Stay Ahead of Compliance with Monthly Citation Updates


In your State Survey window and need a snapshot of your risks?

Survey Preparedness Report

One Time Fee
$79
  • Last 12 months of citation data in one tailored report
  • Pinpoint the tags driving penalties in facilities like yours
  • Jump to regulations and pathways used by surveyors
  • Access to your report within 2 hours of purchase
  • Easily share it with your team - no registration needed
Get Your Report Now →

Monthly citation updates straight to your inbox for ongoing preparation?

Monthly Citation Reports

$18.90 per month
  • Latest citation updates delivered monthly to your email
  • Citations organized by compliance areas
  • Shared automatically with your team, by area
  • Customizable for your state(s) of interest
  • Direct links to CMS documentation relevant parts
Learn more →

Save Hours of Work with AI-Powered Plan of Correction Writer


One-Time Fee

$29 per Plan of Correction
Volume discounts available – save up to 20%
  • Quickly search for approved POC from other facilities
  • Instant access
  • Intuitive interface
  • No recurring fees
  • Save hours of work
F0657
D

Failure to Update Interdisciplinary Care Plan for Resident With Ongoing Refusals

Houston, Texas Survey Completed on 01-21-2026

Penalty

No penalty information released
tooltip icon
The penalty, as released by CMS, applies to the entire inspection this citation is part of, covering all citations and f-tags issued, not just this specific f-tag. For the complete original report, please refer to the 'Details' section.

Summary

The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to develop and maintain a timely, person-centered, comprehensive care plan and to ensure that it was reviewed and revised by an interdisciplinary team with resident and representative involvement. For Resident #1, a male with multiple complex diagnoses including metabolic encephalopathy, stroke, Type 2 diabetes, end-stage renal disease, cognitive communication deficit, dependence on renal care, and a left below-knee amputation, the care plan dated 1/1/26 addressed only wound care. The care plan documented pressure injuries to the right hip, right heel (stage 3), sacrum (stage 3), and an unstageable wound to the left BKA, but contained no additional information regarding other care needs. Despite the resident’s severe cognitive impairment (BIMS score of 6) and total or maximal dependence for most ADLs, the care plan was not expanded to address his broader clinical and behavioral needs. Record review showed extensive, ongoing refusals by the resident of medications, blood sugar checks, meals, ADLs, and wound care over a period of weeks, yet these refusals were not incorporated into the care plan. Progress notes documented repeated refusals of insulin, blood sugar checks, antibiotics, pain patches, and other medications on numerous dates, as well as refusals of meals and both meals and accuchecks during specific shifts. Wound care notes indicated that the resident sometimes allowed assessment but then refused completion of treatments, stating that wound care had already been done, and continued to refuse despite reorientation and education. Staff also documented that attempts to notify the family member (FM) were sometimes unsuccessful, and that the resident’s wounds showed decline, including increased redness and irritation in the gluteal folds, while refusals of wound care persisted. Interviews with staff revealed that the care plan was not updated to reflect the resident’s consistent refusals or his nutritional issues. The DON acknowledged that none of the refusals were documented in the care plan and attributed care plan updating primarily to the MDS nurse, who had resigned and taken time off during the resident’s admission. The WCN stated she was familiar with the resident’s multiple wounds and frequent refusals of care and that she contacted the FM to encourage cooperation. A CMA reported that the resident appeared very depressed, frequently said “not right now” to medications, and that she tried multiple strategies (pudding, soda, ice cream, soup) to facilitate medication administration, but he continued to refuse. The DSS stated she did not realize she was responsible for completing care plans and initially held care plan meetings without involving department heads. The DM reported she was not made aware of the resident’s meal refusals, and the RA stated the resident refused follow-up weekly weights after the admission weight. Facility policies required care plan meetings upon admission and after significant changes, and required care plan review and revision upon status changes, but these processes were not carried out for this resident’s ongoing refusals and nutritional concerns. The resident’s point-of-care documentation showed low meal intake and frequent non-occurrence of meals, yet this was not translated into care plan interventions. Nutrition task records indicated that on multiple days the resident consumed only 0–25% or 26–50% of meals, and on several days meal intake was marked as not occurring. The RA confirmed that after the initial admission weight of 185.5 lbs, the resident refused subsequent weekly weights, and no additional weights were documented. Despite these patterns, the dietician was not successfully contacted by surveyors, and the DM stated she had not been informed of the refusals. Staff interviews further showed that some CNAs and nurses were unaware of the full extent of the resident’s refusals, relying instead on verbal shift reports rather than an updated care plan. Overall, the facility did not revise the care plan to address the resident’s persistent refusals of medications, ADLs, meals, and wound care, and did not ensure interdisciplinary, resident, and representative participation in developing and updating a comprehensive, person-centered care plan as required by facility policy. The ADM and DON described that care plan completion was a shared responsibility between nurse management and the MDS nurse, with corporate support available in the MDS nurse’s absence, but this process did not result in an updated plan for this resident. The DSS acknowledged she had not been educated initially on completing care plans and did not involve department heads in early care plan meetings. The DON stated that care plans not being updated could affect how aides provided care, but indicated that staff relied on daily nurse communication instead. Facility policies on care plan revisions specified that upon identification of a change in status, the nurse should notify the MDS coordinator, physician, and resident representative, and that the IDT should collaborate on interventions and update the care plan accordingly. Despite clear documentation of significant changes and ongoing refusals in the record, these steps were not followed for Resident #1, resulting in a care plan that remained limited to wound care and did not reflect his current needs and behaviors.

Long-term care team reviewing survey readiness and plan of correction

We Help Long-Term Care Teams Stay Survey-Ready

We process and analyze inspection reports and plan of correction using AI to extract insights and trends so providers can improve care quality and stay ahead of compliance risks.

Discover our solutions:

An unhandled error has occurred. Reload 🗙