F0684

G

Failure to Monitor and Respond to Hypothermia in High‑Risk Ventilator‑Dependent Resident

Belpre, Ohio Survey Completed on 01-30-2026

Penalty

No penalty information released

Summary

The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to comprehensively monitor and assess a ventilator‑dependent resident with multiple sclerosis and a known history of hypothermia, and to ensure timely provider notification when low temperatures were recorded. The resident had previously been transferred to the hospital on 12/04/25 with a documented temperature of 93°F, after complaining of feeling very hot, and was treated for hypothermia related to multiple sclerosis and infection. She was re‑admitted to the facility on 12/24/25 following that hospitalization. Her care plans addressed risks related to respiratory failure, tracheostomy and ventilator dependence, infection risk, and musculoskeletal impairment, with interventions that included monitoring vital signs as ordered, reporting abnormalities to the provider, and assessing for signs and symptoms of infection such as elevated temperature and changes in respiratory status.

Following re‑admission, the facility’s records show multiple low temperature readings and gaps in monitoring without corresponding assessments or provider notification. On 01/14/26, the resident’s temperature was documented as 98°F in the morning and 97.3°F in the afternoon; the electronic system flagged the 97.3°F as a low value, but there was no nursing note, no evidence of a comprehensive assessment, no re‑check of the temperature, and no documentation that the physician was notified. On 01/15/26, the temperature log shows no temperature taken for the resident, and there is no evidence that her condition was thoroughly assessed or monitored that day. On 01/16/26, her temperature was recorded as 96.4°F and again triggered a low‑temperature alert in the electronic system, yet there was no corresponding nursing note, no documented comprehensive assessment, no re‑check of the temperature, and no evidence of physician notification.

On 01/17/26 at 1:16 P.M., the resident’s temperature was documented as 95.7°F, which again triggered a low‑temperature alert. A nursing note at 1:46 P.M. recorded that the resident was showing increased confusion and repeating herself, and her temperature was then documented as 85.7°F, after which verbal orders were received to send her to the emergency room. Hospital records show she was admitted with ventilator‑associated pneumonia, septic shock, a complicated urinary tract infection, and hypothermia with a temperature of 91°F on arrival, requiring intensive care and antibiotic therapy. Interviews with staff indicated there was no formal increased monitoring protocol in place for hypothermia despite the resident’s prior episodes; the NP reported not being aware of increased monitoring related to hypothermia and suggested that vital signs might be checked more frequently, while a CNA stated she noticed the resident’s skin was very cold but that there was no official increased monitoring, and the DON confirmed that the care plan focused on elevated temperature even though the resident’s temperature dropped with infection and that multiple low temperatures had been triggered in the electronic system without documented follow‑up or physician notification.