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:
Unsafe Cord Placement and Failure to Follow Fall Interventions: A resident with cognitive impairment and wheelchair use had a TV power cord stretched tightly across the closet doorway, blocking access and creating an environmental hazard when staff had to lift the cord to open the closet. Another resident with severe cognitive impairment and a fall-risk care plan repeatedly ran barefoot in the hallway while staff observed but did not consistently provide planned interventions such as gripper socks, footwear, ambulation assistance, or redirection.
A resident with impaired cognition, cancer, non-Alzheimer's dementia, extensive ADL needs, and a fall history was identified as a high fall risk with care plan interventions including removing a movable bedside table. After a fall, the resident was found using the table as a walker, yet observations showed the table still placed beside the bed on multiple occasions, including when staff were present. Staff interviews confirmed they were unaware of the current fall prevention interventions and that the table remained at bedside for meals despite the care plan.
Failure to complete a restraint assessment before using a wheelchair alarm for a resident with muscle weakness, difficulty walking, repeated falls, and dementia. The care plan included the alarm as an intervention, but the record lacked an initial Restraint Evaluation, and the CNO confirmed the assessment had not been completed before the alarm was placed.
A resident with cognitive deficits, dementia, Alzheimer's disease, fracture, and repeated falls was dependent for toileting and care planned for an EZ stand with 2-person assist. During observed transfers, staff placed the harness and straps correctly, but the resident only rose to about 135 degrees and never came to a full stand, while staff remained by the bathroom door during privacy periods and continued the transfer despite the resident not standing fully. An RN stated the resident was expected to stand straight up with the EZ stand and that staff should sit the resident back down and try again if not.
A resident with Alzheimer's disease and dementia was found wandering in the parking lot after leaving the building unsupervised. A family member visiting another resident saw her looking into car windows and alerted staff, who were not aware she had exited until the report. Staff interviews showed the resident had been seen earlier eating in the dining room, but no one was actively looking for her or knew she had left the facility.
A resident with parkinsonism and Alzheimer's disease, severe cognitive impairment, and a fall history was pushed in her wheelchair without foot pedals and was not assisted when she called out for help. Nursing notes and staff interviews showed a CNA propelled the resident multiple times without foot pedals, including one instance where her socked foot hit the floor, and staff acknowledged that foot pedals should be used when pushing a resident.
Unsafe Cord Placement and Failure to Follow Fall Interventions
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure a television power cord was properly secured and maintained so it did not create an environmental accident hazard for R46. R46’s quarterly MDS identified moderate cognitive impairment, maximum assistance needed for dressing, grooming, and toileting hygiene, moderate assistance with transfers, and wheelchair use. During observation, R46 was in his room with the television mounted on the wall between the bathroom and closet, and the power cord ran across the closet doors and across the upper drawer of the dresser to a surge protector on top of the dresser. When R46 tried to open the closet doors, the cord was stretched tightly across the doorway and prevented the doors from opening fully unless the cord was lifted away. A later observation showed NA-D had to lift the cord above the closet door to open it and retrieve clothing. NA-D stated the cord had been positioned that way for about one year and could be dangerous if R46 pulled on it, and maintenance staff stated they were only notified that day that the television needed to be fixed. The facility also failed to ensure fall interventions were followed for R13, who had severe cognitive impairment with disorganized thinking and inattention, verbal behaviors toward others, and dependence on staff for footwear and partial to moderate assistance with dressing. R13’s care plan identified her as at risk for falls and included interventions such as ambulating with the resident, encouraging gripper socks, obtaining slip-on shoes, reducing noise, offering snacks, assisting her back to her room when running in the hallway, offering a wheelchair, and redirecting her to slow down. During observations, R13 repeatedly exited her room barefoot and ran through the hallway, including multiple times over an extended period, while staff observed but did not provide gripper socks or shoes, walk with her, redirect her to slow down, or offer other care-planned interventions. Staff interviews indicated they had difficulty redirecting her because she became agitated, and the DON stated the care plan should be followed to ensure safety.
Failure to Follow Fall Prevention Care Plan
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to implement care planned interventions to prevent further falls for one resident who was reviewed for falls. The resident had moderate impaired cognition, diagnoses including cancer and non-Alzheimer's dementia, required extensive assistance with ADLs including toileting, transfers, and locomotion, and had a history of falls. The resident's care plan identified the resident as a high fall risk related to de-conditioning, cognitive deficits, and prior falls, and included interventions such as anti-rollbacks on the wheelchair, appropriate footwear, keeping a wheelchair behind the resident when ambulating, and removing the mobile bedside table from beside the bed. After a fall in which the resident was found on the floor by the room doorway with the mobile bedside table in the hallway next to him, the resident stated he had been using the table as a walker. Despite the care plan and post-fall assessment identifying removal of the mobile bedside table as an intervention, observations showed the movable bedside table still placed alongside the bed on multiple occasions, including when staff were present in the room. Staff interviews confirmed they were unaware of the current fall prevention interventions, acknowledged the table was movable, and stated it remained at the bedside to facilitate meals. The DON confirmed the table had been at the bedside and was removed only after the surveyor discussed it with staff.
Failure to complete restraint assessment before wheelchair alarm use
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to complete a restraint assessment before implementing a wheelchair alarm for Resident #18. Resident #18 was admitted with multiple diagnoses including muscle weakness, difficulty walking, repeated falls, and dementia. The care plan for impaired mobility and fall risk, dated 3/8/26, included a wheelchair alarm as an intervention. A Bed Safety and Transfer Device Evaluation dated 4/28/26 documented that the bed/chair alarm did not restrict mobility, but the record did not include an initial Restraint Evaluation dated on or around 3/8/26 to identify the comprehensive evaluation of the chair alarm. On 7/9/26, the CNO stated that a Restraint Evaluation had not been completed prior to the chair alarm being placed for Resident #18.
Inadequate Supervision During EZ Stand Transfers
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure adequate supervision and assistance for one resident during transfers with an EZ stand lift. The resident had cognitive deficits and was dependent for toileting, with diagnoses including Alzheimer's disease, dementia, fracture, and repeated falls. The care plan identified a moderate fall risk related to weakness and directed toileting with an EZ stand and 2-person assist. During observation, nursing assistants placed the harness, safety belt, straps, and loops appropriately and assisted the resident with the lift, but the resident stood only to approximately 135 degrees and never came to a full stand. On two observed transfers, staff remained by the bathroom door while the resident was given privacy, then re-entered to continue the transfer and complete care. In both observations, the resident never achieved a full standing position despite encouragement and repeated attempts. One nursing assistant stated the transfer was safe because two staff were assisting, while the RN case manager stated she expected the resident to stand straight up when transferred with the EZ stand and that staff should sit the resident back down and try again if the resident did not. The RN case manager was unaware of any concerns about the resident transferring safely with the EZ stand. Facility policy was requested but not provided.
Resident Left Unsupervised and Was Found Wandering in Parking Lot
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to recognize that a cognitively impaired resident had left the building unsupervised and was wandering in the parking lot. The resident had diagnoses including Alzheimer's disease, dementia, and anxiety disorder, and records showed she had moderately impaired cognition, walked and transferred independently, and had no documented wandering behaviors during the MDS lookback period. Although an elopement evaluation had previously concluded she was not at risk for elopement, the care plan identified confusion, impaired cognition, and lack of awareness of safety needs. On the day of the event, a family member visiting another resident saw the resident outside in the parking lot looking into car windows and walking from car to car with a jacket and pocketbook on her arm. The family member stated the resident appeared to be looking for someone and was in the middle area of the parking lot before she reported it to staff. Nurse #3 was notified and went to check on the resident, who was then brought back inside the facility. Staff interviews showed they were not actively looking for the resident and did not know she had exited the facility unsupervised until the family member reported seeing her outside. Staff accounts indicated the resident had been seen earlier in the dining room eating, but no one was aware she had left the building. Nurse #2 and NA #1 both stated they were not aware the resident was missing until the report from the family member. The administrator stated the resident exited through the front entrance doors, but it was not known whether she pushed the button behind the receptionist desk or was let out by a visitor. The previous NP stated the resident needed someone with her if she was outside the facility and could have wandered away if left alone.
Failure to Respond to Help Requests and Use Foot Pedals During Wheelchair Transport
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure a safe environment free from accident hazards for R25 when staff did not respond to her requests for help and did not provide foot pedals while propelling her wheelchair. R25 had diagnoses of parkinsonism and Alzheimer's disease, and her records documented severely impaired cognition, including a BIMS score of four on a quarterly MDS. Her care plan stated she was independent with locomotion in her manual wheelchair, but other documentation reflected a history of falls and need for staff assistance with wheelchair mobility. The care plan also lacked documentation regarding foot pedals. Nursing notes and staff interviews showed multiple instances in which R25 was pushed in her wheelchair without foot pedals. On one occasion, a CNA propelled her out of the restroom and her socked foot hit the floor when the wheelchair was pushed. On another occasion, R25 was seated in her wheelchair, holding onto the back of a recliner and calling out for help, while the CNA walked by her. The CNA later propelled R25 down the hallway without foot pedals and at one point pushed the chair and let it go. Staff interviews confirmed that residents should have foot pedals when staff are pushing them, and the CNA stated she should not push R25 without foot pedals.
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.