Pressure ulcer prevention and wound documentation failures
Summary
The facility failed to develop and implement meaningful interventions to prevent pressure ulcers for one resident and failed to complete consistent wound documentation for another resident, resulting in the development of an unstageable pressure ulcer and inconsistent wound records. One resident was admitted with diagnoses including progressive multiple sclerosis, bacteremia, hyperlipidemia, peripheral vascular disease, and quadriplegia, and was reported to have been admitted with a Stage 2 coccyx wound that later resolved and reopened. The wound nurse stated the resident preferred to remain in a chair most of the day and refused staff attempts to reposition her, and the only prevention measure identified was a low air loss mattress. Record review for this resident showed that skin and wound evaluations were not consistently completed and did not consistently include pictures, measurements, staging, further interventions, changes in treatment orders, or wound descriptions. The wound nurse stated the resident did not have weekly wound assessments from admission until the wound closed because she was working the floor and not able to perform her wound nurse duties. The resident also had two separate orders for the same topical treatment, one for breakdown and one for prevention, and the wound nurse stated she was not aware she had entered both orders. The resident’s wound was documented as having resolved and later reopened, with limited documentation available for the interval. A second resident, who was capable of making her own decisions and had diagnoses including hypertension, fractures with routine healing, falls, and chronic kidney disease, developed a facility-acquired unstageable pressure ulcer on the left heel after admission. On admission, the resident’s heels were documented as boggy, and the Braden Scale score was 14, indicating moderate risk for pressure injury. The resident was observed sitting in a wheelchair with a dressing on her left foot and stated that someone was supposed to change it but had not done so yet. Staff reported that she often refused to wear her PRAFO boot and refused heel elevation when in bed, and the wound care nurse stated the boot was not started until after the heel injury had already developed. The care plan for the second resident included general skin impairment interventions, but it did not contain additional pressure prevention interventions beyond the PRAFO boot added after the wound developed. The DON stated that wound prevention interventions should be in the tasks so aides can see them and document completion, but the record review showed no documentation for elevating the heels and no physician order for skin prep. The wound care nurse stated that heel elevation is standard of care and that skin prep should have been in place, while the CNA confirmed the Kardex did not indicate heel elevation for the resident.
Penalty
Resources
Below are regulatory guidelines relevant to this citation:
Trusted data from CMS and state health departments
Every citation, penalty and Plan of Correction is sourced from public CMS records (latest release July 29, 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.