Unnecessary Wanderguard Use and Movement Restrictions on Cognitively Intact Resident
Summary
The deficiency involves the use of a Wanderguard (elopement-prevention device) on a cognitively intact resident without adequate assessment, documentation, or evidence of unsafe wandering or elopement behaviors. Facility policies on elopement and wandering management state that elopement applies to residents with impaired cognition and/or poor safety awareness, and that residents will be assessed for elopement risk upon admission and at set intervals. The Wanderguard policy specifies that restraining an ambulatory resident simply to prevent wandering is unacceptable and that residents should feel allowed their freedom while under close observation. Despite these policies, the resident was placed on a Wanderguard, and the Medical Safety Device Assessment used for Wanderguard placement was documented as incomplete. The resident’s records showed an admission date with diagnoses including Type 1 diabetes mellitus, anxiety disorder, major depressive disorder, and an initial diagnosis of dementia that was later questioned. A speech therapy discharge summary documented a MOCA score of 28/30, indicating no severe cognitive impairment, and prior cognitive functioning without need for supervision. A neuropsychological evaluation reported that dementia screening was negative, and the facility’s medical director agreed with a diagnosis of neurocognitive disorder but disagreed with the dementia diagnosis. The admission MDS documented a BIMS score of 15, indicating intact cognition, and no wandering behaviors exhibited. The resident’s care plan, however, labeled the resident as an elopement risk/wanderer related to a history of attempts to leave the facility unattended, called for monitoring location every 15 minutes, and documented use of a security bracelet related to poor safety awareness and forgetfulness associated with Type 1 diabetes, but did not include documented evidence of unsafe wandering or elopement attempts. The resident repeatedly reported psychosocial distress related to the Wanderguard and movement restrictions. In complaint intake forms, the resident stated that the Wanderguard prevented leaving the unit to attend activities elsewhere on campus, caused feelings of isolation among residents with cognitive deficits, and contributed to depression and negative effects on mental health. The resident reported feeling like a “chained elephant in a cage” and expressed a desire for more rights and the ability to do enjoyable activities, including worship and socializing in the independent living area where the resident had previously lived. Staff interviews confirmed the resident’s emotional distress: the SSD and NP reported the resident cried, shook, and became upset about loss of independence and Wanderguard use, and an LPN stated the resident felt she was losing independence due to the device. Facility staff provided varying accounts regarding the rationale for the Wanderguard. The DON stated the resident was assessed as a moderate elopement risk and that the Wanderguard was placed after this assessment, citing concerns about diabetic management, missed insulin doses, and inconsistent blood sugar monitoring, including an episode of blood sugar at 400 when the resident left without appropriate checks. The MD stated the Wanderguard was applied after two less restrictive safety measures failed, describing periods of clarity followed by behavioral escalation, removal of the device, attempts to leave to see the resident’s husband and dog, and aggressive behaviors, and characterized some unsupervised departures as elopement. However, the SSD stated she was unaware of any elopement attempts and confirmed the resident’s BIMS score of 15 with no cognitive concerns. The spouse reported that the resident was capable of independent activities in the area, believed the resident could leave the main building if staff were informed, and stated that after the resident left to attend to her dog and returned, the Wanderguard was placed. Despite the resident’s intact cognition and incomplete documentation of elopement risk and less restrictive interventions, the Wanderguard and associated movement restrictions remained in place, limiting the resident’s freedom of movement and contributing to psychosocial distress.
Penalty
Resources
Below are regulatory guidelines relevant to this citation:
Body pillows were used as restraints for three residents with significant cognitive and mobility impairments. Staff placed body pillows under sheets or tightly against the bed to keep residents in bed or prevent them from removing the pillows, and an NA stated this was done so a resident would not try to get out of or roll out of bed. The LPN and DON stated that placing body pillows this way made them a restraint.
Failure to assess whether a mattress bolster was a restraint for a resident with dementia, anemia, and HTN. The resident’s care plan included bolsters to bed for fall risk, and staff observed the resident in bed with bilateral raised mattress edges, but the record had no assessments or ongoing evaluations of bolster use. A UM confirmed the facility did not assess the resident’s functional status to determine whether the bolster was a restraint.
Improper Use of Roll Bolster as a Physical Restraint: A resident with dementia and severe cognitive impairment was observed with a Roll Bolster secured along the side of the bed, limiting the ability to sit up, stand, or get out of bed independently. Staff stated it was being used to prevent the resident from rolling over and exiting the bed, but there was no physician order, no documented use of alternative measures, no informed consent from the responsible party, and no care plan for the device. The facility policy identified such a device as a physical restraint when it restricts movement.
A resident with epilepsy and profound intellectual disabilities remained in a padded wheelchair with a lap belt and helmet, but staff did not release the belt during supervised care and meals. The DON stated the belt should be released when supervised and at least every two hours, yet the restraint reduction assessment was copied from an older date and staff said they had not tried to reduce the restraint because the resident’s epilepsy had not changed.
Failure to Complete Quarterly Restraint Reassessments: A resident with quadriplegia, muscle weakness, and impaired mobility used a wheelchair seat belt and lap tray, and observations showed both devices in place while the resident was in a power wheelchair. Although the care plan addressed the seat belt and noted the resident could independently lock and release it, the EMR showed the last restraint quarterly assessment was completed months earlier, with no later reassessment documented. RN and DON interviews confirmed the quarterly reassessment was expected but had not been completed.
A resident with intact cognition and behavioral symptoms including paranoia, hallucinations, and attempts to leave the building became highly agitated, pulled fire alarms, entered other residents’ rooms, and handled a fire extinguisher. Video and staff statements showed an LPN/CNA physically held the resident by the wrist, waist, and back while escorting the resident to the room, despite no order authorizing restraint and the resident not consenting to the contact.
Body pillows used as restraints
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure body pillows used as positioning devices were not implemented as physical restraints for 3 of 3 residents reviewed for restraints. R5 had diagnoses including a right femur fracture, osteoarthritis, dementia, osteoporosis, and a history of falling. After a witnessed fall, staff placed a body pillow under the sheets to prevent further self-ambulation, and the fall care plan was revised to include the body pillow under the sheets. R5 later had another incident in which she was found on the floor at the foot of the bed after family had placed her in bed without staff assistance. R11 had diagnoses of hemiplegia and hemiparesis affecting the left side and dementia. Her fall review identified her as at risk for falls due to scheduled narcotics, psychotropics, bowel and bladder incontinence, and being alert but unaware of mobility limitations. Her care plan included a body pillow for repositioning when in bed. During observation, staff placed a body pillow between R11 and the side of the bed underneath the sheet and tucked it securely into place, and the NA stated the body pillow was used to keep R11 in bed. R10 had diagnoses of hemiplegia and hemiparesis following cerebral infarction. Her MDS identified moderate cognitive impairment, daily physical and verbal behaviors, daily rejection of care, and need for substantial to maximum assistance with bed mobility and transfers. Her care plan included body pillows to outline the mattress parameter. During observation, a body pillow was tucked under the mattress sheet on the side of the bed, and the NA stated it was placed tightly so R10 would not remove it and so he would not attempt to get out of or roll out of bed. The nurse manager and DON stated body pillows should never be placed under the sheets to keep residents from getting out of bed and that doing so made the body pillow a restraint.
Failure to Assess Mattress Bolster as a Possible Restraint
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to assess the functional status of Resident R23 to determine whether the use of a bolster on the mattress was a restraint. Facility policy defined physical restraints as any method or device attached to or adjacent to the resident’s body that the individual cannot remove easily and that restricts freedom of movement or normal access to the body. Resident R23’s record showed admission to the facility, diagnoses of high blood pressure, dementia, and anemia, and a physician order for a bolster mattress to bed dated 12/23/24. Resident R23’s care plan identified the resident as high risk for falls related to confusion, psychoactive drug use, a history of a fall at home with left hip fracture, and poor balance and safety awareness, with interventions including bolsters to bed when in bed. During observation on 6/23/26 at 9:47 a.m., Resident R23 was lying in bed with a mattress that had bilateral raised edges on the top and bottom portions. The clinical record did not identify any assessments or ongoing evaluations for the use of bolsters on the resident’s mattress, and a Unit Manager confirmed on 6/26/26 at 9:26 a.m. that the facility failed to assess whether the bolster was a restraint for the resident.
Improper Use of Roll Bolster as a Physical Restraint
Penalty
Summary
Resident 67 was observed with a Roll Bolster secured to the left side of the bed, extending from the shoulder to the lower extremities and restricting the resident’s ability to sit up, stand, or reposition independently. The resident was admitted with diagnoses including dementia, fracture of the left humerus, and muscle wasting, and the H&P stated the resident did not have the capacity to understand and make decisions. The MDS indicated severely impaired cognitive skills and moderate assistance was needed with ADLs. The facility used the Roll Bolster to prevent the resident from getting out of bed and rolling over, but the record review found no physician order for the device, no documented evidence that alternative measures were used before it was placed, and no informed consent from the responsible party. During interviews, staff stated the bolster was being used to keep the resident from getting out of bed, and the DON confirmed there was no documented physician order, no informed consent, and no care plan developed for the use of the Roll Bolster. The facility’s policy stated that any mechanical device attached to or adjacent to a resident’s body that restricts freedom of movement is a physical restraint and requires a physician’s order, informed consent, documentation, care planning, ongoing monitoring, and periodic reevaluation. The RDCO stated that if the bolster inhibits the resident’s ability to get out of bed, it is considered a restraint, and the DON stated staff should have obtained a physician’s order, consent, and notified the resident or responsible party before placing any restraint.
Failure to Reduce and Release Wheelchair Lap Belt
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to attempt a reduction of a resident’s restraint and failed to release the restraint when the resident was supervised. Resident R3 had diagnoses including epilepsy, profound intellectual disabilities, dysphagia, osteoporosis, and acute kidney failure, and was using a lap belt while seated in a padded wheelchair along with a protective helmet. During observation at lunch, R3 remained in the wheelchair with the seatbelt in place while staff removed the helmet and assisted with feeding; the seatbelt was not released during the supervised meal. Staff stated the helmet is removed at lunch and that the new padded wheelchair was helping with positioning, and they reported that R3 rarely scoots anymore and only needed repositioning once earlier. Record review showed the restraint reduction assessment was dated 10/7/25 and stated R3 continued to require the lap belt because of poor trunk control, spastic involuntary movements, and seizures, with the belt released under direct supervision and by the resident’s mother. The progress notes from 1/1/26 through 6/23/26 did not show any falls from the padded reclining wheelchair. The DON stated the seatbelt should be released at least every two hours and when R3 is supervised, but also stated the assessment had been copied and pasted and that R3’s epilepsy diagnosis had not changed, so they had not tried to reduce the restraint. The care plan stated R3 needed the lap belt and helmet when left unattended in the wheelchair, and the facility policy required the need for a restraint to be re-evaluated at least quarterly with efforts made to eliminate continued use.
Failure to Complete Quarterly Restraint Reassessments
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure ongoing assessment and evaluation of physical restraints for a resident who used a wheelchair lap tray and seat belt. The resident had intact cognition and diagnoses including quadriplegia, muscle weakness, lack of coordination, and abnormalities of gait and mobility. The quarterly MDS dated [DATE] identified that the resident did not use restraints, yet observations on 6/22/26 and 6/25/26 showed the resident seated and propelling in a power wheelchair with a secured seat belt and lap tray in place. The resident’s care plan dated 5/11/26 identified the seat belt use, noted the resident could lock and release it independently, and stated the resident had been educated on risks versus benefits and signed consent for use. The Physical Restraint Quarterly Assessment history showed the most recent assessment was completed on 2/17/26, and the EMR lacked evidence of any additional quarterly restraint assessments after that date. RN-A stated the nurse manager was responsible for reassessing continued need and ability to use the devices. The RNCM confirmed the assessment should have been completed after 2/17/26 and stated it had not triggered in the EMR system. The DON also confirmed another assessment should have been completed after 2/17/26 and stated quarterly assessments were expected to determine continued need, independent removal ability, and whether alternative interventions were needed.
Physical restraint used during behavioral episode
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to keep a resident free from physical restraints during a behavioral episode. Resident #1 had a BIMS score of 13, indicating intact cognition, and diagnoses that included hypertension, arthritis, and COPD. The resident’s care plan documented paranoia, negative statements, medication and care refusals, attempts to leave the building, calling the police, hallucinations, and delusions, with interventions focused on reassurance, leaving and returning later, calm communication, diversion, and protecting other residents by removing the resident to another location. During the overnight incident, Resident #1 pulled fire alarms, entered other residents’ rooms, screamed for help, ripped a telephone off the wall, destroyed it, and grabbed a fire extinguisher and aimed it at residents and staff. Staff reports and video evidence showed that Staff B approached Resident #1 from behind, placed an arm around the resident’s back, held the resident’s wrist, and secured the resident’s waist while escorting the resident back to the room. The report states that Resident #1 did not consent to the physical contact and could not disengage, and that the hold continued as the resident was guided down the hallway and into the room. Staff statements described the contact as an attempt to prevent a fall or calm the resident, but the facility’s own restraint-free policy defined physical restraint to include holding down a resident in response to behavioral symptoms or during care when the resident resists or refuses care. The record review found no order authorizing staff to physically restrain Resident #1. Interviews with staff and the DON confirmed that the facility did not consider physical restraints acceptable practice, yet the documented actions during the incident included holding the resident by the wrist, waist, and back while the resident resisted, lowered to the floor, and refused to stand.
Trusted data from CMS and state health departments
Every citation, penalty and Plan of Correction is sourced from public CMS records (latest release August 26, 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.