F0580

D

Failure to Immediately Notify Physician of STAT X‑Ray Showing Fracture and Osteomyelitis

Modesto, California Survey Completed on 02-17-2026

Penalty

No penalty information released

Summary

The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to immediately notify a resident’s physician of significant STAT x‑ray results showing a fracture and osteomyelitis. The resident had multiple serious diagnoses, including hemiplegia/hemiparesis after stroke, a stage 4 pressure ulcer of the left ankle, type 2 diabetes mellitus, peripheral vascular disease, and anemia. On the morning in question, a CNA alerted a nurse to check the resident’s left foot; the nurse and supervisor observed the left foot twisted downward from the ankle, with purple, cold skin and an existing stage 4 wound. A physician gave a verbal order for a STAT x‑ray of the left ankle, foot, and knee, which was entered into the record at 12:34 PM.

The STAT x‑ray was completed and the radiology report, indicating a fracture and osteomyelitis of the distal left lower leg, was transmitted to the facility at 10:20 PM that same day. The facility’s process was that STAT x‑ray results would be uploaded into the electronic health record and faxed to a designated nurse’s station. The nurse on duty (LN 3) stated that during shift handoff, the pending x‑ray was discussed and that she checked the electronic record and fax machine around 8 PM but did not see results at that time. LN 3 did not check again for the remainder of the shift and did not call the x‑ray company to verify when results would be available. At approximately 1 AM, another nurse brought the faxed x‑ray report to LN 3, confirming the abnormal findings.

Upon receiving the abnormal STAT x‑ray results, LN 3 notified the resident’s physician by text message at 1:40 AM and sent a picture of the report but did not make any additional attempts to contact the physician for the rest of the shift. LN 3 acknowledged that facility procedure required immediate reporting of abnormal x‑ray results and that notification several hours after the results were available did not meet the expectation of “immediate.” LN 3 also confirmed that no follow‑up phone call was made when the physician did not respond to the text message, and there was no direct confirmation that the physician had received the results. The DON stated that the nurse who received the STAT x‑ray results should have immediately notified the physician and, if there was no response within 30 minutes, should have called again, and that the lack of timely, direct voice communication delayed the order to transfer the resident to the hospital by approximately twelve hours, placing the resident at risk for pain and complications.

Facility policies titled “Guidelines for Notifying Physician of Clinical Problems,” “General Guidelines for Reporting Abnormal Test Results to Physicians,” and “Lab and Diagnostic Test Results – Clinical Protocol” required immediate notification of physicians for sudden or marked changes in condition and for new or unsuspected x‑ray findings such as fractures, with direct voice communication identified as the preferred method for results requiring immediate notification. These policies specified that immediate notification meant contacting the physician as soon as possible, especially for STAT results and problematic abnormal findings. The events described show that the facility did not follow its own policies for immediate physician notification of a STAT x‑ray result revealing a fracture and osteomyelitis, resulting in delayed communication of critical diagnostic information.