F0686

G

Failure to Monitor Skin Under CAM Boot Resulting in Unstageable Pressure Injury

Kansas City, Missouri Survey Completed on 02-26-2026

Penalty

No penalty information released

Summary

The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to prevent the development of an unstageable pressure injury under a removable medical device for one resident. The facility’s own skin policy required licensed nurses to evaluate skin integrity on admission, weekly, and with significant changes, and required CNAs to observe skin during ADLs and report changes so that licensed nurses could initiate preventive or treatment interventions. On admission from the hospital, the resident had a left ankle fracture, a soft cast/splint applied by the orthopedic surgeon, and no documented skin lesions other than a Stage I pressure injury on the right great toe that was present on admission. The admission MDS identified the resident as at risk for pressure ulcers, with partial to moderate assistance needs for ADLs and diagnoses including ankle fracture, muscle weakness, anxiety, stroke, and dementia. Early nursing documentation repeatedly stated there were no other skin issues besides the right great toe.

The resident initially had a soft cast that was not to be removed until an orthopedic follow-up. At the follow-up, the orthopedic physician removed the soft cast and placed a CAM boot on the left ankle, with orders that the boot be left on at all times except for hygiene. Despite this order, multiple nursing staff, including an RN and an LPN, reported they never removed or opened the boot to assess the skin or provide hygiene, stating they believed they should not open it if the order was to leave it in place. A CNA reported the resident complained of a lot of pain in the left foot and that she loosened the boot strap once to assist with pain relief but did not remove the boot. The resident stated that after arriving at the facility, the CAM boot was never removed until the return visit to the physician, that a sock under the boot was left in place for more than two weeks, and that facility staff told the resident they could not take the boot off. The resident reported significant ankle pain but could not distinguish whether it was from the skin or the surgery.

When the resident eventually returned to the orthopedic physician after more than three weeks instead of the ordered two-week follow-up, the physician found a medial foot/ankle ulceration measuring approximately 3–6 cm with a fibrous base and mildly erythematous edges. The orthopedic surgeon and wound clinic RN attributed the open wound to the CAM boot not being removed for three weeks, and the wound clinic RN documented a large unstageable wound with eschar on the left ankle/foot measuring 3.3 cm by 3.1 cm by 0.1 cm. The DON acknowledged that, with an order to remove the boot for hygiene, staff should have opened the boot and checked the skin every shift and admitted that the facility did not check the resident’s skin and that this was wrong. The orthopedic surgeon stated it was unacceptable that the boot was not removed and the skin was not checked for three weeks. Subsequent operative documentation showed the resident developed a full-thickness ulcer to the fat layer with large eschar and partial tendon exposure, associated with a hardware infection in the left ankle that required irrigation, debridement, hardware removal, and preparation of the wound bed for a skin graft.

The sequence of events shows that, despite the resident’s identified risk for pressure ulcers, the presence of a removable CAM boot, and ongoing complaints of pain, facility staff did not perform periodic skin checks under the device for more than 20 days. Nursing notes during this period continued to document no skin issues other than the right great toe, and staff interviews confirmed that the boot was not removed for skin assessment or hygiene. The NP and Unit Manager both stated they would have expected staff to open the boot and check the skin and pulses, and the Unit Manager stated that an order to check the skin under the boot was not necessary. The failure to follow the facility’s skin monitoring policy and to assess the skin under the CAM boot as ordered for hygiene led to the development of an unstageable pressure injury and subsequent complications documented in the medical record and operative reports.