floor or how she accessed a stairwell door that should have been locked with a keypad. The facility’s own abuse/neglect policy defined neglect to include failure to adequately supervise a resident known to wander from the facility without staff knowledge, and the surveyors determined that this failure resulted in a situation that created a likelihood for serious injury or death and constituted Immediate Jeopardy. Interviews with the NHA and DON indicated that the resident had initially been considered an elopement risk earlier in the year, then was viewed as not at risk after a hospital stay when she was non-ambulatory. They acknowledged that an Elopement Risk Assessment completed in May was incorrect because it was based on pre-hospital information, and that the resident was not listed in the elopement binders at the time of the incident. They also confirmed that although the resident’s mobility improved and she began walking well again and wandering, an electronic monitoring device was not reapplied because she was not perceived as exit seeking. Resident representatives reported that the resident had “bounced back” after her decline, was always wandering, tried to get to doors and elevators, and had been described by staff as trying to get out of the building. These documented conditions, combined with the absence of an active monitoring device and the lack of staff awareness of her departure from the unit and building, led to the neglect finding related to elopement.
Removal Plan
- Returned Resident #5 to the facility.
- Completed a skin assessment, pain assessment, and change of condition assessment for Resident #5 with no negative findings.
- Notified Resident #5’s attending physician and obtained new orders for labs; obtained urine culture results showing ESBL and implemented new medication orders.
- Completed psychiatric services via telehealth for Resident #5 with no new orders received.
- Placed Resident #5 on 1:1 supervision and completed an elopement assessment with an electronic monitoring device applied to her lower extremity; maintained 1:1 supervision until discharge.
- Checked electronic monitoring device function and placement for all current residents at risk for elopement with no negative findings.
- Verified all residents’ demographics were in each resident elopement binder at the nurse station, receptionist area, and therapy gym.
- Added Resident #5’s demographics and picture to the elopement binder.
- Completed door checks to ensure all doors worked properly with no negative findings.
- Completed a 100% head count to ensure all residents were in the facility with no negative findings.
- Re-assessed 100% of residents for elopement risk with no new residents identified.
- Completed an elopement drill; reviewed and documented results on the Elopement Drill QAPI worksheet with no negative findings.
- Gathered witness statements from residents and staff.
- Notified DCF and police of an allegation of neglect.
- Arranged for psychiatric services evaluation for Resident #5.
- Discharged Resident #5 to a memory care unit as planned with the IDT, family, and Medical Director.
- Placed a door guard to ensure no one was able to leave the facility until screamers were installed.
- Completed elopement drills every day, three times per day, randomly.
- Completed elopement drills once per week on random days.
- Completed monthly elopement drills on random shifts and days, with results reviewed with the QAPI team.
- Verified screamers were shipped from the manufacturing company.
- Installed cameras and new secure care boxes.
- Completed door checks to ensure doors were functioning properly.
- Met with the IDT and Clinical Consultant to discuss removal of the door guard and removed it.
- Assessed for a possible amber alarm system and installed the system.
- Set up security cameras in the facility with the main station located in the NHA office.
- Held IDT meetings (including the Medical Director) to review the ad hoc/QAPI plan; the Medical Director reviewed and recommended no changes.
- Provided education to 100% of staff (including contract employees) regarding abuse/neglect, missing persons policy, elopement policy (including care plans and Kardex for those at risk), and staff response to door alarms.
- Initiated elopement drills for 100% of staff (including contracted employees).
Penalty
Resources
Below are regulatory guidelines relevant to this citation:
An agency NA forcefully pushed a wheelchair-bound resident through a doorway while the resident was caught in the frame, causing the resident’s foot to strike both shins and resulting in bruising, swelling, pain, and an acute right tibia fracture. The resident had dementia, muscle weakness, and required assistance with mobility and transfers. CCTV and the facility’s investigation showed the NA did not follow safety measures during the transfer.
A resident with dementia and a history of aggression assaulted another resident in a hallway, pushing him from a chair onto the floor and then attempting to strike him with a chair while a third resident was nearby. Staff on constant observation and another observer did not intervene until after the resident had already been pushed down, despite the resident being on enhanced supervision for prior resident-to-resident altercations. Both residents had severe cognitive impairment, and interviews showed the assigned aide did not understand the urgency of the constant observation role.
Delayed reporting of resident-on-resident sexual abuse allowed continued nonconsensual sexual contact. A resident with schizophrenia and moderate cognitive impairment reported that his roommate kissed, touched, and sexually assaulted him without consent, while the roommate admitted to sexual contact. A nurse aide heard the allegation but did not report it right away, and the unit manager later confirmed the delay.
Failure to respond appropriately to an alleged sexual abuse incident: a resident with intact cognition alleged a CNA raped them during incontinence care, but the resident remained in the facility for hours without a documented medical or psychosocial assessment. The CNA said they provided care and applied ointment to the resident’s groin and vaginal area, while video showed the CNA in the room for 36 minutes. The resident was later tearful, fearful, and distrustful of staff, and the DON and admin did not report the allegation to DOH because the resident later described rough handling.
Failure to Maintain Separation Between Residents With Known Aggression: A resident with a known hx of resident-to-resident physical aggression struck another resident in the head with a cane in the dining room, causing a bump, laceration, and bruising. The assaulted resident was non-ambulatory, dependent on staff for transfers, and had dementia, while the aggressive resident had intact cognition, used a cane, and had a care plan for prior physical altercations. Staff placed the residents in the same area with limited supervision, and the aggressive resident stated the other resident deserved it and that he would hit him again.
A resident with stroke-related diagnoses and cognitive intact status was transferred to the hospital for weakness, dizziness, pallor, and low K+. After the resident was stable for return, the DON and administrator went to the hospital and, along with the owner and corporate administrator on speaker phone, were reported by the resident and hospital staff to have yelled, been rude and aggressive, and told the resident the facility would not take the resident back because of behaviors and money owed. The resident stated feeling pressured, outnumbered, and insignificant.
Failure to Protect Resident During Transfer Resulted in Right Tibia Fracture
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to protect a resident from abuse and neglect when an agency nurse aide forcefully handled Resident R86 during wheelchair transport. CCTV review showed the aide pulling the resident as she was caught in a doorway, then attempting to push her through the doorway forcefully. During this event, the resident’s right foot became caught on the doorframe and struck her right shin, then her left shin, before she was pushed through the doorway. Resident R86 was admitted to the facility with diagnoses including hypertension, vascular dementia, muscle weakness, and cognitive communication deficit. The resident’s MDS indicated dependence for multiple mobility-related activities and use of a wheelchair. The care plan noted that the resident could move around the facility without supervision but could not exit without supervision, and later documented bruising to both lower extremities, swelling of the lower right extremity, and a right tibia fracture, with bed rest and Hoyer transfers for all transfers. After the incident, bruising was documented on the resident’s lower extremities, including dark purple/green bruising to the right shin and swelling and pain in the right leg. The resident was unable to tolerate range-of-motion assessment because of pain and agitation. X-rays later showed an acute mildly displaced spiral fracture below the level of the tibial prosthetic stem in the right tibia. The facility’s investigation concluded that the nursing aide neglected to follow facility safety measures.
Failure to Prevent Resident-to-Resident Abuse During Constant Observation
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to protect a resident from abuse when a resident with severe cognitive impairment and a history of aggressive behavior assaulted another resident in the hallway. Resident #1 had diagnoses including unspecified dementia with behavioral disturbance, COPD, muscle weakness, and major depressive disorder, and his MDS coded him with a BIMS score of 3 out of 15. Resident #2 also had severe cognitive impairment, with diagnoses including Alzheimer’s disease with early onset, unspecified dementia without behavioral disturbance, hypertension, and muscle wasting and atrophy, and his MDS also coded a BIMS score of 3 out of 15. During the incident, staff heard a chair flip over and a thud, then found Resident #2 on the floor. A video reviewed by the facility showed Resident #1 standing in front of Resident #2 and pushing him out of a chair and onto the floor. The video also showed Resident #1 picking up a chair and attempting to strike Resident #2 with it while Resident #3 was in close proximity. An OSM sitting nearby observed the incident and did not intervene until after Resident #2 had been pushed to the floor, and the chair was only stopped when the OSM placed a hand on it. The record and interviews showed that Resident #1 had been on constant supervision because of prior aggressive behavior and resident-to-resident altercations. The care plan documented behaviors related to aggression during care and a history of pushing another resident. Staff interviews indicated that the Activities Aide assigned to constant observation was watching the incident but did not intervene quickly, and the aide stated she did not think the situation would become physical and did not know what the constant observation was for. The facility’s policy required staff on constant observation to remain within close proximity to intervene immediately if necessary, but that did not occur during the altercation.
Delayed Reporting of Resident-on-Resident Sexual Abuse
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure that a resident was free from abuse when continued nonconsensual sexual contact occurred between two roommates. Resident 1 had diagnoses including schizophrenia and a BIMS score of 9, indicating moderate cognitive impairment. Resident 2 had a BIMS score of 15, indicating normal cognitive function. According to the resident’s statement, Resident 2 kissed his body and engaged in sexual contact that Resident 1 did not consent to, including manual genital manipulation, kissing and licking of his body, and anal penetration. A nurse aide heard Resident 1 say that Resident 2 liked to kiss his body and later questioned him about whether Resident 2 asked him to do things he did not want to do. Resident 1 responded that Resident 2 “jerks me off” and said it happened often. The nurse aide stated that he or she was unsure what to do and did not feel comfortable talking to anyone except the unit manager. The unit manager’s statement indicated that the nurse aide reported the allegation four days after the initial disclosure. Resident 2 also acknowledged sexual contact, stating that he had kissed Resident 1 all over his body and touched his private area, and said the last contact occurred two nights before the interview. The resident was evaluated in the ED for sexual assault, and the facility later substantiated sexual abuse based on the delayed reporting by the nurse aide. The report identified that the delay in reporting allowed further nonconsensual sexual contact to occur before the allegation was acted upon.
Failure to Respond to Alleged Sexual Abuse and Assess Resident Distress
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to protect a resident from abuse, psychosocial harm, and to respond appropriately after an allegation of staff-to-resident sexual abuse. The resident had diagnoses including obstructive and reflux uropathy and hemiplegia and hemiparesis following cerebral infarction. The resident’s MDS documented a BIMS score of 15, indicating intact cognition, and the care plan included psychosocial well-being interventions such as orienting the resident to the environment, introducing compatible peers, and addressing concerns. During incontinence care, the resident alleged that a CNA raped them. The incident report documented that the resident told an LPN they were raped, and the LPN notified a supervisor. The supervisor assessed the resident and noted redness in the perineal area. A nursing progress note later documented that the resident complained of burning in the sacral and vaginal area after incontinence care and that the DON was aware. Video review showed the CNA in the resident’s room for 36 minutes. The CNA stated they provided incontinence care, applied A and D ointment to the resident’s pubis, groin crease, and vagina, and remained in the room because the resident had multiple bowel movements, although the bowel record did not document multiple bowel movements. The resident remained in the facility for about five and a half hours after the allegation without documentation of a medical or psychosocial assessment. Family members reported the resident was hysterically crying, contacted law enforcement, and requested hospital transfer. The resident later stated they felt something enter their anus and vagina, that they told the CNA to stop, and that they became distressed, tearful, fearful, and distrustful of facility staff. The facility concluded abuse did not occur because of conflicting statements, and the DON and administrator stated the allegation was not reported to the state because the resident later described rough handling. The PCP stated the facility should have called law enforcement and the Department of Health if the allegation was rape, and stated a psychosocial assessment should have been completed. The social worker stated they were aware of the incident after it occurred and did not know what interventions should be put in place.
Failure to Maintain Separation Between Residents With Known History of Aggression
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to protect a resident from resident-to-resident abuse when one resident struck another resident in the head with a cane in the main dining room. The assaulted resident was non-ambulatory, dependent on staff for bed-to-chair transfers, used a Broda wheelchair, and had diagnoses including non-Alzheimer’s dementia and depression. He had a BIMS score of 12 out of 15 and was documented as having potential verbally aggressive behaviors toward other residents related to dementia. After the assault, he was found with a 5 cm bump and a 1 cm laceration to the left forehead, along with facial bruising, and he stated he felt unsafe around the other resident. The resident who struck him had a BIMS score of 13 out of 15, walked with a cane, transferred independently, and had diagnoses including stroke and depression. His care plan identified a history of resident-to-resident physical aggression and directed staff to monitor for agitation, assist him to a quiet area, and maintain separation from the other resident. Despite that history, he independently approached the other resident in the dining room and struck him multiple times with the cane. During the interview, he stated the other resident deserved it and said he would hit him again if he saw him, indicating the assault was intentional and unprovoked. The investigation also documented a prior resident-to-resident altercation between the same two residents in which the aggressive resident had struck the other resident in the face with his cane several times, causing bruising to the eye and cheek. Staff statements showed the two residents were placed in the same dining area with limited supervision, and staff were occupied with other residents when the assault occurred. Several staff members stated they believed the aggressive resident was simply walking back to his room and did not realize he would attack the other resident. The facility’s investigation concluded that previously identified supervision and separation interventions were not consistently maintained, allowing the aggressive resident to reach and assault the other resident again.
Verbal Abuse During Hospital Discharge Discussions
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure a resident was free from verbal abuse by facility staff. The resident had diagnoses including frontal lobe and executive function deficit, stroke, atrial fibrillation, cerebrovascular accident, and hemiparesis, and the record also documented the resident as cognitively intact. The resident had been admitted on 01/17/2025 and was transferred to the emergency department on 6/18/2026 for further evaluation and treatment related to possible infection, weakness, dizziness, pallor, and low potassium. After the hospital transfer, the resident stated that facility leaders told the resident the facility would not allow the resident to return because there were no available beds. The resident reported that the administrator and DON came to the hospital, that the administrator, DON, company owner, and corporate administrator were on speaker phone, and that the administrator and DON were verbally abusive, yelled at the resident, and said the resident had behavioral issues, owed the facility a lot of money, and was a bad person. The resident stated feeling pressured, outnumbered, and extremely insignificant, and said the resident never told staff not to return until being told the facility did not want the resident back. Hospital staff corroborated the resident’s account. The hospital social worker stated the facility refused to accept the resident back, that the DON was rude, unpleasant, and harassed the resident in the emergency department waiting room, and that the administrator and DON were aggressive and yelled at the resident during the discussion about returning to the facility. The hospital case manager stated the administrator and DON told the resident about problems the resident had caused for the facility and said the resident could return if the resident paid on the bill. The administrator later stated that staff had to yell because the resident was hard of hearing and acknowledged that the conversation involved reviewing the letter and bullet points about what led to the situation.
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.