F0658

D

Failure to Follow Physician Orders and Track Return of Cardiac Event Monitor

Urbandale, Iowa Survey Completed on 02-11-2026

Penalty

No penalty information released

Summary

The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to follow physician orders and professional standards related to the use, monitoring, and return of a prescribed cardiac event monitor for one resident. The resident was admitted from an inpatient psychiatric facility with diagnoses including atrial fibrillation, hypertension, catatonic disorder, and major depressive disorder, and had intact cognition. The hospital discharge summary documented that cardiology recommended a 2‑week heart monitor at discharge with electrophysiology follow‑up. Despite this, the resident’s care plan revised on 12/29/25 contained no information about the heart monitor, and the facility lacked documentation that the monitor was applied on admission as expected by the clinic.

An order was entered on 1/3/26 by an LPN to monitor the heart monitor for placement every shift and to mail the monitor back on Friday and discontinue the order when done, with an order end date of 1/6/26. However, the Medication Administration Record and Treatment Administration Record for that month contained no documentation that staff monitored the placement of the heart monitor. Progress notes showed the resident arrived on 12/17/25 and that on 12/24/25 a family member requested staff place the monitor, but there were no further notes describing when the monitor was applied, how long it was worn, when it was removed, or who removed it. Multiple CMAs and CNAs interviewed either were unaware of the monitor or could not recall the resident wearing it, while one LPN recalled reapplying the monitor after it came off, and another CNA recalled giving the removed monitor to an LPN who no longer worked at the facility.

The facility also failed to have or follow a process for tracking and returning the monitor to the vendor. Staff interviews revealed confusion about who was responsible for entering and managing the monitor orders, handling the device, and arranging its return. One LPN reported removing the monitor, packing it, and taking the box to the DON’s office 3–4 weeks prior to the survey, after calling the vendor’s 800 number and involving an ADON who later left employment. The DON initially stated she did not believe the resident had a monitor and did not know if one was received, later reporting that she mailed a labeled box by dropping it in a downtown post office mailbox without knowing its contents or required shipping method, and acknowledging there was no specific person or department responsible for outgoing mail or package tracking. The University Hospital Clinic confirmed they had not received the monitor or data, that their system still showed they were waiting for data, and that the monitor should have been applied on the admission date and returned via UPS after the 15‑day recording period. The administrator confirmed there was no mail policy, and the facility could only produce a medication order policy rather than a broader physician’s orders policy, while the resident assessment policy required that assessment information be consistent with progress notes and care plans, which did not occur in this case.

The deficiency is further supported by the family’s report that the monitor was not placed until about a week after admission, that it had been left on the floor before being reapplied, and that the hospital called about the monitor being three weeks overdue. Facility records lacked any process for tracking the disposition of the monitor or ensuring it was returned to the appropriate vendor or provider facility. The clinic nurse confirmed that, because the monitor had not been received, they were unable to download the information to determine if there was any arrhythmia, and that the computer system still showed they were waiting for data. The NP stated she wrote orders and expected them to be processed and followed, and that she informed facility management when orders were not carried out, noting that this happened frequently. Overall, the documented lack of care plan integration, missing monitoring documentation, unclear responsibility for the device, and absence of a mail/return process led to the monitor not being timely returned, delaying data analysis and physician follow‑up for this resident.

The facility’s own documentation and staff statements show that the resident should have had the monitor applied on admission and worn it for the prescribed period, with staff monitoring its placement each shift and returning it promptly per the order. Instead, there were gaps in documentation, inconsistent staff awareness of the monitor, and no clear chain of custody or tracking once the device was removed. The DON and regional leadership acknowledged the absence of a mail policy and the lack of a defined process or tracking system for outgoing packages, including medical devices such as the heart monitor. The University Hospital Clinic’s confirmation that no monitor or data had been received, combined with the facility’s inability to verify when or how the monitor was shipped, demonstrates that the facility did not ensure services were provided in accordance with professional standards and physician orders for this resident.