F0610

D

Failure to Timely and Thoroughly Investigate Resident-to-Resident Abuse Allegation

Harrisburg, Illinois Survey Completed on 02-10-2026

Penalty

No penalty information released

Summary

The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to timely initiate and complete a thorough investigation of an alleged resident‑to‑resident abuse incident. One resident (R1), who was cognitively intact with a BIMS score of 15 and had diagnoses including COPD, panlobular emphysema, and dysphasia, alleged that another resident (R2), who was severely cognitively impaired with a BIMS score of 6 and had diagnoses including anxiety disorder, depression, and dementia, rammed his wheelchair into R1’s wheelchair and punched R1 in the back while they were in the dining room. R1 reported that a male resident yelled at R2 to stop, after which R2 rolled away, and that a nurse came and assisted R2 back to his room. R1 believed the facility was aware of the incident because his family member/POA (V9) went to get a nurse immediately after the event.

V9 stated that on the date of the incident she witnessed R2 roll up behind R1 in the dining room, hit R1’s wheelchair, punch R1 in the back, yell at him, and pull his blanket, and that another resident verbally intervened. V9 reported that she went to get an LPN (V3), who then came to the dining room and assisted R2 away from R1. V9 said V3 instructed her to report the incident directly to the Administrator (V1), and that she sent an email to V1 that same evening describing that R1 had been pushed, slapped/hit, yelled at, and had his blanket yanked by R2. V9 further reported that she had been told by multiple staff that R2 was combative, aggressive, and dangerous, and that she had been actively trying to keep R1 away from R2. V9 later wrote a formal letter stating that the assault had been unreported and mishandled, and that to her knowledge no formal report had been filed and no meaningful safeguards had been implemented.

Staff accounts and facility documentation showed that the facility did not promptly or thoroughly investigate the allegation as required by its abuse policy. V3 acknowledged being approached by V9 on the date of the incident but stated that V9 only reported verbal abuse and that she did not tell V9 to report to V1; V3 also confirmed that V1 later questioned her about when V9 had reported the incident. CNAs reported that R2 had a history of conflicts and physical aggression toward residents, including grabbing R1’s wheelchair and raising his fist toward others, but there was no evidence these observations were incorporated into a timely investigation of the specific allegation involving R1. The Administrator (V1) stated she did not become aware of the 12/16 incident until weeks later and did not start an investigation at that time because she believed the incident was unfounded. V1 reported that she only initiated an investigation on 2/3 after receiving a letter to corporate, and she submitted an initial and final report to the state on the same day, documenting that residents and staff were interviewed with no concerns identified. However, V1 admitted she had not yet interviewed all staff working at the time of the incident or the residents involved, had not spoken to R1, and could not explain how she could conclude there were no concerns without these interviews. This sequence of events demonstrates the facility’s failure to follow its own abuse prevention and reporting policy, which required immediate internal reporting, prompt initiation of an investigation, interviews of the reporter, involved residents, and relevant staff, and a complete written report within five working days of the allegation.

The facility’s written Abuse Prevention and Reporting policy required that upon learning of a report of potential abuse, the Administrator or designee initiate an incident investigation, document all incidents, and ensure that any allegation involving abuse results in an investigation. The policy specified that the investigator must at minimum attempt to interview the person who reported the incident, anyone likely to have direct knowledge, and the resident if interviewable, and that a complete written report of the conclusion of the investigation be sent to the Department of Public Health within five working days. In this case, the Administrator acknowledged not initiating an investigation when first informed of the allegation weeks after the incident, and when an investigation was eventually started, it was incomplete at the time the final report was submitted. The final report to the state characterized the daughter’s report as being made weeks after the incident, stated that at the time of the incident she did not mention any hitting, and concluded that residents and staff interviewed had no concerns, despite the Administrator’s admission that she had not interviewed all relevant parties, including R1. These actions and omissions constitute the failure to timely initiate and complete a thorough investigation of an alleged resident‑to‑resident abuse incident as required by facility policy and regulatory expectations.