Failure to Establish, Document, and Communicate Resident Code Status and Advance Directives
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to ensure residents were afforded their right to formulate advance directives, have corresponding physician orders for code status, and have those choices documented and communicated to staff. Facility policy required that advance directives be provided on admission, that residents’ wishes for code status be established before CPR through a code status identifier, and that the EMR contain a written MD order and a physical MOLST form. An additional policy required that upon admission and as needed thereafter, residents or their legal representatives be informed of their rights regarding advance directives, that the facility inquire about existing directives, and that the resident’s status be documented in the medical record. Despite these policies, surveyors found multiple residents without documented code status orders, without MOLST forms, and one resident with conflicting documentation of code status. One resident with a history including wedge compression fracture, ischemic heart disease, and hypertensive heart disease was cognitively intact and had no documented physician order for basic life support interventions or code status in the record. When this resident was found unresponsive with low oxygen saturation and no obtainable blood pressure, staff initiated CPR and called 911. Nursing notes and a provider note documented that there was no MOLST or advance directive limiting resuscitation on file at the time of the event, and the NP instructed staff to treat the resident as full code. Interviews with two LPNs revealed they could not identify the resident’s code status, found no MOLST in the binder or code status in the EMR, and followed an understood practice of treating residents as full code when no directive was found. The NP stated a MOLST had been completed at admission and verified, but it was missing from the binder and the code status had not been entered into the EMR because the nurse manager was responsible for that task. The NP also did not document the code status in the admission physical because it was not on the resident’s EMR profile. Additional residents were found without proper documentation of advance directives or code status. One resident with acute and chronic respiratory failure, COPD with acute respiratory infection, and interstitial pneumonitis was cognitively intact, had no MOLST form on the unit, no physician order for basic life support interventions, and no documented code status in the admission provider assessment; the resident and a family member reported that no admission paperwork or advance directive had been completed, though the resident stated a preference to be full code. Another cognitively intact resident with encephalopathy and acute respiratory failure had no physician order for basic life support interventions and no documented code status in the admission assessment; this resident reported not signing admission paperwork, did not know what advance directives were, and after explanation stated a preference for DNR. A further cognitively intact resident with acute respiratory failure, COVID-19 pneumonia, and acute pulmonary edema had no MOLST on the unit, no physician order for basic life support interventions, and no documented code status in the admission assessment, and did not recall signing admission paperwork or knowing about advance directives, later expressing a preference to be full code. Another resident with traumatic ischemia of muscle, dehydration, and muscle weakness, and mild cognitive impairment, had conflicting documentation regarding code status. A MOLST form dated in late January documented that this resident was to have CPR and was signed by the NP several days later. However, physician orders for the same resident included an order entered by an RN for DNR/DNI, which was signed by the NP on a subsequent date. This created a direct conflict between the MOLST form indicating CPR and the physician order indicating DNR/DNI. Interviews with facility leadership confirmed that the facility’s practice was to treat residents as full code when no advance directive was in place and that code status orders were supposed to be matched to the MOLST form when entered into the EMR. The survey identified that for multiple cognitively intact residents, there was either no documented physician order for code status, no MOLST form, or conflicting documentation, leading to an Immediate Jeopardy finding and substandard quality of care for the affected residents.
Removal Plan
- The admission nurse was educated by the Administrator on their responsibilities to educate all residents/representatives on admission/re-admission of their right to formulate advance directives and to ensure a corresponding physician order for code status and/or a MOLST form are entered into the resident's medical record.
- The facility management team conducted a facility-wide audit of each current resident to ensure residents had physician orders for code status and/or a MOLST form.
- All residents without a MOLST had advance directives discussed with them or their representative by nursing staff.
- Corresponding MOLST forms and physician orders for advance directives were entered into the electronic medical record by the unit manager and approved by the Nurse Practitioner.
- The Administrator and Assistant Administrator reviewed the facility policy on advance directives and made no revisions.
- The facility initiated mandatory education for the Nurse Practitioner, all registered nurses, and a licensed practical nurse on the facility policy regarding educating all residents/representatives on admission of their right to formulate advance directives and ensuring a corresponding physician order for code status and/or a MOLST form are entered into the resident's medical record.
- Education was conducted verbally by the Nursing Supervisor and/or designee.
- Facility staff not reached by telephone would not be permitted to work until they received the education.
Penalty
Resources
Below are regulatory guidelines relevant to this citation:
Advance Directive Not Maintained in Resident Record: A resident with dementia, muscle weakness, and protein-calorie malnutrition had documentation indicating an advance directive was in the chart, but record review did not locate a living will or DPOA for health care. The CNO confirmed the record did not include an advance directive and the facility did not have a living will on file.
Incomplete Advance Directive Documentation: The facility failed to keep complete and accurate advance directive records for two residents. One resident's chart contained a representative-signed acknowledgement that did not specify the type of advance directive, and another resident's record had no signed acknowledgement showing that advance directives were discussed. The SSD stated she was responsible for the documentation and that one form was filled out incorrectly while the other resident's paperwork could not be found.
The facility failed to timely respond to changes in condition for two residents, including one with severe cognitive impairment and another with dementia, CHF, diabetes, and a history of UTIs. Family members and DPOAs reported concerns about confusion, agitation, pain, SOB, and other worsening symptoms, but hospital evaluation was delayed while staff waited for physician input. Both residents were later admitted to the hospital with serious infections and other acute conditions, including sepsis, pneumonia, and respiratory failure.
A facility failed to ensure that active physician orders matched residents’ POLST code status for three residents. One resident with COPD, A-Fib, and anxiety had a POLST indicating DNR but no active code status order; another resident with dementia, hypothyroidism, and HTN had a POLST indicating DNR but a physician order for CPR; and a third resident with COPD, respiratory failure, and diabetes had a POLST indicating DNR but no active code status order. The DON confirmed the records were inconsistent and that physician orders and POLST should match.
A resident with dementia with agitation, stroke, and PE had an advanced directive noted in a care conference review, but the document could not be found in the medical record. Staff later confirmed the resident did not have an advance directive on file.
Failure to offer a resident the opportunity to create an advance directive. Record review showed the resident had no advance directive on file, and the SS Director stated there was no documentation that education was provided or that any attempts were made to obtain one. The resident had HTN, CKD, and mild cognitive impairment.
Advance Directive Not Maintained in Resident Record
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure that a copy of a resident's advance directive was maintained in the medical record for Resident #32, who was admitted with multiple diagnoses including dementia, muscle weakness, and protein-calorie malnutrition. The resident's care plan, revised 5/12/22, documented that the resident and appointed healthcare representative were to receive education regarding advance directives as needed, and a care conference evaluation dated 6/26/26 documented that the resident had an advance directive in the record. However, on 7/8/26, review of the medical record did not locate a living will or durable power of attorney for health care, and the CNO later confirmed that the record did not include an advance directive and the facility did not have a living will on file.
Incomplete Advance Directive Documentation
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure documentation regarding advance directives was complete and accurate for 2 of 7 residents reviewed. A policy titled "Advance Directives and Refusal of Treatment" stated that upon admission the Social Services Designee should obtain a copy of any existing Living Will, Health Care Proxy, Durable Power of Attorney for Health Care Decisions, or other recorded declaration and enter a progress note regarding the existence of an advance directive. Resident #7 was admitted with diagnoses including hemiplegia and hemiparesis following a nontraumatic intracerebral hemorrhage affecting the right dominant side. The record contained a "Resident Rights & Advance Directive Acknowledgement" signed by the resident's representative that indicated the resident had an advance directive, but the form did not identify the type of advance directive. Resident #81 was admitted with end stage renal disease, and the medical record contained no signed acknowledgement showing that advance directives were discussed with the resident or representative. The Social Services Director stated she was responsible for advance directive documentation, that the form for Resident #7 was filled out incorrectly and should have been corrected, and that the missing paperwork for Resident #81 meant the facility would not know whether the resident had an advance directive.
Delayed Response to Changes in Condition and Family Requests for Hospital Evaluation
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to timely provide requested medical evaluation and treatment for two residents with changes in condition. The deficiency was identified during review of Complaint #3035494 and involved delayed responses to worsening symptoms, resulting in delayed medical treatment, worsening of condition, and dissatisfaction with care. For one resident with diagnoses including Alzheimer's disease and other medically complex conditions, the record showed severely impaired cognition and inability to make decisions. A family member reported that the resident had a decline in health about a week before hospitalization, with severe UTI and stool impaction. The hospital record documented that the resident arrived from the nursing home via EMS with confusion and altered mental status that had worsened since several days earlier, and the ED physician suspected sepsis. The resident was febrile, tachycardic, had elevated white blood cell count and creatinine, and was diagnosed with proctitis, cystitis, sepsis, NSTEMI, and acute kidney injury. The urine culture was positive for gram-negative rods/Pseudomonas aeruginosa. For another resident with diagnoses including diabetes mellitus, a history of UTIs, CHF, Alzheimer's disease, and dementia, the progress notes showed family concerns about abnormal behavior, confusion, agitation, shortness of breath, congestion, lethargy, and shallow breathing. The resident's DPOA reported repeatedly expressing concern that something was wrong and requesting hospital evaluation, but the facility did not immediately send the resident out and instead contacted the physician first. The change-in-condition documentation noted altered mental status and respiratory symptoms, and the physician initially recommended a nebulizer treatment before later directing transfer to the ED. The resident was admitted to the hospital with bilateral pneumonia, acute hypoxic respiratory failure, likely demand ischemia, chronic diastolic CHF, fluid overload, severe anemia, and human metapneumovirus infection.
Physician Orders Did Not Match POLST Code Status
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure that active physician orders reflected residents’ end-of-life wishes as documented on their Pennsylvania POLST forms for three residents. Facility policy stated that residents are presumed to consent to CPR unless there is documentation in the medical record showing a DNR order, and that all DNR orders must be rewritten by the attending physician for each admission or readmission. Review of the clinical records showed that Resident R14 had diagnoses including COPD, A-Fib, and anxiety, and had a POLST indicating DNR, but the current physician orders lacked evidence of code status. Resident R38 had diagnoses including dementia, hypothyroidism, and high blood pressure, and had a POLST indicating DNR; however, a physician order dated in the record indicated CPR, creating inconsistency between the POLST and the physician orders. Resident R50 had diagnoses including COPD, respiratory failure, and diabetes, and had a POLST indicating DNR, but current physician orders also lacked evidence of code status. During interviews, the DON confirmed that Resident R14’s record lacked active physician orders reflecting code status and that Resident R38’s physician orders and POLST were not consistent, and further confirmed that resident physician orders and POLST should match regardless of the POLST.
Advance Directive Not Available in Resident Record
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure a resident exercised the right to formulate an Advance Directive. Review of the State Operations Manual, record review, and staff interview showed that Resident #5 had an advanced directive documented on a Care Conference Review Comprehensive dated 4/3/26, but the document could not be located in the medical record. Resident #5 was admitted and later readmitted to the facility with diagnoses including dementia with agitation, stroke, and pulmonary embolism. On 6/26/26 at 9:48 AM, a request was made for a copy of Resident #5's advanced directive. Later that day at 11:19 AM, the CEO confirmed that Resident #5 did not have an advanced directive on file. The report states that this deficiency involved 1 of 5 residents whose records were reviewed.
Failure to Offer Advance Directive Opportunity
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure residents were offered the opportunity to create an advance directive for Resident #13, who was re-admitted with multiple diagnoses including hypertension, chronic kidney disease, and mild cognitive impairment. Record review on 6/24/26 showed that Resident #13 did not have an advance directive on file. On 6/25/26 at 2:43 PM, the Social Service Director stated there was no documentation that education was provided to Resident #13 and no attempts were made to obtain an advance directive.
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.