Failure to Implement Abuse Policy After Allegation of Sexual Contact Between Residents
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to implement its abuse policy when an allegation of sexual abuse occurred between two residents in the secured Memory Care Unit. One resident, who was cognitively intact with diagnoses including major depressive disorder, intellectual disability, morbid obesity, pulmonary embolism, and diabetes mellitus, was ordered to reside in a locked men’s unit for safety of self and others. This resident had a known history of sexually inappropriate behaviors with another resident who had since been discharged. The other resident involved had diagnoses including dementia, insomnia, major depressive disorder, hypertension, and diabetes mellitus, and was care planned for impaired cognition with short- and long-term memory impairment and severely impaired decision-making ability. On the date of the incident, staff including a CNA, an OTA, and a PT observed the cognitively intact resident seated next to the severely cognitively impaired resident in a common television room. The OTA and PT reported seeing the cognitively intact resident’s hand on the other resident’s genital area, squeezing and rubbing through clothing. The CNA reported that the therapists told her the same and that she then notified the ADON. Nursing documentation indicated that the cognitively intact resident was observed with hand contact to the other resident’s genital area while both were seated in the common area, and that staff intervened and redirected the resident away. The NP documented, as a late entry, that she was called about the incident, assessed both residents, and was told by staff that the cognitively intact resident was attempting to ejaculate the severely impaired resident by rubbing his penis up and down through clothing, and that the impaired resident did not appear to understand what was happening. Despite these observations and the facility’s written policy defining sexual abuse as non-consensual sexual contact of any type, including unwanted intimate touching of the perineal area, the Administrator did not treat the event as sexual abuse. The Administrator stated he did not consider the incident to be sexual abuse or reportable because both residents were fully clothed and asserted that nothing happened to the cognitively impaired resident. He acknowledged that the cognitively intact resident had a history of sexually inappropriate behavior and that the other resident was severely cognitively impaired and unable to consent to being touched in that manner. The Administrator further verified that the facility did not implement its abuse policy, did not report the allegation to the state agency, and did not complete a thorough investigation as required by the facility’s abuse, neglect, and misappropriation policy, which mandates prompt and thorough investigation and immediate reporting of any abuse allegations to the Administrator/designee and the Department of Health and social services, and requires that any situation where a resident may not have capacity to consent to sexual activity be treated as alleged sexual abuse. Additional documentation showed that after the incident, the cognitively intact resident was given an order for medroxyprogesterone for high-risk sexual behavior and was later care planned for sexually inappropriate behaviors with other residents, and an IDT note described another observation of this resident placing his hand on another resident’s perineal area. However, the medical records for both involved residents contained no documented evidence that either was evaluated by psychiatric services immediately following the initial incident. Interviews with the NP and staff confirmed that the NP was informed of the sexually inappropriate contact, assessed both residents, and communicated with the MD and DON, but the facility still did not activate its formal abuse investigation and reporting process as outlined in its policy. This sequence of events and omissions led to the cited deficiency for failure to implement the abuse policy in response to an allegation of sexual abuse.
Penalty
Resources
Below are regulatory guidelines relevant to this citation:
Missing FBI Background Check for Agency Nurse Aide: The facility failed to complete an updated FBI background check for an agency NA before allowing the aide to work on the nursing unit. The aide had lived outside PA within the past two years, but the personnel file only contained an older FBI check and no updated check before the aide worked two shifts. The facility policy required background checks for all employees in accordance with State law.
Failure to follow abuse policy after a resident-on-resident assault. A resident with dementia and physically aggressive behaviors scratched another resident’s face, causing superficial marks to the chin and cheek. The injured resident had significant cognitive impairment and later reported that the other resident ran fingernails across her face. Staff confirmed the incident was abuse, but the clinical record contained inconsistent documentation and the behavior note did not include details of the assault.
Failure to properly investigate and report allegations of verbal abuse and involuntary seclusion. Multiple grievances described an RN yelling at residents, blocking a resident from his room, and scolding residents for self-transferring, while an LPN made rude and inappropriate comments to a resident and his representative. The facility’s investigations were limited, with little evidence of broader interviews, incomplete documentation, delayed escalation, and no immediate suspension of the involved RN or timely reporting to the SA as required by policy.
Failure to Complete Timely Criminal Background Checks: The facility failed to properly screen employees by not completing timely criminal background checks before employment for three of five personnel files reviewed, including an RN, a COTA, and a NA. Facility policy required screening during the hiring process for a history of abuse, neglect, or mistreating residents, including criminal background checks. HR confirmed that one employee's checks were completed too far in advance to rule out criminal activity in a timely manner and another employee's background check was not completed before the start of employment.
Incomplete Abuse Investigation and Reporting: A cognitively intact resident reported that a nurse aide grabbed her and yanked off her gown, leaving bruising on her arms. The DON and nursing staff documented the allegation and substantiated abuse, but the investigation was limited to one hall and did not include a resident statement, a statement from the accused aide, or broader interviews and skin checks. The facility notified DHSR and law enforcement, but APS/DSS notification was not documented.
A resident with dementia and severe cognitive impairment developed bruising, hematoma, and multiple bilateral rib fractures with hospital concerns for neglect and/or abuse. The facility did not immediately investigate or report the injury of unknown origin, and staff could not explain how the injuries occurred. The resident’s condition worsened over several days before transfer to the ER and hospital admission.
Missing FBI Background Check for Agency Nurse Aide
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to conduct an FBI background check on an agency nurse aide before allowing the aide to work on the nursing unit. The facility’s personnel abuse policy stated that it would not employ or otherwise engage individuals found guilty of abuse, neglect, or mistreatment of residents and that it would undertake background checks of all employees in accordance with State law. Review of the agency nurse aide’s personnel record showed the aide was hired and completed orientation at the facility on 7/15/26, and then worked two shifts on 7/26/26 and 8/1/26. The personnel record also showed that the agency nurse aide had lived outside Pennsylvania within the past two years, but the file contained only an FBI background check dated 6/1/23 and did not include an updated FBI background check before the aide started at the facility. During interview, the Director of Human Resources confirmed that the aide had lived outside Pennsylvania within the past two years. The deficiency was discussed with the NHA, DON, and Regional Director of Clinical Services, who were informed that the facility had failed to conduct the required FBI background check prior to the aide working on the nursing unit.
Failure to Follow Abuse Policy After Resident-on-Resident Assault
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to follow its abuse policy for one resident involved in an incident with another resident who had dementia, anxiety, impaired safety awareness, verbal behavior, and physically aggressive behaviors. The perpetrating resident was documented as having a BIMS score of 07 and a care plan that included interventions to protect the rights and safety of others, such as intervening as necessary, speaking calmly, diverting attention, and removing the resident from the situation when needed. On July 26, 2026, a CNA reported that the resident clawed a roommate in the face while the nurse was on break. The injured resident was assessed and found to have superficial scratches under the right side of the chin and red marks on the cheek, with no active bleeding. The perpetrating resident was also observed kicking another resident’s wheelchair in an apparent attempt to get that resident to move out of the way. A behavior note entered shortly afterward documented increased escalated behaviors and redirection, but it did not include details of the incident described in the struck-out progress note, and no additional details about the incident were found in the clinical record. The injured resident had significant cognitive impairment with a BIMS score of 08 and subsequent documentation showed ongoing monitoring for scratches to the chin and neck area, including skin assessments and change-of-condition notes. During interview, the injured resident stated another resident ran fingernails across her face and that she cried because she did not know why the other resident was being mean to her. Staff interviews confirmed the perpetrator was the other resident and described the event as abuse, while the DON stated the struck-out note and inconsistent documentation were unfortunate and did not meet expectations or policy.
Failure to Properly Investigate and Report Allegations of Verbal Abuse
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to follow its abuse and neglect policy when multiple grievances described verbal abuse and threats of involuntary seclusion involving two nurses and six residents. The grievances included reports that an LPN spoke rudely and made inappropriate comments to a resident and his representative, and that an RN yelled at residents, scolded them for self-transferring, blocked a resident from entering his room, and told residents they were going into a “time-out.” The report also described concerns that residents were upset by the RN’s tone, volume, and behavior, including statements that she was bossy, assertive, and made residents feel inadequate. The facility’s responses were limited to interviews with the residents directly named in the grievances and the involved nurses, with little evidence of broader fact gathering. In one grievance, the investigation noted the LPN admitted her word choice was not the best, but there was no documentation of interviews with other residents, representatives, or staff to determine whether similar conduct had occurred or whether the resident experienced any psychosocial or physical effects. In another grievance, the RN denied yelling, but the record did not show that the facility explored the reported comments to another resident, interviewed additional witnesses, or documented whether the resident who complained felt safe or had any psychosocial impact. The report also identified that the facility did not handle the allegations as abuse-related concerns under its policy. The policy required allegations of employee-to-resident abuse to be reported immediately, no later than 2 hours after the allegation, and required the employee to be removed from direct care and placed on suspension pending investigation. Instead, the grievances were not promptly escalated, the administrator’s sign-off was delayed on some reports, and the investigations were incomplete or left with blank resolution and follow-up sections. The report further noted that the facility did not immediately suspend the RN during the recurring complaints, did not timely report the allegations to the SA, and did not complete thorough investigations that included broader interviews and documented follow-up.
Failure to Complete Timely Criminal Background Checks
Penalty
Summary
Develop and implement policies and procedures to prevent abuse, neglect, and theft was cited after the facility failed to properly screen employees by not completing timely criminal background checks before employment for three of five personnel files reviewed. The personnel files reviewed were for RN Employee E4, COTA Employee E7, and NA Employee E8, and the facility policy stated that all potential employees would be screened during the hiring process for a history of abuse, neglect, or mistreating residents, including criminal background checks. Review of RN Employee E4's file showed a date of hire of 4/20/26 and two criminal background checks, one requested on 11/25/25 and another requested on 7/29/26. Review of COTA Employee E7's file showed a date of hire of 5/1/26 and a criminal background check requested on 6/25/26, after the start of employment. Review of NA Employee E8's file showed a date of hire of 5/12/26 and a criminal background check requested on 10/14/26. During interview, Human Resources Employee E9 confirmed that Employee E4's background checks were completed too far in advance to rule out criminal activity in a timely manner prior to employment and that Employee E7's background check was not completed prior to the start of employment.
Incomplete Abuse Investigation and Reporting
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to implement its abuse policy for investigation and reporting after an allegation of staff-to-resident abuse involving a cognitively intact resident admitted with anxiety disorder and insomnia. The resident reported that a nurse aide grabbed her and yanked her gown off, causing bruising to her arms. Bruising in various stages of healing was documented on both arms and the right hand, and the facility substantiated the allegation of abuse. The investigation was limited and did not include a written or signed statement from the resident or a written statement from the accused nurse aide. The nurse aide denied the allegation during a later telephone interview and stated he was never asked to complete a statement or interviewed by the facility, his agency, or law enforcement. The investigation also did not include documented interviews from other cognitively intact residents the nurse aide had worked with or skin assessments for all moderately and severely cognitively impaired residents in the facility; instead, the DON instructed staff to limit interviews and assessments to one hall. Reporting was also incomplete. The facility submitted the initial report to DHSR and notified law enforcement, but there was no documentation of notification to APS/DSS on the initial report. During interview, the DON stated she did not realize APS was supposed to be notified within 24 hours and acknowledged that a more thorough investigation could have been completed. The Administrator stated she would expect the DON to follow reporting regulations and complete a thorough investigation before substantiating the allegation.
Failure to Investigate and Report Injury of Unknown Origin
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to implement its abuse prohibition policy related to an injury of unknown origin for a resident with dementia, transient cerebral ischemic attack, severe cognitive impairment, and dependence on staff for activities of daily living. The resident’s record showed new diagnoses of multiple bilateral rib fractures and a right thorax contusion after bruising and hematoma were identified on the chest and upper body. The resident also had impaired upper and lower extremities and required two-staff assistance for ADLs and transfers. The resident’s skin changes were first documented as bruising under the right breast, right nipple, and middle of the chest, followed by spread of bruising to the right upper extremity, shoulder, and breast, along with pain and edema. A chest x-ray showed no acute findings, but the resident later required transfer to the hospital for further evaluation because of worsening bruising, hematoma, redness, edema to the right hand, and increased pain. Hospital paperwork documented multiple bilateral nondisplaced rib fractures and a large intramuscular hematoma, with concerns of neglect and/or abuse, and noted that bruising had started earlier than the facility documented. The facility did not initiate its investigation until after the resident was admitted to the hospital and did not report the incident immediately. The facility’s own timeline showed several days between the first observed skin change and the initiation of the self-reported incident. Staff interviews confirmed that no explanation for the injuries was identified, that the facility believed a bear-hug type repositioning may have occurred even though that technique was not taught or used, and that the facility reported the injury of unknown origin after the resident’s hospital admission. The administrator confirmed there was no immediate reporting and that the investigation began only after the hospital admission.
Trusted data from CMS and state health departments
Every citation, penalty and Plan of Correction is sourced from public CMS records (latest release October 8, 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.