F0580

D

Failure to Notify Guardian and Physician of Resident’s Refusal of Stent Removal Appointment

Springfield, Missouri Survey Completed on 01-27-2026

Penalty

No penalty information released

Summary

The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to notify a resident’s guardian and physician when the resident refused a scheduled medical appointment for removal of a ureteral stent. The facility’s policy on Notification of a Change in Condition required that the attending physician or extender and the resident representative be notified of changes in condition, including significant changes and refusals of prescribed treatments, and that such notifications be documented in the interdisciplinary team notes. Surveyors found that for one resident, staff did not document any notification to the responsible party or physician when the resident refused a scheduled urology appointment for stent removal.

The resident involved had a diagnosis of hydronephrosis with ureteropelvic junction obstruction, a history of kidney disease with acute renal failure, and a cognitive communication deficit. The resident’s MDS showed severely impaired cognitive skills, and the care plan documented impaired cognitive function related to vascular dementia and traumatic brain injury, with instructions to communicate with the responsible party about the resident’s capabilities and needs and to report changes in cognitive function to the physician. The resident had undergone lithotripsy and a stent exchange in late October, and a follow-up appointment was scheduled at a urology clinic for removal of the ureteral stent. The urology clinic’s medical assistant reported that the resident was a no-show for the follow-up appointment and that there was no documentation of the facility calling about the missed appointment; the clinic later sent a letter to the facility and received no response.

On the date of the scheduled follow-up, the CNA/transport staff responsible for appointments stated that the resident refused three times to go to the post-operative appointment for stent removal, and that a nurse also spoke with the resident, who stated they were not going and that “they aren’t touching me.” The CNA reported calling the urology clinic and leaving a message but did not follow up further and made no additional appointments. Review of the resident’s records, including the POS, MAR, TAR, and progress notes, showed no documented order for the scheduled urology appointment and no documentation that the resident’s guardian or physician were notified of the refusal. The resident’s public administrator caseworker, who served as guardian, stated the resident was under guardianship, did not have the ability to make medical decisions, and that he would have wanted to be informed of the refusal and would have directed that the resident be sent to the appointment or to the hospital if necessary.

Multiple staff interviews confirmed that the resident had a guardian and that, per facility expectations, refusals of appointments should be documented and communicated to the guardian and provider. The CMT, LPNs, NP, social services staff, DON, and administrator each indicated that if a resident with a guardian refused an appointment, staff should notify the guardian and provider and document the refusal in the record. The NP and physician both reported they were not aware at the time that the resident had refused the stent removal appointment. The DON stated she found no notes or communication to the physician or NP about the refusal and confirmed that CNA B was responsible for scheduling and transporting residents to appointments, with nurses expected to document refusals and notifications. Despite these expectations and policies, there was no documentation that the resident’s guardian or physician were notified of the refusal of the scheduled urology appointment for stent removal.

Subsequently, several months later, the resident was sent to the emergency department after staff noted the resident “did not act right,” and the on-call provider directed that the resident be sent out. Hospital paperwork documented a history of UTIs and a complicated UTI requiring a stent, with prior lithotripsy and stent exchange. However, the deficiency cited by surveyors centers on the earlier failure to notify the resident’s guardian and physician and to document that notification when the resident, who was under guardianship and had severely impaired cognition, refused the scheduled appointment for removal of the ureteral stent.