Failure to Honor Resident Care Preferences and Prevent Alleged Staff Abuse
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to follow its abuse prevention and rules of conduct policies by assigning a CNA to provide care to residents who had requested not to receive care from that CNA, and by not honoring a resident’s expressed objection at the time of care. Resident 4, who has intact cognition and decision-making capacity and requires assistance with multiple ADLs due to hemiplegia, lack of coordination, and other medical conditions, had previously reported negative interactions with CNA4, including an incident where CNA4 forced a glove into the resident’s hand, applied A&D ointment to the glove, and told the resident to apply it herself. Resident 4 also reported that on a later night shift, CNA4 gave her a towel to clean herself, and when the towel fell to the floor and was picked up, CNA4 told her that next time it would be worse for her and stated, “I am from [NAME]; we do not play that in [NAME],” making the resident feel less than the staff. On the night in question, Resident 4 told LVN2 at the beginning of the 11 p.m.–7 a.m. shift that she did not want CNA4 assigned to her. Despite this, LVN2 completed the staff assignment including CNA4, stating her understanding was that the only resident CNA4 could not be assigned to was Resident 5, who had previously requested not to have CNA4. RN1 confirmed that one staff member had called in sick and that CNA4 was assigned to Resident 4; RN1 acknowledged that Resident 4 did not want CNA4, but he asked Resident 4 to give CNA4 a chance, and both agreed to work together. CNA4 stated that LVN2 knew she could not work with Resident 4 but told her the assignment could not be changed, and that RN2, who usually made assignments and did not assign CNA4 to Resident 4, was on vacation. During incontinent care for Resident 4 on that shift, an altercation occurred between Resident 4 and CNA4. CNA4 reported that Resident 4 requested another CNA, but LVN3 told the resident that due to short staffing she must allow CNA4 to change her. CNA4 stated that Resident 4 dried herself and then threw the dirty washcloth at CNA4, hitting her in the abdomen, and that Resident 4 kicked her in the stomach without provocation. Resident 4, however, told LVN3 and the Social Services Director that after she dried herself and gave the towel to CNA4, CNA4 became upset, accused her of throwing the towel, and then grabbed the same towel and threw it at Resident 4’s face, causing Resident 4 to feel abused and to kick CNA4 in self-defense. LVN3 corroborated that when she entered the room, Resident 4 and CNA4 were arguing, Resident 4 alleged that CNA4 hit her in the face with a towel, and CNA4 denied throwing the towel but stated that Resident 4 had hit her. The Administrator and SSD both acknowledged that Resident 4 reported CNA4 throwing the towel at her face and that there was a prior history between them. The deficiency also involves the facility’s handling of Resident 5’s complaints about CNA4. Resident 5, who has severely impaired cognition and multiple medical conditions including non-Hodgkin lymphoma, osteoarthritis, and polyneuropathy, requires extensive assistance with ADLs and mobility. Resident 5 told CNA5 that he wanted to speak to a supervisor to report abuse, and CNA5 reported this to the charge nurse, supervisor, and Administrator. Resident 5 later stated that CNA4 grabbed his left arm, swung him to the left side, and was rude, and that he did not like how CNA4 turned him and that CNA4 did not communicate what she was going to do. The Administrator confirmed that Resident 5 stated he did not like the care he received from CNA4 and requested that CNA4 no longer be assigned to him, and that CNA4 was barred from caring for Resident 5 based on his preference. Despite this, LVN2 and other staff referenced confusion or incomplete awareness about which residents CNA4 could not be assigned to, and CNA4 herself stated that Resident 5 did not want her to care for him and that she was aware she was not allowed to have Resident 5. These events demonstrate that the facility did not consistently ensure that staff assignments and care practices honored residents’ expressed preferences and protected them from alleged abusive or disrespectful interactions, as required by the facility’s abuse prevention and rules of conduct policies. In addition, multiple staff interviews revealed inconsistent understanding and communication regarding restrictions on CNA4’s assignments. LVN2 believed only Resident 5 could not be assigned to CNA4, while RN1 later learned from CNA4 that she was not supposed to be assigned to Resident 4. LVN3 stated she was unaware that CNA4 could not be assigned to Resident 4 until after the altercation, and also stated that CNA4 was not allowed to have Resident 5. The Social Services Director knew that CNA4 had been removed from caring for Resident 5 but did not know the reason or how Resident 5 developed bruising on his arm and fingers. The Administrator stated that if a resident does not want a staff member to care for them, staff should honor the resident’s request, and expressed concern about CNA4’s code of conduct and its effect on other residents. These facts collectively show that the facility failed to ensure that CNA4 was not assigned to residents who had requested not to receive care from her and failed to prevent situations that escalated into loud arguments and possible physical altercations, contrary to the facility’s abuse prevention and conduct policies.
Penalty
Resources
Below are regulatory guidelines relevant to this citation:
An agency NA forcefully pushed a wheelchair-bound resident through a doorway while the resident was caught in the frame, causing the resident’s foot to strike both shins and resulting in bruising, swelling, pain, and an acute right tibia fracture. The resident had dementia, muscle weakness, and required assistance with mobility and transfers. CCTV and the facility’s investigation showed the NA did not follow safety measures during the transfer.
A resident with dementia and a history of aggression assaulted another resident in a hallway, pushing him from a chair onto the floor and then attempting to strike him with a chair while a third resident was nearby. Staff on constant observation and another observer did not intervene until after the resident had already been pushed down, despite the resident being on enhanced supervision for prior resident-to-resident altercations. Both residents had severe cognitive impairment, and interviews showed the assigned aide did not understand the urgency of the constant observation role.
Delayed reporting of resident-on-resident sexual abuse allowed continued nonconsensual sexual contact. A resident with schizophrenia and moderate cognitive impairment reported that his roommate kissed, touched, and sexually assaulted him without consent, while the roommate admitted to sexual contact. A nurse aide heard the allegation but did not report it right away, and the unit manager later confirmed the delay.
Failure to respond appropriately to an alleged sexual abuse incident: a resident with intact cognition alleged a CNA raped them during incontinence care, but the resident remained in the facility for hours without a documented medical or psychosocial assessment. The CNA said they provided care and applied ointment to the resident’s groin and vaginal area, while video showed the CNA in the room for 36 minutes. The resident was later tearful, fearful, and distrustful of staff, and the DON and admin did not report the allegation to DOH because the resident later described rough handling.
Failure to Maintain Separation Between Residents With Known Aggression: A resident with a known hx of resident-to-resident physical aggression struck another resident in the head with a cane in the dining room, causing a bump, laceration, and bruising. The assaulted resident was non-ambulatory, dependent on staff for transfers, and had dementia, while the aggressive resident had intact cognition, used a cane, and had a care plan for prior physical altercations. Staff placed the residents in the same area with limited supervision, and the aggressive resident stated the other resident deserved it and that he would hit him again.
A resident with stroke-related diagnoses and cognitive intact status was transferred to the hospital for weakness, dizziness, pallor, and low K+. After the resident was stable for return, the DON and administrator went to the hospital and, along with the owner and corporate administrator on speaker phone, were reported by the resident and hospital staff to have yelled, been rude and aggressive, and told the resident the facility would not take the resident back because of behaviors and money owed. The resident stated feeling pressured, outnumbered, and insignificant.
Failure to Protect Resident During Transfer Resulted in Right Tibia Fracture
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to protect a resident from abuse and neglect when an agency nurse aide forcefully handled Resident R86 during wheelchair transport. CCTV review showed the aide pulling the resident as she was caught in a doorway, then attempting to push her through the doorway forcefully. During this event, the resident’s right foot became caught on the doorframe and struck her right shin, then her left shin, before she was pushed through the doorway. Resident R86 was admitted to the facility with diagnoses including hypertension, vascular dementia, muscle weakness, and cognitive communication deficit. The resident’s MDS indicated dependence for multiple mobility-related activities and use of a wheelchair. The care plan noted that the resident could move around the facility without supervision but could not exit without supervision, and later documented bruising to both lower extremities, swelling of the lower right extremity, and a right tibia fracture, with bed rest and Hoyer transfers for all transfers. After the incident, bruising was documented on the resident’s lower extremities, including dark purple/green bruising to the right shin and swelling and pain in the right leg. The resident was unable to tolerate range-of-motion assessment because of pain and agitation. X-rays later showed an acute mildly displaced spiral fracture below the level of the tibial prosthetic stem in the right tibia. The facility’s investigation concluded that the nursing aide neglected to follow facility safety measures.
Failure to Prevent Resident-to-Resident Abuse During Constant Observation
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to protect a resident from abuse when a resident with severe cognitive impairment and a history of aggressive behavior assaulted another resident in the hallway. Resident #1 had diagnoses including unspecified dementia with behavioral disturbance, COPD, muscle weakness, and major depressive disorder, and his MDS coded him with a BIMS score of 3 out of 15. Resident #2 also had severe cognitive impairment, with diagnoses including Alzheimer’s disease with early onset, unspecified dementia without behavioral disturbance, hypertension, and muscle wasting and atrophy, and his MDS also coded a BIMS score of 3 out of 15. During the incident, staff heard a chair flip over and a thud, then found Resident #2 on the floor. A video reviewed by the facility showed Resident #1 standing in front of Resident #2 and pushing him out of a chair and onto the floor. The video also showed Resident #1 picking up a chair and attempting to strike Resident #2 with it while Resident #3 was in close proximity. An OSM sitting nearby observed the incident and did not intervene until after Resident #2 had been pushed to the floor, and the chair was only stopped when the OSM placed a hand on it. The record and interviews showed that Resident #1 had been on constant supervision because of prior aggressive behavior and resident-to-resident altercations. The care plan documented behaviors related to aggression during care and a history of pushing another resident. Staff interviews indicated that the Activities Aide assigned to constant observation was watching the incident but did not intervene quickly, and the aide stated she did not think the situation would become physical and did not know what the constant observation was for. The facility’s policy required staff on constant observation to remain within close proximity to intervene immediately if necessary, but that did not occur during the altercation.
Delayed Reporting of Resident-on-Resident Sexual Abuse
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure that a resident was free from abuse when continued nonconsensual sexual contact occurred between two roommates. Resident 1 had diagnoses including schizophrenia and a BIMS score of 9, indicating moderate cognitive impairment. Resident 2 had a BIMS score of 15, indicating normal cognitive function. According to the resident’s statement, Resident 2 kissed his body and engaged in sexual contact that Resident 1 did not consent to, including manual genital manipulation, kissing and licking of his body, and anal penetration. A nurse aide heard Resident 1 say that Resident 2 liked to kiss his body and later questioned him about whether Resident 2 asked him to do things he did not want to do. Resident 1 responded that Resident 2 “jerks me off” and said it happened often. The nurse aide stated that he or she was unsure what to do and did not feel comfortable talking to anyone except the unit manager. The unit manager’s statement indicated that the nurse aide reported the allegation four days after the initial disclosure. Resident 2 also acknowledged sexual contact, stating that he had kissed Resident 1 all over his body and touched his private area, and said the last contact occurred two nights before the interview. The resident was evaluated in the ED for sexual assault, and the facility later substantiated sexual abuse based on the delayed reporting by the nurse aide. The report identified that the delay in reporting allowed further nonconsensual sexual contact to occur before the allegation was acted upon.
Failure to Respond to Alleged Sexual Abuse and Assess Resident Distress
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to protect a resident from abuse, psychosocial harm, and to respond appropriately after an allegation of staff-to-resident sexual abuse. The resident had diagnoses including obstructive and reflux uropathy and hemiplegia and hemiparesis following cerebral infarction. The resident’s MDS documented a BIMS score of 15, indicating intact cognition, and the care plan included psychosocial well-being interventions such as orienting the resident to the environment, introducing compatible peers, and addressing concerns. During incontinence care, the resident alleged that a CNA raped them. The incident report documented that the resident told an LPN they were raped, and the LPN notified a supervisor. The supervisor assessed the resident and noted redness in the perineal area. A nursing progress note later documented that the resident complained of burning in the sacral and vaginal area after incontinence care and that the DON was aware. Video review showed the CNA in the resident’s room for 36 minutes. The CNA stated they provided incontinence care, applied A and D ointment to the resident’s pubis, groin crease, and vagina, and remained in the room because the resident had multiple bowel movements, although the bowel record did not document multiple bowel movements. The resident remained in the facility for about five and a half hours after the allegation without documentation of a medical or psychosocial assessment. Family members reported the resident was hysterically crying, contacted law enforcement, and requested hospital transfer. The resident later stated they felt something enter their anus and vagina, that they told the CNA to stop, and that they became distressed, tearful, fearful, and distrustful of facility staff. The facility concluded abuse did not occur because of conflicting statements, and the DON and administrator stated the allegation was not reported to the state because the resident later described rough handling. The PCP stated the facility should have called law enforcement and the Department of Health if the allegation was rape, and stated a psychosocial assessment should have been completed. The social worker stated they were aware of the incident after it occurred and did not know what interventions should be put in place.
Failure to Maintain Separation Between Residents With Known History of Aggression
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to protect a resident from resident-to-resident abuse when one resident struck another resident in the head with a cane in the main dining room. The assaulted resident was non-ambulatory, dependent on staff for bed-to-chair transfers, used a Broda wheelchair, and had diagnoses including non-Alzheimer’s dementia and depression. He had a BIMS score of 12 out of 15 and was documented as having potential verbally aggressive behaviors toward other residents related to dementia. After the assault, he was found with a 5 cm bump and a 1 cm laceration to the left forehead, along with facial bruising, and he stated he felt unsafe around the other resident. The resident who struck him had a BIMS score of 13 out of 15, walked with a cane, transferred independently, and had diagnoses including stroke and depression. His care plan identified a history of resident-to-resident physical aggression and directed staff to monitor for agitation, assist him to a quiet area, and maintain separation from the other resident. Despite that history, he independently approached the other resident in the dining room and struck him multiple times with the cane. During the interview, he stated the other resident deserved it and said he would hit him again if he saw him, indicating the assault was intentional and unprovoked. The investigation also documented a prior resident-to-resident altercation between the same two residents in which the aggressive resident had struck the other resident in the face with his cane several times, causing bruising to the eye and cheek. Staff statements showed the two residents were placed in the same dining area with limited supervision, and staff were occupied with other residents when the assault occurred. Several staff members stated they believed the aggressive resident was simply walking back to his room and did not realize he would attack the other resident. The facility’s investigation concluded that previously identified supervision and separation interventions were not consistently maintained, allowing the aggressive resident to reach and assault the other resident again.
Verbal Abuse During Hospital Discharge Discussions
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure a resident was free from verbal abuse by facility staff. The resident had diagnoses including frontal lobe and executive function deficit, stroke, atrial fibrillation, cerebrovascular accident, and hemiparesis, and the record also documented the resident as cognitively intact. The resident had been admitted on 01/17/2025 and was transferred to the emergency department on 6/18/2026 for further evaluation and treatment related to possible infection, weakness, dizziness, pallor, and low potassium. After the hospital transfer, the resident stated that facility leaders told the resident the facility would not allow the resident to return because there were no available beds. The resident reported that the administrator and DON came to the hospital, that the administrator, DON, company owner, and corporate administrator were on speaker phone, and that the administrator and DON were verbally abusive, yelled at the resident, and said the resident had behavioral issues, owed the facility a lot of money, and was a bad person. The resident stated feeling pressured, outnumbered, and extremely insignificant, and said the resident never told staff not to return until being told the facility did not want the resident back. Hospital staff corroborated the resident’s account. The hospital social worker stated the facility refused to accept the resident back, that the DON was rude, unpleasant, and harassed the resident in the emergency department waiting room, and that the administrator and DON were aggressive and yelled at the resident during the discussion about returning to the facility. The hospital case manager stated the administrator and DON told the resident about problems the resident had caused for the facility and said the resident could return if the resident paid on the bill. The administrator later stated that staff had to yell because the resident was hard of hearing and acknowledged that the conversation involved reviewing the letter and bullet points about what led to the situation.
Trusted data from CMS and state health departments
Every citation, penalty and Plan of Correction is sourced from public CMS records (latest release August 26, 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.