Failure to Update Behavior Care Plan After Resident-to-Resident Altercation
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to develop and implement a comprehensive, person-centered care plan with measurable objectives and timeframes addressing a resident’s behavior toward other residents after a documented incident of aggression. One male resident with diagnoses including hemiplegia and hemiparesis following stroke, intermittent explosive disorder, personality change due to a physiological condition, and anxiety disorder had a significant change MDS indicating he was cognitively intact (BIMS-15) and usually able to make himself understood and understand others, with no aggressive behaviors noted on that assessment. His existing care plan, dated several months prior, identified him as aggressive and argumentative with staff, with interventions such as administering medications as ordered, intervening to protect the rights and safety of others, and referral to counseling services. However, this care plan was not reviewed or updated to address his behavior toward other residents after a specific resident-to-resident incident. On a date in November, an incident report completed by an LVN documented that this resident, while in the dining room, hit another male resident with a fly swatter. When questioned, the resident stated that the other resident had called him his “kid brother” and that he wanted to aggravate him, so he hit him with the fly swatter. The facility’s investigation confirmed that the resident hit the other resident with a fly swatter, that both residents were separated and assessed, and that there were no injuries. The second resident, who had diagnoses including Parkinson’s disease, anxiety, and schizoaffective disorder–bipolar type, had a significant change MDS showing moderate cognitive impairment (BIMS-9), an acute change in mental status with fluctuating inattention and disorganized thinking, and no aggressive behaviors noted. His care plan identified a behavior problem related to bipolar disorder with weekly counseling services, but there is no indication in the report that his care plan was revised in response to the altercation. Interviews further clarified the circumstances and the lack of care plan revision. The second resident reported that the first resident hit him with a fly swatter to bother him after he referred to the first resident as his little brother, that he was not hurt, and that he was not afraid and remained friends with him. The first resident stated he hit the other resident to irritate him and not to cause harm. A third resident reported witnessing the incident, stating that the first resident was trying to irritate the second resident, who became upset and moved to another table, and that he had not previously seen the first resident hit this or any other resident. The Administrator and DON acknowledged there was no prior history of aggression by the first resident toward other residents and stated that the care plan was supposed to be reviewed and updated after the incident and upon readmission from a behavioral hospital, but this was not completed or saved in the electronic record. The facility’s own policy on resident-to-resident altercations required making necessary changes in care plan approaches for involved residents and documenting interventions and their effectiveness, which was not carried out in this case.
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.