F0657

D

Failure to Update Care Plans and Involve Resident Representatives in Care Planning

Solon, Ohio Survey Completed on 01-08-2026

Penalty

No penalty information released

Summary

The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to keep comprehensive person-centered care plans updated to reflect residents’ current medical and psychological status and to involve resident representatives in choosing care and treatment interventions during care plan development. For one resident with schizoaffective disorder, bipolar type, dementia with psychotic disturbance, and a cognitive communication deficit, the most recent MDS showed the resident was cognitively intact, required hands-on assistance for ADLs, and had no documented behaviors. However, the resident’s care plan, dated several months earlier, continued to list multiple behavior problems, including traveling to vending machines regardless of diet, smearing feces, preferring women’s clothing and painted nails, refusing organization of personal items and housekeeping, hanging soiled clothing in various places, and embellishing stories about money and credit cards. Physician orders required behavior monitoring every shift, and the MAR showed zero documented behaviors for at least three consecutive months, yet the care plan was not revised.

The inaction in updating this resident’s care plan was confirmed by the Social Service Director, who acknowledged that the care plan had not been updated to reflect the resident’s current behavioral status. This failure occurred despite a facility policy on comprehensive person-centered care plans that states assessments are ongoing and care plans are revised as information about residents and their conditions change. The discrepancy between the absence of documented behaviors over several months and the continued listing of extensive behavioral concerns on the care plan demonstrates that the resident’s plan of care was not reassessed or modified in accordance with current information.

For a second resident with anoxic brain damage, intracranial injury, post-traumatic seizures, and spastic quadriplegic cerebral palsy, the MDS showed severe cognitive impairment (BIMS score of 00) and total dependence on staff for ADLs. Hospital admission paperwork documented a history of traumatic brain injury from a gunshot wound, right hemicraniectomy with cranioplasty, wheelchair dependence, seizure disorder, and a need for a bed alarm due to fall risk. Facility fall risk assessments identified the resident as high risk for falls, and an admission care conference noted poor safety awareness and dependence for all care. The care plan identified increased fall risk and an actual fall related to brain injury, with interventions such as ensuring a safe environment, anticipating needs, keeping the call light within reach, using handrails, and keeping the bed in the lowest position at night, but did not include floor mats.

The resident experienced an unwitnessed fall from bed, was found with his head down off the side of the bed, and required hospital evaluation, where he was diagnosed with a fall with head injury. Post-fall documentation identified contributing factors including poor bed mobility, decreased safety, epilepsy, loss of trunk control, impaired posture stability, decreased safety awareness, sliding out of bed, and inability to self-correct or recognize the need for assistance. A fall follow-up assessment listed fall mats as a new intervention and stated they were effective, and a post-fall investigation noted extended bed and extended air mattress as current interventions, but there was no documentation of prior or subsequent implementation of floor mats. Multiple observations on different days and times showed the resident in bed without fall mats in place.

Staff interviews further demonstrated that the care plan and interventions were not aligned with the resident’s identified risks or with the representative’s requests. An LPN stated the resident was fully dependent, a fall risk, checked every two hours, and had never had fall mats in place, despite the POA asking about them; the LPN stated fall mats were not needed because the resident could not move on his own. A CNA confirmed the resident was a fall risk, used a special high-back wheelchair to reduce falls when out of bed, did not have floor mats, and that the bed was in the highest position during the day. The MD acknowledged the resident was at high risk for falls due to a history of rolling out of bed and that floor mats are typically an option for high-risk residents. The DON stated the resident was identified as a fall risk based on diagnoses and that information from other sources was considered, but confirmed there were no fall mats before the fall and that she did not put floor mats in place because she felt they were not needed. The POA reported the resident was completely dependent, had a history of sliding out of bed and seizures, had informed staff of these issues, and had requested fall mats as a safety precaution due to his brain injury and prior falls, but facility staff refused to put fall mats in place. This pattern shows the facility did not revise the care plan to incorporate the representative’s requests or the resident’s ongoing fall risk, contrary to the facility’s policy that the interdisciplinary team, in conjunction with the resident and/or representative, develops and revises the care plan and that residents and representatives have the right to participate and request revisions.