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
F0628
D

Noncompliant Discharge Notice Lacking Required Destination and Ombudsman Information

Zapata, Texas Survey Completed on 01-30-2026

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 facility failed to issue a compliant 30‑day discharge notice to a cognitively intact male resident with multiple diagnoses including type 2 diabetes, major depressive disorder, heart disease, end‑stage renal disease, and dependence on renal dialysis. Record review showed the undated 30‑day discharge notice listed the reason for discharge as the facility’s inability to provide appropriate care for his specific needs and included an effective discharge date and a brief statement about appeal rights directing the resident to contact the ADM. However, the notice did not specify the location to which the resident would be discharged and did not include the name, mailing and email address, or telephone number of the State Long‑Term Care Ombudsman. The facility’s own Transfer and Discharge Notice policy required that the written notice include the location of transfer or discharge and the Ombudsman’s contact information. Interviews confirmed these omissions and the staff’s lack of understanding of the required notice content. The Ombudsman reported receiving the 30‑day discharge notice by email and stated that the notice given to the resident did not contain Ombudsman information, even though regulations require it so residents can appeal. The resident reported receiving the 30‑day notice from the ADM and DON, understood the stated reason for discharge, disagreed with it, and had contacted the Ombudsman to appeal; he was not injured or in distress. The ADM acknowledged he did not know the notice should indicate the discharge location, was unsure whether the Ombudsman’s information was included, and stated he followed a template provided by the DON. The DON stated she was unsure what information the notice was supposed to contain and had obtained a template via a web search, rather than from facility policy, leading to a notice that did not meet the facility’s policy requirements.

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 🗙