Failure to Provide Required Permanency Planning Services for a Resident Under 22
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to provide medically related social services, specifically permanency planning services, to a resident under the age of 22 as required by Texas regulations. The resident was a young adult with a history of diffuse traumatic brain injury with loss of consciousness, ventilator dependence via tracheostomy, severe mobility limitations, GERD, generalized anxiety disorder, and depression. Her MDS reflected severe cognitive impairment, no speech, dependence on staff for all ADLs with two-person assist, risk for dehydration and shortness of breath, need for parenteral/IV feeding and feeding tube, risk for pressure ulcers, and multiple special treatments including oxygen, suctioning, tracheostomy care, invasive mechanical ventilation, and IV access. The care plan and MD orders documented extensive medical and nursing needs, including anticoagulant therapy, seizure disorder, bowel incontinence, enhanced barrier precautions, feeding tube management, and tracheostomy care. Despite the resident’s age and the Texas requirement that permanency planning be completed every six months for individuals under 22 residing in nursing facilities, the facility did not ensure that permanency planning was initiated or supported. The Permanency Planning Contractor (PPC) sent emails to the facility social worker (SW) on multiple dates with a provider letter explaining permanency planning requirements, a blank Form 2437 (Notification of Nursing Facility Admission of Person Under Age 22), and information that permanency planning is mandated under Texas Administrative Code. The PPC reported requesting records on several occasions and informing the SW that records were required within three days. The PPC also stated that a negative PASRR result would not prevent permanency planning services. However, the facility’s Clinical Director (CD) stated that permanency plans were only completed for PASRR-positive residents under age 22 and that, because the resident’s PASRR evaluation was negative, no further action was taken. The SW reported being unfamiliar with the term “permanency planning” and stated that when contacted by the PPC for the resident’s care files and related documents, she questioned the legitimacy of the request, was concerned about HIPAA and confidentiality, and did not feel comfortable providing information. She indicated that the PPC could not provide sufficient information about the resident’s relation and purpose of the request, and she did not document the contact, did not forward the emails to the DON or administrator, and did not contact HHSC, the PPC, or a PPC superior to verify the request. The SW initially denied receiving emails from the PPC, and it was only after the surveyor requested supporting documentation that the SW produced the email correspondence. Interviews also revealed that the DON and CD could not provide a facility policy on permanency planning, and both reported that no such policy existed. As a result of these actions and inactions—misunderstanding of PASRR’s role, failure to recognize and act on permanency planning requirements for a resident under 22, failure to respond to PPC requests, and lack of policy guidance—the facility did not provide the required medically related social services related to permanency planning for this resident. The resident remained non-interviewable during survey observations due to her traumatic brain injury, but she was observed awake in bed, ventilator-dependent, with clean equipment and environment, and able to visually track the surveyor. The record review confirmed that the resident had been in the facility for several months, and the SW’s own note documented initial contact from an individual stating the resident had been flagged by the state for permanency placement assistance due to age. The SW’s note also reflected her discomfort with the call, her belief that the caller’s identification as a state representative was questionable, and her decision not to proceed without consulting the family or administration, yet she did not follow through with leadership or regulatory contacts. The combination of the facility’s lack of a permanency planning policy, the SW’s lack of knowledge and failure to act on multiple PPC contacts, and the CD’s reliance on PASRR status instead of permanency planning regulations led directly to the failure to assist this under-22 resident in obtaining permanency planning resources and services as required. Additionally, the DON reported that she had completed the initial PASRR at admission, determined the resident was positive, and submitted the 2401 form to HHSC, after which a QIDP evaluation concluded the resident did not qualify for PASRR services. The DON stated that the family was informed of these PASRR results and agreed to services for the resident, and that the SW was assigned to contact the provider about the records request. However, the SW did not complete this assignment and did not engage with the PPC to move forward with permanency planning. The surveyor’s review of the SW’s personnel file showed that she had been hired earlier in the year at a sister facility and transferred to the current facility shortly before the PPC contacts, and there was no evidence that she had prior training on permanency planning before the in-service that occurred after the PPC’s initial outreach. The absence of a facility policy, combined with the SW’s inaction and the CD’s misunderstanding of regulatory triggers, resulted in the resident not receiving the medically related social services necessary to support permanency planning.
Penalty
Resources
Below are regulatory guidelines relevant to this citation:
A resident with multiple diagnoses was affected when the facility failed to provide requested Medicaid LOC information needed to determine continuing eligibility and payor source status. KLOCS sent a lack-of-information notice, but no additional information was submitted, the request was denied, and the resident later received a discharge notice based on the denial. Interviews showed the CL handled KLOCS without formal training, the SSD had no knowledge of why the information was not forwarded, and the Administrator was unaware the denial resulted from the facility’s failure to respond.
Failure to provide ongoing psychosocial monitoring after an abuse allegation: A resident with depression and intact cognition reported that a male CNA touched her inappropriately, but after an IDT note stating the SSD would continue to follow up and provide emotional support, there was no further documentation that social services revisited the resident. The ISSD and DON stated that residents should be monitored for psychosocial distress for at least 72 hours after an abuse allegation.
A facility failed to provide medically related social services, lacked a licensed social worker, and did not complete grievance and transfer-related tasks for multiple residents. One resident with terminal cancer and another resident needing discharge to another facility did not have documented referral/transfer follow-through, discharge paperwork was incomplete, and post-discharge meds were not arranged in the record. A third resident’s grievance had no documented actions taken or written response, and the SD stated they were not a licensed SW and had limited training.
A resident with delusional disorder and moderately impaired cognition repeatedly stated a desire to leave the facility, attempted to exit multiple times, and had no active discharge plan after the original plan to return home fell through. Staff documented concerns about delusions, possible financial exploitation, and increasing confusion, but the resident was not evaluated for decision-making capacity and the facility lacked documentation of ongoing discharge planning or timely APS communication.
A resident with CHF, CAD, and a CVA had a family-requested transfer to another facility, and Social Services discussed the transfer process and faxed PRI-related documents to a prospective facility. However, the record lacked documentation of follow-up on the transfer request, the status of placement efforts, or communication of updates to the family member after the resident’s family said the resident did not feel safe in the facility.
Failure to Notify RP of Canceled Podiatry Appointment: A resident with COPD, DM, and dementia had an initial podiatry visit canceled because transportation was not arranged, but the SSC did not notify the RP or document the cancellation in social services notes. The RP later learned of the missed appointment after contacting the facility, and the resident was documented as having severely impaired cognition and no capacity to make decisions.
Failure to Provide Medicaid Eligibility Information
Penalty
Summary
Medically related social services were not provided to help a resident achieve the highest possible quality of life when the facility failed to assist with legal and/or financial matters related to Medicaid eligibility. The resident was admitted with diagnoses including muscle wasting and atrophy, chronic hepatitis C, and unspecified signs and symptoms involving the nervous system. Facility records showed that a Medicaid level of care reassessment was due, and the Kentucky Level of Care System sent a lack-of-information notification requesting additional information needed to determine the resident’s continuing eligibility and payor source status. No additional information was submitted on the resident’s behalf, and the request was denied for lack of information under Kentucky Administrative Regulations. As a result of that denial, the resident was determined not to meet the level of care needed, and the facility later issued a discharge notice stating the resident’s health had improved sufficiently to no longer need the facility’s services. Interviews showed the Clinical Liaison handled KLOCS submissions without formal training, did not recall receiving the request for additional information, and did not know why the facility never responded. The former Social Services Director stated she did not work with KLOCS and had no knowledge of why the requested information was not forwarded to Medicaid, and the Administrator stated she was unaware the denial occurred because the facility failed to submit the requested information.
Failure to Provide Ongoing Psychosocial Monitoring After Abuse Allegation
Penalty
Summary
Medically-related social services were not provided to ensure ongoing psychosocial monitoring for a resident after she reported a sexual abuse allegation. The resident was admitted with diagnoses that included depression, and her MDS showed a BIMS score of 15, indicating she was cognitively intact. On 6/24/26, the resident told nursing staff that she had been touched inappropriately by a male CNA, although she did not provide additional details about the allegation. The record showed an IDT note on 6/25/26 documenting that the previous SSD would continue to follow up with the resident to provide emotional support, but no further documentation was found showing that the SSD revisited the resident after that note. During interview, the ISSD stated that after a resident reports an allegation of abuse, the resident is monitored by social services for psychosocial distress for at least 72 hours, and the DON stated that following an allegation of abuse, a resident should have psychosocial monitoring for at least three days. The facility policy stated that social services are provided to help each resident attain or maintain the highest practicable physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being.
Failure to provide social services, transfer assistance, and grievance follow-up
Penalty
Summary
Medically related social services were not provided to help residents achieve the highest practical physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being. The facility also did not have a qualified licensed social worker on staff since 06/22/26, and the Administrator stated there was no policy related to social services. The facility’s grievance policy stated that the grievance official was responsible for overseeing grievances, investigating them, and issuing written decisions to residents, but these steps were not consistently completed. Resident #9 had diagnoses including malignant neoplasm of the esophagus with secondary malignant neoplasms of the lung and pharynx. The resident’s care plan stated that the resident and/or guardian wanted to explore other care options or living arrangements and that staff would provide information and referral to a facility of the resident’s choice. The resident and family wanted the resident closer to family, but the resident reported not hearing back from the facility about transfer arrangements or whether referrals had been sent. The family member stated they had requested referrals for about a year, had left messages for the prior social worker without response, and had spoken with the Assistant Administrator about referrals without follow-up. A CMT stated the facility did not have a current social worker and did not know who would handle such issues. Resident #11 had an order for social services as needed and was discharged to another facility, but the discharge documentation did not include key discharge details. The progress note only stated discharge to another facility and did not include mode of transfer, medications sent, or discharge instructions. The discharge recapitulation was incomplete, including the reason for discharge, discharge destination details, medication reconciliation, and whether post-discharge medications were discussed or provided. The resident’s guardian stated the resident was discharged without several medications and that nothing had been prepared in advance, and also reported that referrals to other facilities had repeatedly not been sent. Resident #10’s grievance form documented complaints about lack of communication with staff, the need for an open-door policy, no Boost supplement, and a request for a referral packet to be sent to a facility. The section for actions taken to resolve the grievance was left blank, and staff did not include a written response or any documented resolution on the grievance form. The resident stated the facility did not follow up on grievances and did not provide a copy of the grievance with any follow-up or resolution. The Social Service Designee stated they were not a licensed social worker, had not received much training from the previous social worker, and was only doing the best they could.
Failure to Ensure Safe Discharge Planning and Capacity Assessment
Penalty
Summary
Medically-related social services were not provided to help one resident achieve the highest practicable well-being because the facility did not ensure safe discharge planning or assess the resident’s decision-making capacity. The resident was admitted with a diagnosis of delusional disorder and had an admission MDS BIMS score of 12, indicating moderately impaired cognition. The resident was responsible for their own healthcare and financial decisions, but the record showed the resident wanted to return home, was told by family they were not welcome back, and had no identified place to go. The care plan noted the resident’s wishes, but the admission MDS also indicated there was no active discharge plan and that the resident declined county referral for discharge assistance. The resident repeatedly stated a desire to leave the facility and made multiple attempts to do so, including leaving with staff following one attempt and trying to exit on several other occasions. Staff interviews confirmed the resident frequently expressed wanting to leave and often attempted to leave, including through exit doors. The social services director stated the resident’s original discharge plan was to live with a family member, but that plan was no longer available, and there was no active discharge plan or referrals submitted regarding discharge planning. The facility also did not document ongoing discharge planning despite the resident’s repeated statements and attempts to leave. The record also showed concerns about delusions, financial exploitation, and possible incapacity. The resident believed a famous actor and country singer was their significant other, shared personal and financial information with another person, and staff were concerned about possible misappropriation of funds. The physician and staff discussed that the resident was increasingly delusional and altered, and the physician suspected possible underlying dementia and recommended psychiatric evaluation. The social services director contacted APS and the ombudsman about financial abuse, competency, and safe discharge options, but the facility could not provide documentation of communication with APS before the resident returned from the hospital, and the social services director confirmed the resident had not been evaluated for decision-making capacity.
Failure to Document Follow-Up on Resident Transfer Request
Penalty
Summary
Medically related social services were not fully provided to support Resident #131’s transfer request and communication with the receiving facility. Resident #131 had diagnoses including congestive heart failure, coronary artery disease, and cerebrovascular accident, and the quarterly MDS documented severely impaired memory, supervision needed for transfers from chair to bed, and family representative participation in assessment and goal setting. The resident was observed alert, awake, seated in a wheelchair, and confused, able to respond to name and engage in minimal conversation. The social services record documented that the resident’s representative requested transfer to another facility and was informed of the transfer process. The representative stated they would provide names of facilities to explore, and later the resident’s family requested that the PRI and additional required documentation be faxed to a nursing facility for review. A nursing progress note also documented that the resident’s family member reported the resident did not feel safe in the facility and requested transfer, with Social Services to be contacted for follow-up. However, the medical record contained no further documentation of follow-up on the transfer request, the status of the transfer to other facilities, or how updates were communicated to the resident’s family member.
Failure to Notify RP of Canceled Podiatry Appointment
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to inform Resident 30’s responsible party when the resident’s initial podiatry appointment was canceled because transportation was not available. Resident 30 was admitted and later readmitted to the facility and had diagnoses including COPD, DM, and dementia. The history and physical dated 9/29/2025 stated the resident did not have the capacity to understand and make decisions, and the MDS dated 5/3/2026 indicated cognition was severely impaired and that the resident required supervision or touching assistance for all attempted mobility activities in and out of bed. During a telephone interview, the responsible party stated the Social Services Coordinator did not notify her about the missed podiatry appointment or provide updates, and that she learned about the transportation issue only after contacting the facility about a week later. Social services notes from 5/18/2026 to 6/18/2026 did not include an entry showing the appointment was canceled or that the responsible party was informed because transportation was unavailable. The Social Services Director stated it was important to document appointments and follow-up measures in social services progress notes, and the facility policy required social services staff to schedule, coordinate, and document medical appointments and to record missed or delayed appointments with the reason and care coordination details involving the attending physician and responsible party.
Trusted data from CMS and state health departments
Every citation, penalty and Plan of Correction is sourced from public CMS records (latest release October 8, 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.