Failure to Control Hot Coffee Hazard and Supervise Residents, Resulting in Burn Injury
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to keep the resident environment free from accident hazards and to provide adequate supervision related to hot liquids, resulting in a resident sustaining a burn from hot coffee. On 12/31/25 at approximately 3:40 PM, a resident with dementia and a severely impaired BIMS score of 03 received hot coffee from another resident in the dining area. The coffee spilled onto the resident’s left thigh/hip area, causing pain and visible blistering. Staff documentation and progress notes identified a new in-house skin issue on the front left trochanter, described as a blister measuring approximately 7.06 cm by 7.56 cm, and the facility’s Medical Director later confirmed this as a second-degree thermal injury from hot coffee. At the time of the incident and in the days following, the facility did not implement environmental controls or supervision to prevent other residents from exposure to the same hot coffee hazard. The facility’s own “Safety of Hot Liquids” policy required hot liquids to be served at safe temperatures, not more than 140°F, with appropriate safety precautions such as staff supervision or assistance and regulation of temperatures for liquids to which residents had direct access. However, review of the facility’s Hot/Cold Holding Temperature Log (coffee logs) showed no coffee temperatures were recorded prior to 1/6/26. Observations on 1/12/26 at 7:20 AM revealed a coffee machine in the dining area that remained plugged in, operational, and accessible to residents, despite being labeled “out of service.” The State Agency was able to obtain hot coffee from this machine without staff assistance or intervention while residents were present and no staff were supervising or restricting access, and there were no physical barriers to prevent resident use. Interviews with facility leadership and staff further demonstrated inaction and lack of timely response to the identified hazard. The DON stated that the incident occurred when one resident provided hot coffee to the cognitively impaired resident, resulting in the burn, and confirmed that she did not become aware of the incident until 1/2/26. She acknowledged that after learning of the burn, no immediate corrective or preventive measures were implemented to reduce the risk of other residents sustaining burns from hot liquids, and that resident access to coffee machines continued without restriction, supervision, or temperature control between 12/31/25 and 1/6/26. The Administrator reported he was not informed of the burn incident until a stand-up meeting on 1/6/26 and confirmed that, even after leadership discussed modifying the coffee service process, he did not verify that any changes were implemented or monitored. A cognitively intact resident reported that residents continued to obtain coffee directly from the machines and that staff did not consistently unplug them, corroborating that residents had ongoing access to hot coffee in violation of the facility’s safety and supervision policies. The facility’s “Safety and Supervision of Residents” policy stated that the environment should be as free from accident hazards as possible, that safety risks and environmental hazards would be identified on an ongoing basis, and that the QAPI/Safety Committee would evaluate hazards and develop strategies to mitigate or remove them. It also required the interdisciplinary team to identify specific accident hazards for individual residents and to implement and communicate targeted interventions, including adequate supervision. Despite these written expectations, the facility did not identify the hot coffee machines as an ongoing environmental hazard after the burn incident, did not promptly analyze or address the risk for other residents, and did not implement or enforce supervision, access restrictions, or temperature regulation for hot coffee until after the State Agency’s on-site observations. Resident #1’s medical record also showed that the burn had been present and under treatment for several days before the family requested an Emergency Department evaluation, where the history documented that the patient had been burned at the nursing home from a coffee spill about a week earlier. This further supports that the burn was recognized and being treated in-house while the underlying environmental hazard—resident access to excessively hot coffee from accessible machines in the dining room—remained unmitigated. The combination of the initial incident, the lack of timely hazard recognition and control, and the continued availability of hot coffee without supervision or temperature monitoring constituted the deficient practice under 42 CFR §483.25(d)(2) related to accidents and hazards.
Removal Plan
- Coffee machines were removed out of service by the Maintenance Director.
- Individual pots of coffee will be made in the kitchen and temperatures of the pots will be monitored by the Dietary Department to ensure that the coffee served is at or below 140 degrees Fahrenheit.
- Coffee temperature logs were created to indicate the staff member who tested the temperature of the coffee and the time.
- Coffee temperature logs will be turned into the Administrator daily.
- Training for all staff prior to their next scheduled shift.
- No staff will be allowed to work until completion of training provided by the Administrator, DON, and Staff Development Nurse (Accidents and Supervision including implementing immediate interventions; Abuse and Neglect Reporting and Investigation; Hot Liquids Policy; Notification of Administrator and DON of unusual occurrences/high risk events and timely notification; Charge Nurse Delegation and Duties including assignment of charge nurse; Medication Administration Documentation).
- All residents were evaluated for safety with hot liquids by nursing leadership and RNs.
- Administrator and DON were inserviced by the Director of Operations on conducting thorough investigations including root cause analysis and timely reporting to the State Agency.
- The Facility Assessment was updated to include a contingency plan for absence of supervisory nursing staff and to adequately identify staffing needs by shift and building.
- The facility's Assignment Grid was updated to reflect who the Charge Nurse would be each shift.
- The Scheduler and the Staff Development Nurse were inserviced by the DON on the new Assignment Grid and Charge Nurse Delegation.
- The Scheduler and/or Staff Development Nurse will designate on the Assignment Grid who the charge nurse will be.
- If the assigned charge nurse calls off, the off-going charge nurse will notify the DON for the next assignment.
- The DON and Administrator's phone numbers are posted on the Facility Assignment Grid.
- In the event that the charge nurse is impaired, the DON and Administrator will be contacted.
- All resident records were reviewed for adverse effects from missed medication by the Corporate RNs with none found.
- An emergency Quality Assessment and Assurance Committee meeting was held to review the Hot Liquid Policy, Medication Administration Policy, and Sufficient Nursing Policy and discuss incidents/actions taken including training and monitoring.
- The Attorney General Office and the Mississippi Board of Nursing were notified by the Administrator of the incident involving an LPN.
- An LPN was reported to the agency that she works for and is not allowed to work at this facility.
Penalty
Resources
Below are regulatory guidelines relevant to this citation:
Failure to Follow Fall Interventions: A resident with dementia, ESRD on dialysis, impaired mobility, and a history of falls was observed ambulating and self-transferring in her room and bathroom without staff assistance, despite orders and a care plan requiring one-person assist with a walker, call light use, frequent safety checks, and skid strips by the bed. Staff interviews confirmed the resident was transferring independently and that the skid strips were not in place as documented.
A resident assessed as high risk for falls did not receive the physician-ordered fall mat on the right side of the bed. Surveyors observed no mat during multiple checks, and the TAR did not reflect the intervention. The resident said the mat had been removed after a new bed was placed, while an RN and the DON acknowledged the order remained in place even though the mat was no longer being used.
Smoking safety interventions were not consistently implemented for four residents who smoked. Two residents were observed smoking with staff supervision but without the smoking aprons listed in their assessments and care plans, and two other residents were also observed smoking in wheelchairs without aprons despite care plan interventions requiring them. The DON confirmed the apron requirement for two of the residents, while the ADON stated residents sometimes complained about the aprons and that he did not know when smoking assessments were completed.
A resident with cerebral palsy, severe cognitive impairment, wheelchair use, and a care plan requiring a mechanical lift for all transfers was manually transferred by a CNA instead of using the lift. During observation, the CNA lifted the resident by the upper back and moved him between the wheelchair and bed without mechanical assistance, despite having completed lift competency training and despite the DON confirming the resident required a mechanical lift for all transfers.
Failure to supervise a resident at risk for elopement led to repeated exit-seeking and wandering events, including being found off the unit and near exterior areas. The resident had dementia with cognitive impairment, hemiplegia, and diabetes, and staff notes described missing documentation of several wandering episodes, an incomplete care plan intervention, and incidents involving a broken alarmed door, a Wanderguard, and an unknown visitor letting the resident off the unit.
A resident with severe cognitive impairment fell during a lift transfer when a sling strap came loose and the chest strap clip broke, and two other residents were observed being transferred with total body lifts using slings that were not verified against their care plans or mobility assessments. Staff interviews showed some CNAs relied on the sling already in the room or on how it fit, rather than consistently checking the care plan or Kardex for the correct sling size and transfer method.
Failure to Follow Fall Interventions
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure that a resident's fall interventions were in place for one resident reviewed for falls. The resident had diagnoses of dementia and end-stage renal disease requiring dialysis, was documented as having intact cognition but needing supervision with ADLs, transfers, and walker use, and was identified as a fall risk due to ESRD, impulsive behavior, and impaired mobility. The resident's nursing and provider orders directed staff to assist with ambulation, remind the resident to use the call light and wait for staff, and complete frequent safety checks each shift. The resident had a documented fall in which she was found sitting on the floor between her drawer and walker with bleeding from a forehead injury and a skin tear to her jaw, and she was transferred to the hospital where she received stitches. The incident report stated the resident lost her balance when she walked to her drawer to close it. The resident's care plan later identified a self-care performance deficit related to actual falls, weakness, and impaired mobility, and included interventions such as assistance from one staff member with a walker and gait belt, assistance with transfers and toileting, use of assistive devices, skid strips next to the bed, and frequent monitoring for safety. During observations, the resident was seen ambulating and self-transferring in her room and bathroom without staff assistance and at times without using her walker or call light. Staff observed the resident walking independently in her room, and an unidentified staff member passed by without entering the room. The resident stated that she walked and used the bathroom by herself and did not need to follow instructions. Staff interviews confirmed that the resident transferred independently and ambulated without a walker or staff assistance, while another nurse stated the resident was not supposed to self-transfer and that skid strips were not present despite being listed in the care plan. The DON stated that staff were expected to follow resident orders and care plans for safety.
Missing Ordered Fall Mat for High-Fall-Risk Resident
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure a resident assessed as high risk for falls received the physician-ordered fall prevention intervention of a fall mat positioned on the right side of the bed. Resident #50 was admitted with diagnoses including orthostatic hypotension, lack of coordination, reduced mobility, and communication deficit. The resident’s fall risk assessment showed a score of 50, indicating high risk for falling, and the care plan identified the resident as at risk for falls and fall-related injury due to a history of falls with fracture, cognitive impairment, and decreased safety awareness. During multiple observations, the resident was seen at the bedside and no fall mat was present on the right side of the bed or located in the room. The physician order dated 6/7/2026 specified a mat on the right side of the bed, but the MAR and TAR did not reflect the fall mat as an implemented intervention. The resident stated the fall mat had been removed after a new bed was placed and had been gone for a long time. An RN stated the resident was a fall risk and that the order for the fall mat should be followed or cancelled if no longer needed. The DON stated the bed had been changed out and the mat would get in the way, and the order should have been cancelled.
Smoking Safety Interventions Not Followed
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure adequate assessment and implementation of smoking safety interventions for four sampled residents who smoked. Residents #12 and #85 were observed smoking in the designated smoking area with staff supervision on multiple occasions, but neither was observed wearing a smoking apron even though the smoking binder and care plan indicated they needed one. During an interview, the ADON confirmed both residents were listed as needing aprons and stated the residents sometimes complained about the apron, but they should not smoke unless they put it on. The ADON also stated he does not go out with smokers often and does not know when assessments are completed. Resident #12 had diagnoses including COPD, muscle weakness, and epilepsy, and smoking evaluations noted tobacco use and balance problems while sitting or standing; smoking was added to the care plan with a clothing protector intervention. Resident #85 had diagnoses including hemiplegia and right-hand contracture, and although initial smoking evaluations indicated tobacco use with no impairments, smoking was later added to the care plan with a clothing protection requirement. Resident #52, who had CVA with right-sided weakness and paralysis, diabetes, mood disorder, major depressive disorder, and right hand and upper arm contracture, was observed smoking in a wheelchair without a smoking apron despite a care plan intervention requiring one. Resident #11, who had TBI, schizoaffective disorder, major depressive disorder, paraplegia, and upper extremity contractures, was also observed in the smoking area in a wheelchair without a smoking apron, and no attempt was made by the smoking monitor to get the apron on. The DON confirmed that Residents #52 and #11 were supposed to wear smoking aprons when smoking, and the facility smoking policy required residents to be educated and evaluated for smoking upon admission, re-admission, and quarterly.
Failure to Use Required Mechanical Lift for Resident Transfer
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure Resident #5 was transferred with a mechanical lift as required. Resident #5 was admitted with diagnoses including cerebral palsy, BPH, and hypertension, and a quarterly MDS showed severe impairment in thinking with a BIMS score of 4. He required substantial to maximal assistance with toileting hygiene, used a wheelchair for mobility, and his care plan documented a history of falls with interventions initiated for a mechanical lift for all transfers to wheelchairs. A POC task also indicated he required a mechanical lift for transfers every shift, and he was listed among residents requiring a sling/mechanical lift. During observation, CNA C provided incontinent care and transferred Resident #5 from his specialized wheelchair to the bed and back without using a mechanical lift. Instead, she manually lifted him by placing her arms around his upper back and interlocking her fingers. In interview, CNA C stated she had been employed for a month, had completed lift competency during orientation, but did not use the lift because she felt comfortable transferring him without assistance and had never used the mechanical lift on him, although other staff did. The DON stated Resident #5 required a mechanical lift for all transfers and that staff could see this in the POC. The facility policy stated mechanical lifting devices shall be used for lifting and moving residents when necessary.
Failure to Supervise Resident at Risk for Elopement
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to provide adequate supervision to prevent resident elopement for a resident who was identified as at risk for elopement and did not reside on a secured unit. The resident had diagnoses including hemiplegia, diabetes, and dementia, and the MDS indicated cognitive impairment. The record showed multiple elopement evaluations with changing results, including several assessments that identified the resident as at risk for elopement in July 2026, while earlier assessments had indicated not at risk or were incomplete. The care plan identified the resident as an elopement risk/wanderer related to impaired safety awareness, but the record contained only one incomplete intervention related to wandering, and no resident preferences were included. Behavior monitoring documented exit-seeking and wandering behaviors on multiple occasions in May, June, and July 2026, but progress notes did not document the behaviors noted on 5/21/26, 6/21/26, and 7/14/26. A physician order for a Wanderguard was created after the resident was found wandering outside on the curb, and staff notes described discussions with family and assessments after the resident was returned to the unit. The resident was later involved in additional elopement-related events. Staff statements and progress notes described the resident being found near a door, in the front hall, in the assisted living area, and off the unit near common areas, with staff searching for her after she was reported missing. One note stated the resident could escape through a security door because the alarm was broken and had not been fixed yet. Another investigation note stated the resident was found off the unit in a common area adjacent to the unit after being let off by an unknown visitor. The facility determined that the resident was cognitively unable to recognize the door requiring a code and would be physically unable to open it without assistance. The report states the facility was out of compliance with resident safety and supervision since 4/12/26.
Failure to verify correct sling size and safe lift use during resident transfers
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure staff followed accident prevention interventions and safe device use for three sampled residents who required total body lift transfers. The report states that four certified nursing assistants did not verify the correct sling size before transferring residents, despite care plans and the lift’s sling-size identification system directing staff to use specific sling sizes based on resident weight and transfer needs. Resident 39 had severe cognitive impairment, Alzheimer’s disease, dementia with behavioral disturbance, anxiety disorder, and muscle weakness. Her care plan and mobility assessments showed a progression from sit-to-stand lift use to total body lift use with two staff members and a medium sling. On 5/1/26, she was transferred from her wheelchair to her bed by a CNA using a sit-to-stand lift when the sling strap came loose from the hook on the lift and the chest strap clip broke, causing her to fall backward onto the floor. She sustained a skin tear on her right forearm, bruising to the right side of her face, redness to the right side of her body, and a bruise on her right frontal scalp. She was sent to the ER, where X-rays showed no acute findings or fractures. Observations later showed resident 39 being transferred with a total body lift using a large sling, and resident 8 and resident 25 were also observed with large total body lift slings on. Resident 8 had paraplegia, moderate cognitive impairment, and a care plan directing total body lift transfers with a medium and extra-large sling, while his mobility assessment indicated an extra-large sling and two staff members. Resident 25 had vascular dementia and muscle weakness; her care plan directed total body lift transfers with two staff members, and her mobility assessment indicated a large sling. Interviews with CNAs showed that staff sometimes relied on the sling already in the room or judged sling size by how it fit, rather than consistently referring to the care plan or Kardex. The DON and MDS coordinator stated that staff were expected to use the resident’s care plan or Kardex to determine sling size for safe transfers.
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.