Failure to Plan and Document Safe, Destination-Specific Discharges for Two Cognitively Impaired Residents
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to provide and document sufficient preparation and orientation for two cognitively impaired residents prior to transfer/discharge, and to ensure they were discharged to a known, appropriate provider with adequate clinical information. One resident, a 74‑year‑old female with schizoaffective disorder, bipolar type, CHF, and major depressive disorder, had a BIMS score of 8 indicating moderate cognitive impairment. Her care plan, initiated in December and last revised in early January, contained no discharge planning. The other resident, an 82‑year‑old male with dementia, traumatic subdural hemorrhage, and paranoid schizophrenia, had documentation indicating he was severely cognitively impaired (BIMS summary score 99) and rarely/never understood, yet his care plan also reflected no discharge planning. For both residents, the facility’s discharge instruction forms dated the day of transfer were blank, with no information or questions completed. For both residents, the transfer/discharge reports were incomplete and inaccurate, and did not clearly identify the discharge destination or provide key clinical information. The transfer report for the first resident listed a transfer to a nursing home but did not record the name of the facility and omitted behavior, ambulation, bladder, bowel, and feeding information. The transfer report for the second resident listed a transfer to an acute care hospital, omitted a primary contact, and also lacked behavior, ambulation, bladder, bowel, and feeding information. Physician telephone orders for both residents only stated they “may transfer to another facility,” without specifying the receiving provider. Progress notes for the first resident documented that she was discharged by wheelchair van in stable condition with medications and that discharge instructions were reviewed, but there was no documentation of the actual receiving facility. The administrator later documented speaking with an emergency contact about the resident’s “location” and noted that messages had been left for the resident’s RP regarding the transfer, but there was no evidence of a completed discharge plan or clear destination. Interviews and additional record review showed that both residents were in fact discharged into the care of a non‑profit placement agency rather than directly to a known SNF or group home, and that the RPs were not clearly informed of the discharge destination at the time of transfer. The executive director of the placement agency stated she told the facility she would take both residents to a hospital for evaluation and then find placement depending on their needs, and that she informed the facility both residents were going to the hospital. She reported that one resident had a mental health episode while in her care, resulting in police involvement and transfer to a hospital for emergency mental health services, and that the other resident was moved between group homes after an initial one‑day stay. She also stated that both residents were discharged with medications, but one resident left with only the clothes he was wearing and neither resident had personal belongings. The DON and ADM gave conflicting accounts of the type of setting to which the residents were sent, with the ADM describing it as a personal care home and the DON stating she thought it was a nursing home, and both acknowledged lack of detailed knowledge about the agency. The facility’s own discharge planning policy required an IDT‑driven, documented discharge plan that identified a discharge destination meeting the resident’s health and safety needs and involved the resident and RP, but interviews with the DON, ADM, BOM, RPs, and emergency contacts showed there was no documented IDT discharge meeting for either resident, inconsistent or absent notification to RPs on the day of discharge, and no documented evaluation or communication of a specific, appropriate post‑discharge provider at the time the residents left the facility.
Penalty
Resources
Below are regulatory guidelines relevant to this citation:
A resident with quadriplegia, chronic pain, constipation, and anxiety was sent to an ER after reporting chest tightness and other symptoms, choosing transport to a different ER after declining the local ER. While the resident was out, housekeeping was asked to clean the room, but the resident declined multiple times, and the facility then decided not to readmit the resident. The record did not document the specific needs the facility could not meet or the attempts made to meet the resident’s needs before the readmission denial.
Staff incorrectly told resident representatives that transfers to a higher level of care would be treated as AMA discharges and that the residents could not return. One resident with a UTI, IV therapy, refusal of care, and repeated IV removal was sent to the hospital after the family requested transfer, and another resident was transferred for behavioral issues after the family had asked for acute care. In both cases, staff communications to the family and hospital incorrectly labeled the transfers as AMA.
A resident with anoxic brain injury, dementia, delusional disorder, and DM II was discharged without a completed discharge summary documenting medication or treatment instructions. The Administrator could not produce the completed summary, and the guardian reported no meds were sent home; instead, meds were called into a pharmacy in another city hours away.
A resident with CVA sequelae, DM2, epilepsy, wheelchair use, and assistance needs for transfers and ADLs was discharged to a hotel without a fully developed safe discharge plan. The discharge summary lacked details on transfer support, wound care, and transportation arrangements, and the DON confirmed no physician order was obtained and the summary was incomplete. After discharge, the resident fell while transferring from bed to wheelchair and was taken to the hospital.
Failure to provide involuntary discharge appeal notice: A resident with psychosis, schizoaffective disorder, epilepsy, TBI, dementia, and severe cognitive impairment was sent to the ED for psychiatric evaluation after escalating agitation and behavioral disturbances. The facility issued an involuntary transfer/discharge form stating it could not meet the resident’s needs and that the resident was unsafe for others, but there was no resident or RP signature, and the RP later said she was not told she could appeal or that the facility would not take the resident back.
A resident was transferred to the hospital for evaluation after a change in condition and was not re-admitted afterward. An admission staff member said the resident had been on hospice and that hospice would not take the resident back, but could not explain why the resident was no longer considered a facility patient or whether a bed was available. Family members reported the facility never contacted them about re-admission, despite the facility policy stating residents are to be allowed to return after hospitalization regardless of payer source.
Failure to Document Readmission Decision and Resident Needs
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to document the specific needs it could not meet and the attempts made to meet a resident’s needs when it declined to readmit the resident after an acute care hospitalization. Resident #35 was admitted with diagnoses including quadriplegia, abnormal posture, chronic pain, idiopathic constipation, and anxiety. The resident had previously received a 30-day involuntary discharge notice for failure to pay, possession of marijuana, recording staff without consent, and violation of a behavior agreement, but that notice was later rescinded until an appropriate and safe alternative placement could be secured. On the day the resident reported chest tightness, chills/diaphoresis, headache, and abdominal discomfort, the RN assessed the resident, obtained vital signs, and offered transfer to the local ER. The resident refused that option and chose to go to another ER, and the RN transported the resident there with paperwork. The resident was medically stable for transfer. While the resident was out of the facility, housekeeping was asked to clean the resident’s room, but the resident declined multiple times, which was noted as an infection control concern. An administrative decision was then made not to readmit the resident, and the justification for the notice of decision not to readmit was reviewed by the physician. Staff later confirmed the resident required catheter care and bowel care, had intermittent impulsive and verbally aggressive behaviors, and that the facility was able to meet the resident’s care needs.
Improper AMA Classification of Resident Transfers
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure that residents were allowed to return after requests to be sent to an acute care facility were honored, and staff incorrectly treated those transfers as Against Medical Advice (AMA) discharges. This deficiency involved two residents. In both cases, staff told the resident representatives that if the resident was sent out for a higher level of care, it would be considered AMA, even though the transfers were initiated by the facility or requested by the family and later carried out by the facility. For one resident, the record showed the resident was receiving IV fluids and antibiotics for refusal of medications, meals, and treatment for a UTI, and repeatedly pulled out the IV. The resident’s son insisted the resident be sent to the hospital so she could be restrained to keep the IV in place. Staff documented that the physician assistant did not want the resident sent out, and the son was told that sending her out would be AMA. The resident was then sent to the hospital due to worsening edema at the IV site, and the hospital later reported pneumonia, difficulty maintaining blood pressure, intermittent BiPAP use for shortness of breath, oxygen by nasal cannula while awake, and use of restraints for safety because the resident was combative. For the second resident, the family requested transfer to an acute care facility for behavioral issues, but was told the resident could be cared for in the facility and that sending the resident out would be an AMA discharge. Within a few hours, the resident was transferred anyway. The resident representative later reported being told by the hospital social worker that the resident was not allowed to return because of leaving AMA, although the resident had not left AMA. The administrator later confirmed the facility liaison told the acute care facility the resident could not return because the resident left AMA, and the corporate nurse stated the residents were not AMAs and that staff were confused.
Incomplete Discharge Medication Instructions
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure that a resident had access to medications upon discharge and did not complete the discharge summary with medication or treatment instructions. Resident #50 was admitted with diagnoses including anoxic brain injury, dementia, delusional disorder, and type II diabetes mellitus, and the discharge MDS indicated the resident was cognitively impaired. Review of the discharge summary showed only the social service section was completed, with no instructions provided to the resident or the guardian regarding medications and/or treatments. During interview, the Administrator stated the facility could not produce a completed discharge summary with medication or treatment instructions for the resident. The resident’s guardian stated she had been given instructions, but no medications were sent home with the resident and the medications were called into a pharmacy located in another city hours away. The facility policy required discharge information to include a recap of the resident’s stay and reconciliation of pre- and post-discharge medications.
Unsafe discharge planning and incomplete discharge documentation
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure Resident #86 was discharged appropriately. The resident was admitted with diagnoses including unspecified sequelae of cerebral infarction, type 2 diabetes mellitus with hyperglycemia, and epilepsy. The resident had a BIMS score of 14, used a wheelchair, had one-sided range-of-motion limitations in the upper and lower extremities, and required assistance or supervision with multiple activities including eating, hygiene, dressing, toileting, transfers, and walking short distances. The care plan stated the resident was to discharge into the community once an appropriate setting was found, and social service notes documented that there was still no community discharge recommendation and no safe discharge plan due to lack of family support and the resident’s unwillingness to pursue potential sources of income. The resident was discharged to a hotel with medications and appointment instructions, but the discharge summary did not identify services to assist with wheelchair transfers, did not specify the wound care needed, and did not state whether the resident could independently arrange transportation to appointments. The DON confirmed a physician order was not obtained before discharge and that the discharge summary was not fully completed and lacked the resident’s signature. The Administrator stated the facility arranged and paid for the hotel room and transportation, provided a gift card, and gave the resident a check from his account. The SSD later reported that the resident fell while transferring from the bed to the wheelchair at the hotel and was taken by emergency services to the hospital, where he remained as of the last review.
Failure to Provide Involuntary Discharge Appeal Notice
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to provide notification of involuntary discharge that included information about the resident’s right to appeal for one resident reviewed for admission, transfer, and discharge. The facility policy stated that transfer/discharge notices must be provided in a language and manner the resident and representative can understand and must include appeal rights and state contact information. The policy also stated the notice must generally be provided at least 30 days before transfer or discharge, with exceptions for certain urgent circumstances. Resident #29 was admitted with diagnoses including psychosis, schizoaffective disorder, anxiety, epilepsy, traumatic brain injury, and dementia. The record showed a significant change MDS with a Brief Interview for Mental Status score of 00, indicating severe cognitive impairment, along with daily behaviors toward self, dependence on staff for ADLs, and use of antipsychotic, antianxiety, antidepressant, and anticonvulsant medications. On 7/6/2026, the physician ordered the resident sent to the ED for immediate evaluation due to increased agitation and escalating behavioral disturbances that presented an immediate risk of harm to herself and others, and the resident was transferred to the ER for a psychiatric evaluation. The Nursing Home Notice of Involuntary Transfer or Discharge form dated 7/6/2026 listed reasons for discharge or transfer, including that the nursing home could not care for the resident and that the resident made the nursing home unsafe for other people. The form was signed by the Administrator and Medical Director, but there was no signature from the resident or responsible party. The resident’s responsible party later stated she was unaware she could appeal and reported that the facility did not tell her it would not take the resident back. During interview, the Administrator stated the responsible party was contacted, the situation was explained, and the notice was mailed, but the facility was unable to provide a signed copy of the notice showing that appeal information had been provided.
Failure to Re-Admit Resident After Hospital Transfer
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to re-admit a resident after the resident was sent to a hospital for evaluation due to a change in condition. During record review, staff confirmed that the resident was transferred to the hospital and was not re-admitted to the facility afterward. An admission staff member stated the resident had been under hospice care before the transfer and explained that when the hospital called to arrange re-admission, hospice would not take the resident back. The staff member further stated the resident was a hospice patient and not a patient of the facility, but did not provide an explanation for how the resident was no longer considered a facility resident. During interviews, the admission staff member did not explain whether there were available beds or whether the resident was placed on a wait list. The resident’s record showed three family members/emergency contacts, and all three family members stated the facility never contacted them regarding re-admission. The facility’s Bed-Holds and Returns policy stated that residents are to be permitted to return to the facility following hospitalization or therapeutic leave regardless of payer source, and that residents seeking to return within the bed-hold period are allowed to return to their previous room if available.
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.