F0689

G

Failure to Supervise Resident Smoking and Control Smoking Hazards

Sioux Falls, South Dakota Survey Completed on 02-04-2026

Penalty

No penalty information released

Summary

The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to ensure a smoking environment free from accident hazards and to provide adequate supervision for residents who required supervision while smoking. Multiple residents who smoked were assessed or care planned as needing supervision, smoking aprons, and in some cases removal of oxygen prior to smoking, yet they were routinely allowed to access smoking areas or leave the building to smoke without staff knowledge or direct oversight. Residents knew door codes to both the courtyard and front entrance, used those codes without informing staff, and smoked in locations and at times outside the designated supervised smoking periods. Staff interviews confirmed that residents commonly kept their own cigarettes and lighters, that some refused to store lighters at the nurses’ station despite care plan directions, and that residents went out the front doors to smoke without notifying staff or signing out.

One resident with multiple sclerosis, paraplegia, intellectual disability, moderately impaired cognition (BIMS 11), and a prior history of burning clothing was care planned to require a smoking apron, supervision, and staff accompaniment when smoking. His tobacco assessment documented prior unsafe smoking behavior and the need for supervision and adaptive equipment. Despite this, he was able to go to the enclosed courtyard at night with another resident who knew the door code, without informing staff. While wearing a brimmed hat and attempting to smoke, the hat brim contacted the lit cigarette, began smoldering, and singed his beard and facial areas. Camera footage showed that the two residents remained outside to finish smoking and only reported the incident to the RN after returning inside, at which time a skin assessment revealed reddened but intact skin on his head and face.

Other residents who were assessed or care planned as requiring supervision while smoking also smoked without adequate supervision or adherence to facility protocols. One cognitively intact resident, assessed as needing a smoking apron and supervision, was observed outside the front door in his power wheelchair picking up cigarette butts with a reacher, without having signed out and without staff present. Another resident, also assessed as needing supervision and a smoking apron, reported smoking in the courtyard or outside the front doors whenever he wanted, keeping his cigarettes and lighter with him and not informing staff or signing out. Additional residents, including one on oxygen and others with intact cognition but care plans requiring supervision and smoking aprons, described or were observed smoking in the courtyard with only intermittent visual checks from staff inside the activities room, or smoking outside the front doors in the evenings without staff awareness, sign-out, or consistent enforcement of lighter storage and supervision requirements.

Staff interviews and observations further demonstrated inconsistent implementation of supervision expectations. Activities staff and CMAs acknowledged that residents 2 and 3 routinely went out the front doors to smoke without staff assistance, that most residents kept their own lighters despite some care plans directing storage at the nurses’ station, and that staff did not remain continuously at the courtyard door while residents smoked. During observed smoking periods, activities staff opened the courtyard door, then returned to desks behind a partition, performed other tasks, or only occasionally glanced out the window while multiple residents who required supervision smoked outside. In at least one instance, an activities assistant stood several feet from the door reading a book and intermittently left the doorway area while a resident smoked alone in the courtyard. The DON and MDS nurse both stated that residents 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, and 8 required supervision when smoking in the courtyard, and that staff were expected to be outside with residents or at the window providing constant supervision, but observations and interviews showed that this level of supervision was not consistently provided.

The facility’s documentation and assessment processes related to smoking also contributed to the deficiency. Tobacco Use Evaluations were not consistently completed quarterly or annually as described by the MDS nurse, with gaps noted for several residents, and some evaluations did not clearly specify the level of supervision required. Care plans documented that certain residents were independent with tobacco use while simultaneously listing interventions requiring supervision, smoking aprons, and removal of oxygen, creating inconsistencies between assessed needs and described independence. The DON acknowledged that the Tobacco Use Evaluation addressed smoking on facility property but did not address residents’ independent smoking off property, even though residents in power wheelchairs were leaving the building in cold weather to smoke without documented assessment of their safety in doing so. These combined assessment, care planning, and supervision failures led to residents who required supervision while smoking being unsafely allowed to smoke with inadequate staff oversight, culminating in at least one resident sustaining facial burns.