Failure to Document Indications and Non-Pharmacological Interventions Before PRN Opioid Use
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to ensure residents’ drug regimens were free from unnecessary drugs by not identifying clear indications for opioid use and not documenting attempts or offers of non-pharmacological interventions prior to administering PRN pain medications. For Resident 1 (R1), the admission MDS showed intact cognition and diagnoses including end stage renal disease and a heel pressure ulcer, with a pain assessment indicating pain frequently interfered with therapy and daily activities. R1’s care plan for chronic neuropathic pain directed staff to offer non-pharmacological interventions such as rest and repositioning and to observe and document pain characteristics. Despite this, documentation showed that when R1 received PRN acetaminophen and hydromorphone, the associated progress notes consistently lacked details on pain location, associated symptoms, and whether any non-pharmacological interventions were attempted or offered before medication administration. R1 had PRN orders for both acetaminophen and hydromorphone. In January, R1 received PRN acetaminophen twice and PRN hydromorphone nine times. For the PRN acetaminophen doses, one note documented severe pain rated 8/10 and another documented moderate foot pain rated 5/10, but neither note included any record of non-pharmacological interventions being attempted or offered prior to giving the medication. For the PRN hydromorphone doses, pain ratings ranged from 0/10 to 9/10, yet the corresponding progress notes repeatedly only stated that the medication was administered and effective, without documenting pain location, symptoms, or any non-pharmacological measures tried beforehand. In one instance, hydromorphone was administered when the pain rating was documented as 0/10. During interview, R1 reported chronic pain in the knees and all over the body and stated that repositioning, ice packs, and rest helped relieve pain in addition to PRN medications, indicating that non-pharmacological measures were known to be helpful but were not reflected in the documentation. For Resident 2 (R2), the admission MDS indicated independent decision-making with diagnoses including amputation and end stage renal disease, and a pain assessment showing pain frequently interfered with day-to-day activities. R2’s care plan for pain management included an intervention to offer non-pharmacological measures and to notify the practitioner if these were unsuccessful or if the pain complaint represented a significant change. R2 had PRN orders for acetaminophen and oxycodone. In January, R2 received PRN acetaminophen twice for pain rated 10/10 and PRN oxycodone five times for pain rated between 5/10 and 7/10. The associated progress notes documented that medications were administered and, in some cases, that the resident felt better, but did not include pain location, associated symptoms, or any record of non-pharmacological interventions being attempted or offered prior to either non-opioid or opioid administration. During interview, R2 stated that pain sometimes occurred at the amputation site, in both arms, and all over the body when tired, and that repositioning, ice packs, and rest helped relieve pain along with PRN medications, again contrasting with the lack of documentation of such measures. Interviews with staff and facility leadership further highlighted the deficiency. An LPN stated that when a resident had pain, the nurse should ask about pain location and intensity, administer the requested PRN medication if multiple options were available, and document the time and pain level, with follow-up to reassess effectiveness. An RN stated that non-opioid medications should be offered first for pain less than 7/10 and opioids for pain rated 7–10/10, and that residents requesting opioids would be educated but ultimately given the requested medication, with documentation of administration and pain level and later follow-up. The DON stated that documentation for PRN pain medications should include pain location, pain scale rating, and any non-pharmacological interventions attempted prior to administration so that pain follow-up and trending could be done accurately. The nurse practitioner and pharmacist both indicated that non-opioid medications should be used first and that opioids are generally reserved for more severe pain, and the facility’s Pain Management Program policy required clear documentation of pain evaluation, interventions (including non-pharmacological measures), and post-administration pain relief. Despite these stated expectations and policies, the records for R1 and R2 showed repeated administration of PRN opioids and non-opioids without documented indication details or non-pharmacological interventions, constituting the cited deficiency.
Penalty
Resources
Below are regulatory guidelines relevant to this citation:
Inadequate monitoring was identified for a resident receiving furosemide, a high-risk diuretic. The resident had CAD with angina, HTN, hyperlipidemia, cognitive impairment, and dementia, but the record lacked orders for weights or edema monitoring and did not include clear provider-notification parameters for changes in weight or edema. Although the care plan referenced monitoring edema and weight, weights were done monthly instead of weekly, and an eight-pound weight fluctuation was not documented as reported to the provider. Staff and the DON stated they expected weekly weights and regular edema checks for residents on diuretics.
Failure to follow ordered medication parameters led to unnecessary drug administration. One resident with DM, HTN, and schizophrenia received rapid-acting insulin even when BS was below the ordered hold parameter on multiple occasions, and another resident with HTN, major depressive disorder, and schizoaffective disorder received antihypertensive meds without documented BP or pulse readings despite hold parameters. A third resident with DM had an insulin order without BS parameters, and a nurse later updated the EMR with parameters.
Failure to Follow BP Hold Parameters for Antihypertensive Medications: A resident with hypertensive heart disease received ordered BP medications despite BP readings below the physician's hold parameter of systolic BP less than 100. The MAR showed Isosorbide Mononitrate ER, Losartan, and Atenolol were administered when BP was 86/54, 94/57, and 77/52, and the DON confirmed the medications were given when the ordered parameters were not met.
A hospice resident with COPD, opioid dependence, chronic pain, and anxiety received Narcan nasal spray from staff without a physician order or standing order after being found unresponsive. After the dose, the resident developed flailing and jerking movements, respiratory distress, and signs consistent with opioid withdrawal, and was transported to the hospital where she received lorazepam and morphine and was admitted.
Two residents receiving insulin did not have ordered blood glucose checks completed, including missed checks when one resident was sleeping and a documented shortage of test strips. One resident with type 2 DM had multiple missed BG checks and no documentation that the provider was contacted when BG exceeded the ordered threshold, while another resident with type 2 DM, CHF, chronic respiratory failure, and obesity also had missed q4h BG checks and no provider notification documented for BG readings over 400 mg/dL.
A facility failed to follow provider parameters for an antihypertensive medication when a resident’s metoprolol was given even though SBP was below the hold threshold on multiple occasions. The facility also allowed two active PRN ondansetron orders for another resident, and both orders were available in the EHR and used. RNs and the DON confirmed the medication parameters and duplicate-order review process were not followed.
Inadequate Monitoring for Resident on Furosemide
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure adequate monitoring was in place for a resident receiving furosemide, a high-risk diuretic, as part of the resident’s drug regimen. The resident’s quarterly MDS listed coronary artery disease with angina pectoris, hypertension, hyperlipidemia, moderate cognitive deficit, and unspecified dementia with impaired decision making and poor short-term memory. The medical record included orders for compression bandages, weekly orthostatic blood pressure checks, a 2-gram sodium diet, daily furosemide 40 mg, and shortness of breath assessments three times per day, but it lacked orders for weights or edema monitoring. The care plan identified diuretic therapy related to excess fluid and included monitoring for side effects, effectiveness, edema, and weight, but it did not include specific parameters for provider notification related to changes in edema or weight. The resident’s weights were documented monthly, showing 227 pounds on 6/6/26, 235 pounds on 7/13/26, and 227 pounds on 8/6/26, and there was no evidence that the provider was notified of the eight-pound weight fluctuation. During interviews, nursing staff and the DON stated they expected residents on furosemide to be monitored for edema and weighed weekly, and the NP stated she expected weekly weights and notification for a weight gain of greater than five pounds in a week. The DON confirmed the resident was being weighed monthly, there were no edema monitoring orders, and no parameters were listed for provider notification when weight or edema changed.
Failure to Follow Ordered Medication Parameters
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure a resident’s insulin was held when blood glucose was below the physician’s ordered parameter. The resident had diagnoses including type 2 DM, HTN, and schizophrenia, and his EMR documented intact cognition on the annual MDS. His physician ordered Novolog 10 units subcutaneously before meals with instructions to hold the dose when blood sugar was less than 120 mg/dL and to call the provider for blood sugar less than 60 mg/dL or over 400 mg/dL. Review of the resident’s MAR showed multiple instances in April, May, and June 2026 when Novolog was administered even though blood sugar was below 120 mg/dL. The report states the insulin was not held on three of 90 opportunities in April, three of 93 opportunities in May, and three of 90 opportunities in June. During observation and interview, a licensed nurse and an administrative nurse stated that the physician’s insulin parameters should be followed and that insulin should be held when blood sugar was below the ordered parameter. The facility also failed to ensure physician-ordered parameters were obtained and recorded before administering antihypertensive medications to another resident. That resident had HTN, major depressive disorder, and schizoaffective disorder, with moderately impaired cognition on the annual MDS and hospice services. His orders for propranolol and amlodipine included blood pressure and pulse hold parameters, but review of the MAR from January 2026 through July 2026 showed no documented blood pressure or pulse with amlodipine administration, and propranolol was administered without blood pressure being obtained and documented. A certified medication aide and licensed nurse stated the parameters should be followed, and an administrative nurse stated blood pressure and pulse should be documented when physician parameters are present. The report also identified a third resident with DM whose insulin order lacked blood sugar parameters, and a nurse stated she updated the EMR with blood sugar parameters after noting the issue.
Failure to Follow BP Hold Parameters for Antihypertensive Medications
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to keep a resident's drug regimen free from unnecessary drugs by not following physician-ordered blood pressure parameters for administering blood pressure medications. During review of Complaint 3031582, surveyors reviewed the medical record of Resident #11, who had been in the facility for 18 days in 2026 and had a diagnosis of hypertensive heart disease. The April 2026 MAR showed the resident received Isosorbide Mononitrate ER 30 mg in the evening, Losartan Potassium 25 mg in the evening, and Atenolol 25 mg twice daily even when the resident's blood pressure was below the ordered hold parameter of systolic blood pressure less than 100. The record showed these medications were administered on 4/9/26 and 4/10/26 when blood pressure readings were 86/54 and 94/57, and Atenolol was also administered on 4/16/26 when the blood pressure was 77/52. The Surveyor reviewed the April 2026 MAR with the DON, and the DON confirmed that the resident was given blood pressure medications on 4/9, 4/10, and 4/16/26 when the blood pressure did not meet the physician-ordered parameters.
Unordered Narcan Administration to Hospice Resident
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure a resident’s drug regimen was free from unnecessary drugs when staff administered Narcan (naloxone) to a hospice resident without a physician order or documented clinical indication. Resident #4 had diagnoses including COPD, opioid dependence, anxiety disorder, chronic pain, and polyneuropathy, and was receiving hospice services for COPD with comfort-focused symptom management. The resident’s orders included oxycodone PRN, a fentanyl patch that was increased from 50 mcg/hr to 75 mcg/hr, and morphine sulfate for pain and shortness of breath. The resident’s electronic record did not show an order authorizing Narcan or any standing order for its use. According to staff interviews and records, the resident was found unresponsive and a staff member, believing it looked like an overdose, retrieved Narcan nasal spray from the medication cabinet and administered it without a physician order. After the Narcan, the resident became more active, flailed, and had jerking movements of the upper extremities, appeared in respiratory distress, pushed away the oxygen mask, and was not following commands. EMS documented findings consistent with opioid withdrawal following Narcan administration, and hospice records stated the Narcan was administered inappropriately. The resident was transported to the hospital, where she received multiple doses of lorazepam and morphine, was admitted, and a morphine infusion was started.
Missed Blood Glucose Monitoring for Residents Receiving Insulin
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure that residents' drug regimens were free from unnecessary drugs by not completing ordered blood glucose monitoring for two residents receiving insulin. One resident with type 2 diabetes mellitus had a physician order for insulin lispro before meals and at bedtime, with blood glucose checks to guide treatment, but the July 2026 MAR documented 25 instances where the resident was sleeping and the blood glucose was not drawn. The MAR also documented that no glucose test strips were in the building on July 28, 2026, and it did not show blood glucose checks at 4:00 PM on July 2, 4, 5, 11, 17, and 18, 2026. The resident stated that the facility had run out of glucose test strips, so staff could not test blood sugar or administer insulin that day. A second resident with type 2 diabetes mellitus and other diagnoses including chronic diastolic heart failure, chronic respiratory failure, and obesity had a physician order for blood sugar checks every 4 hours, with instructions to contact the provider if blood sugar exceeded 400 mg/dL. The May 2026 MAR showed missed blood glucose checks at 12:00 AM on May 13, 12:00 PM on May 15, and 12:00 AM and 4:00 AM on May 16. The MAR and progress notes also did not show that the physician was contacted when blood glucose levels exceeded 400 mg/dL on May 13 at 8:00 PM and May 14 at 4:00 PM. Staff interviews confirmed that sleeping residents were expected to be awakened for ordered blood glucose testing and that the facility should not run out of strips or insulin.
Unnecessary Medication Use and Duplicate PRN Orders
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure that antihypertensive medication was administered according to provider-ordered parameters for one resident with intact cognition who had diagnoses including heart failure and diabetes. The resident had an order for metoprolol 50 mg twice daily with instructions to hold the medication if systolic blood pressure was below 120 or heart rate was below 60. The MAR showed multiple instances in which metoprolol was documented as given even though the resident’s systolic blood pressure was below the ordered hold parameter, including readings of 116, 115, 112, and 106. The resident’s care plan identified hypertension and use of antihypertensive medication, with instructions for blood pressure checks per provider order and monitoring for side effects such as orthostatic hypotension and increased heart rate. The medical record did not contain consent from the provider to give metoprolol outside the written parameters. During interview, the RN overseeing the resident’s care confirmed the medication should have been held when the blood pressure was below the ordered threshold and acknowledged it had been administered outside the parameters. The facility also failed to prevent duplicate active medication orders for another resident with intact cognition and diagnoses including kidney disease, diabetes, and dementia. That resident had an active PRN ondansetron order for nausea and vomiting, and a second PRN ondansetron order was entered later, resulting in two active orders available in the EHR. The resident received ondansetron under both orders on multiple occasions. The record also showed the resident had signed onto hospice, and the order summary in the certification and plan of care reflected only one ondansetron order.
Trusted data from CMS and state health departments
Every citation, penalty and Plan of Correction is sourced from public CMS records (latest release October 8, 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.