Failure to Revise and Implement Comprehensive Elopement Care Plan for High-Risk Resident
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to develop and implement a comprehensive care plan with measurable objectives and time frames to address a resident’s high elopement risk and repeated exit-seeking behaviors. The resident had severely impaired cognition with a BIMS score of 2 and diagnoses including dementia and anxiety. An admission assessment documented wandering behaviors and independent ambulation and transfers. Multiple Elopement Risk Assessments consistently identified the resident as high risk for elopement with scores of 10. Despite this, the care plan initiated for elopement did not show that interventions were revised or expanded after multiple elopement events and exit-seeking incidents. The resident’s care plan, initiated in early May, included interventions such as distraction with food and activities, identifying patterns of wandering, and providing structured activities like signs, memory boxes, and walking inside and outside. These interventions were later cancelled in early August, and the care plan did not reflect additional or modified interventions after an elopement on mid-July. Incident reports documented that the resident eloped or attempted to elope on multiple occasions, including exiting with visitors, attempting to exit when a visitor or delivery driver held the door, and being found walking in the parking lot near a busy street and a storage facility. Each incident report stated that the resident was redirected inside, assessed, and that the care plan was updated to reflect current status, but the care plan did not show the addition of one-on-one supervision or other enhanced interventions corresponding to these events. Facility documents titled "Resident One on One" showed that after each elopement or exit-seeking incident on multiple dates in July, August, and September, the resident was placed on one-on-one supervision for extended periods, ranging from several hours to most of a shift. However, one-on-one supervision was never added as an intervention in the resident’s care plan. A revised care plan in mid-October again focused on elopement and referenced the resident pulling on locked doors and walking out of the facility following visitors, but it only listed interventions such as distraction with pleasant diversions, observing for fatigue and weight loss, observing location in the community, and providing directional cues. It did not include prior elopements or the repeated use of one-on-one supervision as an intervention, nor did it show that interventions were revised after the multiple documented elopements and exit-seeking behaviors. Staff interviews further illustrated the deficiency in implementing and communicating a comprehensive care plan. A CNA stated that interventions for elopement risk should be found in the care plan and reported being unsure what to do when a resident had multiple elopement attempts, indicating reliance on the RN for direction. Another CNA reported identifying residents at risk for elopement by word of mouth or the care plan and mentioned an elopement book but was unsure who checked it, also noting the difficulty of monitoring exits without constant presence at the door. The ADON stated that residents with an elopement risk score of 10 or higher were considered high risk and acknowledged that the resident’s care plan was revised after an early elopement attempt, but subsequent incidents still occurred. The DON stated that the resident eloped and was found in the parking lot near a very busy street and identified a system failure related to one-on-one forms and the lack of documentation in the care plan for the resident’s exit-seeking and elopements. A resident representative reported they were never informed that the resident was placed on one-on-one supervision and that the resident was later moved to another facility with memory care because the resident was not safe due to exit-seeking behaviors. An Immediate Jeopardy situation was determined to exist related to the facility’s failure to ensure a comprehensive care plan was developed and implemented for this resident to prevent elopement. The facility’s own policy on comprehensive care plans required measurable objectives and time frames to meet resident needs identified in the assessment, with alternative interventions documented as needed. Despite repeated high-risk assessments, multiple elopements and exit-seeking incidents, and the repeated use of one-on-one supervision in practice, the resident’s care plan did not reflect these interventions or show appropriate revision after each incident. This failure to integrate actual interventions and incident history into the written care plan, and to ensure staff understood and followed it, formed the basis of the cited deficiency.
Removal Plan
- Elopement Risk Assessments were completed on 100% of residents.
- Facility completed 100% audit of residents who were identified at risk for elopement.
- Facility developed and implemented care plans to address elopements for all residents identified as at risk for elopement.
- IDT received education on reviewing, revising, developing and implementing care plans from the VP of Reimbursement or designee(s).
- IDT team implemented an appropriate monitoring sheet for residents at risk for elopement.
Penalty
Resources
Below are regulatory guidelines relevant to this citation:
Incomplete care plans for oxygen therapy and dentures. Two residents had planned and provided services omitted from their comprehensive care plans. One resident with COPD had O2 therapy documented, but the care plan was delayed and did not include newly received dentures or current oral/dental status. Another resident with pneumonia and CHF had an active O2 order and was receiving oxygen, but oxygen was not included in the care plan.
Incomplete Care Plans for Hospice, Sensor Pad, and Oxygen Use: The facility failed to ensure care plans reflected key resident needs and behaviors for three residents. One resident’s plan did not include hospice services despite active hospice care and hospice aide visits. Another resident’s plan did not include use of a sensor pad even though he relied on it to call for help. A third resident’s plan did not reflect that he removed and reapplied his O2 cannula, although he stated he managed his O2 himself and an RN confirmed it.
A resident with multiple fall risk factors and several recent falls had a care plan that listed floor mats, but staff did not have the mats in place until later and could not locate corresponding orders in the EMR. The resident also received multiple high-risk meds, including a benzo, antidepressant, gabapentin, and opioid, yet the care plan did not address medication-related fall risk despite the resident’s falls and the meds’ known side effects.
A resident with PTSD had the diagnosis listed in the face sheet, physician visit, and quarterly MDS, but the care plan did not include PTSD or related interventions. The DON stated she did not see PTSD in the care plan and noted it was important to include the diagnosis so staff could document interventions such as avoiding triggers. Facility policy required person-centered trauma-informed care and individualized interventions, preferences, and triggers to be documented in the care plan.
The facility failed to include EBP instructions in the care plans of residents with a G-tube, a chronic wound, and an indwelling catheter. Observations showed PPE carts and signs directing staff to use gowns and gloves for direct care, but one care plan did not address EBP for G-tube or personal care, another lacked EBP guidance for wound care, and a third lacked EBP guidance for catheter care. The DON stated EBP should be care planned when required and staff were expected to follow the care plan and PPE guidance.
Care plans were inaccurate for multiple residents because current needs were omitted and resolved or discontinued issues remained listed. A resident with a pressure injury had no pressure injury care plan, another resident’s healed venous wound remained on the plan, one resident’s AC therapy and thrush were not updated, a resident on AC medication had no related focus area, and a resident with impaired vision had no vision-related care plan entries.
Incomplete care plans for oxygen therapy and dentures
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure that all planned and provided services were included in the comprehensive care plans for 2 of 19 sampled residents, Resident 34 and Resident 9. For Resident 34, the electronic health record showed a readmission with diagnoses including COPD, diabetes, and anxiety disorder, and the resident was able to make needs known. The quarterly MDS showed the resident received O2 therapy and had broken or loosely fitting full or partial dentures. During interview, Resident 34 stated they had dentures, but the bottom dentures did not fit right and had been taken a few weeks earlier to be fixed and had not been returned. Records also showed new dentures were received on 04/06/2026, but the focused care plans for ADL self-care performance deficit and oral/dental health problems did not include dentures. The focused care plan for COPD showed the resident was on O2 therapy, but it was not initiated until 06/15/2026, despite the resident having an order for continuous O2 at 2 L/minute via NC starting 05/27/2026. For Resident 9, the electronic health record showed admission with diagnoses of pneumonia, diabetes, and CHF, and the resident was able to make needs known. The record showed a provider order for O2 at 2 liters per minute with a start date of 11/19/2025, and the MDS showed the resident was receiving oxygen during the stay. However, the current plan of care reviewed on 06/17/2026 did not include oxygen. Staff stated the resident should have had a care plan in place for oxygen, and the DNS stated it was the expectation that residents with CHF who received oxygen had it included in their comprehensive care plan, but this did not happen for Resident 9.
Incomplete Care Plans for Hospice, Sensor Pad, and Oxygen Use
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to develop and implement comprehensive person-centered care plans that reflected identified resident needs for three residents. The report states that the care plan for Resident #7 did not reflect hospice services, the care plan for Resident #44 did not reflect use of a sensor pad, and the care plan for Resident #81 did not reflect that he took off and put on his oxygen cannula. The facility policy required a comprehensive care plan with measurable objectives and timeframes to meet the resident’s medical, nursing, mental, and psychosocial needs identified in the comprehensive assessment. Resident #7 was a female with diagnoses including cerebral infarction and malignant neoplasm of the colon. Her MDS reflected severe cognitive impairment, moderate assistance with ADLs, and hospice care. Her care plan dated 02/17/2026 did not include hospice services, even though active orders reflected admission to hospice for CVA starting 02/04/2026. During observation, she was in bed with a hospice aide applying lotion to her legs, and she stated hospice came and gave her baths and showers. Resident #44 was a male with Parkinsonism, muscle spasms, and seizures. His MDS reflected moderate cognitive impairment, substantial assistance to total dependence for most ADLs, use of a manual wheelchair, and maximal assistance for locomotion and mobility. His care plan dated 05/01/2026 included an ADL self-care deficit and an intervention to encourage use of the call bell, but it did not reflect his sensor pad. During observation, his sensor pad was lying on his bed while he was seated in a tall wheelchair in his room, and he stated he would use the sensor pad to call for help if needed. Resident #81 had acute and chronic respiratory failure with hypoxia and was noted to have moderate cognitive impairment and need for minimal to moderate assistance with ADLs. His care plan addressed oxygen therapy and nebulizer use, but it did not reflect that he removed and reapplied his oxygen cannula. During observation, oxygen equipment was present near his bed, and he stated he used oxygen at night, put it on and took it off himself, and turned the concentrator on and off; an RN confirmed he could remove and replace his nasal cannula.
Incomplete Fall Prevention Care Planning
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to develop, implement, and revise the comprehensive person-centered care plan for one resident with a history of falls. The resident was admitted with diagnoses including osteoarthritis, spinal stenosis, neurosarcoidosis, obstructive sleep apnea, macular degeneration, and restless leg syndrome. The resident’s care plan, initiated after a fall risk assessment, identified the resident as at risk for falls and fall-related injury due to generalized weakness, limited endurance, impaired balance, unsteady gait, history of falls, and decreased vision, and it included floor mats to the sides of the bed per orders. Record review showed the resident experienced three falls over a little more than one month, including one fall that resulted in shoulder pain and prompted diagnostic imaging. During interview, the resident stated that fall mats were not currently in place but would be liked. The ADON stated fall mats were identified in the care plan but could not locate fall mat orders in the EMR. A CNA stated staff were told by the DON or unit nurse when to place the mats and that staff first started using fall mats on the night of 6/10/26. The Administrator stated the facility was aware of the resident’s increased falls, had discussed the falls with the resident, and had recently ordered additional mats because the facility did not have enough. The resident’s record also showed use of multiple high-risk medications with fall-related side effects, including diazepam, escitalopram, gabapentin, and oxycodone. Review of the care plan showed no interventions addressing medication-related fall risk despite the resident’s falls and the presence of these medications. Facility policies stated that staff, with physician input, would implement a resident-centered fall prevention plan based on specific risk factors and modify care plans when goals and objectives were not achieved.
Missing PTSD Diagnosis and Interventions in Care Plan
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to develop and implement a comprehensive person-centered care plan for Resident #4 that included his PTSD diagnosis and related interventions. Record review showed the resident was admitted and later re-admitted with PTSD, and his physician visit and quarterly MDS also listed PTSD as an active diagnosis. However, the care plan dated 4/22/206 did not include PTSD. During interview on 6/10/2026 at 4:48 PM, the DON stated she did not see PTSD in Resident #4’s care plans and said it was important to include the diagnosis so staff could show interventions such as avoiding certain triggers. The facility’s PTSD Management in Long-Term Care policy stated that residents with PTSD should receive person-centered trauma-informed care and that individualized interventions and resident preferences and triggers should be documented. The facility’s Care Plan policy stated care plans should include identified problems and needs, measurable goals and expected outcomes, and interventions and services to be provided.
Failure to Include EBP in Resident Care Plans
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to develop comprehensive, person-centered care plans that included enhanced barrier precautions (EBP) for 3 of 5 residents reviewed who were identified to be on EBP. One resident had intact cognition, required moderate assistance with bathing, had a G-tube, and diagnoses included Parkinson’s disease, narcolepsy, anxiety, and dysphagia. That resident’s care plan addressed incontinence and G-tube care, but did not include instructions for EBP when staff provided G-tube care or personal care. The resident’s active medication orders directed that numerous medications be crushed and administered through the feeding tube, and a sign outside the room directed staff to wear a gown and gloves for direct care, including G-tube care. The DON stated G-tube care was one instance when EBP should be used and that EBP should be care planned when required. A second resident had severe cognitive impairment, obesity, an unstageable pressure ulcer, and moisture associated skin damage. The resident’s wound assessment identified a stable coccyx ulcer, but the care plan lacked any guidance for EBP use. During observation, an isolation cart outside the room had a contact precaution sign for the roommate and did not address whether the resident was on EBP; the cart contained gloves, masks, and eye/face protection, but no gowns. A nursing assistant stated gowns and gloves were not needed for care of that resident and entered the room without wearing either. A third resident had moderate cognition, an indwelling catheter, renal insufficiency, and urinary retention. The care plan included catheter change, daily catheter care, and infection monitoring, but did not include EBP instructions related to the catheter. Observation showed a cart outside the room with gowns and gloves and a sign identifying the resident as on EBP with instructions to wear gowns and gloves for direct care, including catheter care. The DON stated staff were expected to follow resident care plans and the facility policy regarding PPE for EBP.
Care plans missing current needs and unresolved conditions
Penalty
Summary
Care plans were not accurate for 5 of 22 sampled residents because needed care was not included and some resolved or discontinued conditions were not removed. The deficiency involved Residents 7, 5, 27, 4, and 98, and was identified through interview and record review. The report cited WAC 388-97-1020(1)(2)(a)(b). Resident 7 was admitted with stroke and right-sided weakness and had a pressure injury to the bottom. The resident stated their bottom was very sore and was observed lying flat on their back with heels on the mattress. The EHR showed no actual pressure injury care plan, even though a weekly skin assessment documented a stage two pressure ulcer to the bottom. Staff stated the resident should have had a pressure injury care plan but did not. Resident 5 had a focused skin integrity care plan that identified a chronic venous leg ulcer/wound on the right lower leg, but later EHR review showed no documentation of a current venous wound and the MDS showed zero venous ulcers/wounds. Resident 27 had a care plan that still listed anticoagulant therapy and thrush, but the EHR showed no current anticoagulant therapy or thrush infection, and staff stated both conditions should have been updated or resolved in the care plan. Resident 4 received an anticoagulant medication, but the plan of care had no focus area for anticoagulant use. Resident 98 had impaired vision noted on the MDS and stated they could not see well and needed to see the eye doctor, but the care plan had no problem, goal, or intervention related to visual deficit or glasses use.
Trusted data from CMS and state health departments
Every citation, penalty and Plan of Correction is sourced from public CMS records (latest release July 29, 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.