Failure to Prevent Multiple Elopements of Cognitively Impaired Residents
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to provide adequate supervision and maintain an environment free from accident hazards for two residents assessed as elopement risks with moderate cognitive impairment. One resident (R14) had diagnoses including heart failure, acute respiratory failure, abnormality of gait, and a history of falls, and was care planned for wandering with interventions such as use of a wander guard/location monitor and redirection. An elopement assessment identified this resident as having wandering behavior occurring one to three days, at risk for getting to a dangerous place, with worsening behaviors and aimless wandering. Despite this, the resident’s quarterly MDS did not identify wandering behaviors, and the resident was able to remove the wander guard bracelet and leave the building without staff knowledge. In the first elopement event for R14, a utility staff member observed the resident outside in the front parking lot next to his wheelchair, with a bruise and laceration under his right eye. The wander guard bracelet was later found in the resident’s laundry bin, and the resident reported that he had intentionally removed the bracelet because it was uncomfortable and waited until no one was looking so he could go outside. The receptionist, who normally monitored the main entrance, was on break and did not see the resident exit. LPN1 confirmed that the resident had rolled his wheelchair out the door to the front parking lot and that the resident had begun exhibiting increased wandering and exit-seeking behaviors. In the second elopement event for R14, the admission coordinator noticed the resident sitting outside the facility in his wheelchair without staff supervision and redirected him back inside. Investigation showed that a CNA had taken the resident to the therapy gym and informed the PTA, then left after confirming the resident was still in therapy 15 minutes later. When therapy was completed, the PTA placed the resident back in his wheelchair and allowed him to return on his own, not being aware that the resident was a wanderer and not recalling a wander guard bracelet. The resident then turned toward the lobby instead of his unit and exited through the main entrance while the receptionist was again on a scheduled break. The second resident (R59) had diagnoses including metabolic encephalopathy, schizophrenia, anxiety, delusional disorders, PTSD, and abnormality of gait and mobility, with a BIMS score indicating moderate cognitive impairment. The care plan identified potential for falls and wandering, with interventions including monitoring for wandering behavior, redirection, keeping side doors locked, monitoring placement of a wander guard bracelet, and offering 1:1 staff when indicated. A wandering/elopement risk assessment documented a history of wandering to find family or a pet, cognitive impairment, and a recent medication change to decrease behaviors, and led to the decision to add an elopement deterrent device and develop an elopement care plan. For this resident, an earlier elopement incident involved leaving to the parking lot while fixated on finding her daughter, though staff kept her within constant sight and within about 10 feet. A later elopement involved the resident leaving the facility without staff knowledge and being found at a security gate approximately a mile from the entrance, sitting in the passenger seat of an independent living resident’s car. Staff statements indicated they did not see the resident leave and could not identify when she was last observed. It was suspected that she had followed a family or staff member out a side hall door closest to the guard house and main road. LPN2 reported that the resident wore a wander guard bracelet and frequently tried to remove it but did not know where the resident went or where she was found. Additional observations showed that the wander guard alarm for R14’s wheelchair produced an audible alarm that could be hard to hear at the nurses’ station when there was a lot of noise, even though it also displayed on monitors. An elevator near the nurses’ station led to a basement hallway where a second wander bracelet alarm was present, but no staff were in that area during observation. This basement hallway led to an unlocked exit door to the outside and another unlocked door to a loading dock and ramp leading outside. The facility’s elopement policy defined elopement as a resident wandering away without staff knowledge, out of visual sight, and being incapable of finding their way back, and required immediate, coordinated response when a resident was reported missing. The events described showed that both residents were able to exit the facility or reach unsecured areas without staff awareness, despite identified elopement risk and existing policies and interventions. This deficient practice resulted in the identification of Immediate Jeopardy and substandard quality of care at F689, with the Immediate Jeopardy beginning when R59 eloped from the facility and was later found at the security gate in another resident’s car.
Removal Plan
- Provide education to the Director of Nursing, Director of Social Services, the Minimum Data Set Coordinator for the risk of wandering.
- Record assessments in the resident's medical record.
- Identify residents at risk for wandering.
- Maintain wander guards for residents identified to need them.
- Check all external and lobby doors within the health and rehabilitation center to ensure that all doors are secured or have a wander guard system in place.
- Place a staff member to continuously supervise and monitor the lobby area outside of the health and rehab center lobby, elevator, and unsecured areas.
- Maintain supervision of this area until a wander guard is placed to ensure no access to an unsupervised area.
- Provide in-service education to all staff present on the wandering resident policy and wander guard protocol, including identification of residents at risk of wandering, the wander guard system, and the monitoring system of the lobby, secured areas, and the elevator.
- Provide in-service education to all incoming shifts of nurses, certified nursing assistants, and health and rehabilitation center staff on the wander guard system and identified target areas, including newly hired, unscheduled, and contracted staff prior to their next shift in the health and rehabilitation center.
- Assign the Administrator or Director of Nursing to be responsible for implementation of the removal plan.
- Conduct an impromptu Quality Assurance Performance Improvement committee meeting to review the facility's plan of correction and removal of immediate jeopardy, including the Medical Director.
- Inspect the wander guard system for proper function and inspect all exterior doors to ensure substantial compliance is maintained.
- Monitor and review this plan of correction through the Quality Assurance process to ensure ongoing substantial compliance is met, amending the plan of correction as needed.
- Implement the plan of correction.
Penalty
Resources
Below are regulatory guidelines relevant to this citation:
Failure to ensure effective fall alarms and supervision: two residents had Smart Caregiver monitoring devices set to LOW volume, and one resident's bed alarm did not alert staff before the resident was found on the floor after an unwitnessed fall. One resident had dementia, osteoporosis, prior TIA, and cognitive impairment and was fully dependent on staff, while staff also found that a second resident's bed and recliner alarms did not activate properly during testing.
Failure to assess the safety of perimeter mattresses for two residents. Both residents had severely impaired cognition and significant mobility limitations, and both care plans included use of a perimeter mattress to define the edges of the bed. However, their Mobility, Physical Device, and Fall Risk assessments lacked documentation of a perimeter/defined edge mattress assessment. Staff interviews showed inconsistent understanding of the required order, IDT review, engineering review, and safety assessment before use.
Improper Mechanical Lift Transfers: A resident with dementia, spinal cord dysfunction, and dependence for transfers was supposed to be moved with a full-body mechanical lift and two staff members, but a TMA stated she transferred the resident alone. The resident reported that staff sometimes used only one person for lift transfers because of staffing shortages, while other staff and the DON stated this was unsafe and against policy.
Two residents were involved in accident-hazard deficiencies. One resident with cancer, PVD, and Alzheimer’s disease was observed in a wheelchair with feet extending past short footrests, with the lower legs resting against the hard footrests despite a care plan entry for padding. Another resident with dementia and a hx of falls had an unwitnessed fall, but ordered orthostatic BP monitoring was not completed accurately and staff reported no post-fall PT referral was received.
A resident was given a new electric wheelchair without a prior therapy assessment and could not stop the chair, causing it to strike a bed frame and resulting in a leg laceration, tibia/fibula fractures, and a syncopal episode from blood loss. Another resident with cognitive impairment and high fall risk continued to self-transfer and fall, but the care plan was not updated with new fall interventions after repeated incidents.
A CNA used a Hoyer lift alone to weigh one resident, and another CNA was observed using a Hoyer lift alone to weigh a second resident. One resident’s care plan called for a 2-assist Hoyer lift, and the facility’s lift competency checklist and policy both required two caregivers for mechanical lift use; the DON and Director of Therapy also stated that two staff members are always required.
Failure to Ensure Effective Fall Alarms and Supervision
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to provide adequate supervision and effective use of assistive fall-prevention devices for two residents who were reviewed for fall precautions. One resident had diagnoses including unspecified dementia, age-related osteoporosis, a history of transient ischemic attack, and cognitive impairment, and was described by the POA as weak, bedbound, and unable to participate in physical therapy after a prior right femur fracture. The resident was completely dependent on staff for eating, hygiene, mobility, and toileting, and the care plan included a bed alarm per orders. The resident was found on the floor next to the bed after an unwitnessed fall. The POA reported receiving a call from the facility that the resident had been found on the floor and was not injured, and stated the resident frequently forgot to ask for help and had tried to get up without assistance before. A nurse stated the bed alarm was not heard when the resident fell, and the facility was unable to provide evidence that the bed alarm functioned as intended or alerted staff before the resident was found on the floor. The event report identified the fall as unwitnessed and did not indicate that a bed alarm alerted staff. The facility also failed to ensure the Smart Caregiver sensor pad monitoring system used for another resident was functioning properly and set at an audible volume. Two Smart Caregiver monitor boxes at the nurses' station for that resident's bed and recliner were observed set to LOW volume, and the chime settings faced the back wall of the desk. When a CNA tested the recliner alarm from the resident's room, the monitor at the nurses' station did not illuminate or sound an alert on either attempt. The CNA changed the batteries but did not retest the device, and both CNAs stated they could hear alarms only if they were near the nurses' station and did not recall training on operation or testing of the devices. The facility director stated the facility did not perform preventive maintenance on the devices and relied on staff to ensure they functioned properly.
Failure to Assess Safety of Perimeter Mattresses
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure that 2 residents with perimeter mattresses were assessed for safety. One resident had a significant change MDS showing severely impaired cognition, dementia, reduced mobility, muscle weakness, and need for assistance with bed mobility, sitting, standing, and transfers. That resident’s care plan identified limited physical mobility related to dementia with mood disturbance and anxiety, a genetic muscle disorder, spinal stenosis, and osteoarthritis, and included use of a perimeter mattress to help find the edges of the bed for bed mobility. However, the resident’s Mobility, Physical Device, and Fall Risk assessment lacked documentation of an assessment for a perimeter/defined edge mattress. The second resident’s annual MDS showed severely impaired cognition, dementia, multiple sclerosis, repeated falls, and need for partial to moderate assistance with bed mobility. The care plan identified limited physical mobility related to weakness, falls, incontinence, hypertension, renal disease, dementia, MS, depression, and delusional disorder, and included use of a bariatric sized bed with a perimeter mattress to define the edges of the bed. That resident’s Mobility Physical Device and Fall Risk assessment also lacked documentation of an assessment for a perimeter/defined edge mattress. During observation, the resident was in bed asleep with a perimeter mattress. Staff interviews showed differing understanding of whether a physician order, assessment, IDT review, engineering review, and safety assessment were required before use of a perimeter mattress, and the DON confirmed both residents’ most recent assessments lacked documentation of a perimeter/defined edge mattress assessment.
Improper Mechanical Lift Transfers
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure transfers were performed according to R24’s assessed needs, care plan interventions, and facility policy. R24’s records showed she had diagnoses including non-traumatic spinal cord dysfunction, diabetes, dementia, depression, heart failure, and asthma. She was dependent on staff for toileting and transfers, was frequently incontinent of bowel and bladder, and had care plan directions for assistance with transfers using a full-body mechanical lift and two staff members. During interviews, a TMA stated she transferred R24 with the full-body mechanical lift by herself because R24 needed to use the bathroom and she felt the transfer was safe. R24 stated staff sometimes transferred her with only one staff member and said they told her there was not enough staff. Other staff interviewed stated transfers with the full-body mechanical lift using one staff member were unsafe and should not occur. The facility policy for using a mechanical lift stated that at least two trained associates are needed to safely move a resident with a mechanical full-body floor-based lift or ceiling/overhead full-body lift.
Unsafe Wheelchair Fit and Incomplete Post-Fall Monitoring
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to provide an environment free from accident hazards for two residents. Resident 27 was readmitted with diagnoses including cancer, peripheral vascular disease, and Alzheimer's disease and was sometimes able to make needs known. On multiple observations, Resident 27 was seated in a slightly tilted back wheelchair with feet extending beyond the footrests, and the back of the lower legs rested against the hard footrests above the ankle/heel area. A pillow was observed either on the floor or behind the legs rather than padding the footrests. The focused care plan for skin integrity included padding to wheelchair footrests, and staff interviews confirmed the footrests were too short and needed adjustment or replacement, but staff had not notified therapy or otherwise addressed the wheelchair fit. Resident 50 was admitted with diagnoses including dementia, history of falls, and UTI and was sometimes able to make needs known. The care plan identified the resident as at risk for falls. After an unwitnessed fall in the 300 hallway, the incident investigation added interventions to monitor orthostatic blood pressures and refer to physical therapy. However, the record showed an orthostatic blood pressure order on 05/20/2026 was not completed, and subsequent orthostatic blood pressures recorded the same blood pressure and pulse for all three positions on 05/22/2026, 05/23/2026, and 05/24/2026. Staff later stated they had not received a post-fall therapy referral, and the DNS stated the resident should have had orthostatic blood pressures taken accurately to rule out orthostatic hypotension.
Failure to assess electric wheelchair use and update fall interventions
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to comprehensively assess a resident for the use of an electric wheelchair and failed to develop new interventions to reduce fall risk for another resident. The report states that the facility’s policies required a device evaluation before an electric wheelchair was initiated, resident education and consent, and an updated service plan identifying device use and other interventions. The fall management policy required individualized care plan updates, a systematic review after each fall, identification of root cause, and review of prior interventions when new interventions were implemented. Resident 73 was admitted with weakness and lymphedema and had an above-the-knee left leg amputation, requiring assistance with bed mobility, transfers, and locomotion. The resident’s record showed cognitive intactness, lower extremity impairment, supervision or touch assistance for bed-to-chair transfers, and use of a manual wheelchair. On 4/17/26, a newly issued electric wheelchair was delivered and the resident was assisted into it. The resident reported that the representative showed how the chair worked but not enough, and that the resident did not know how to stop it. The resident then returned to the room, could not stop the chair, and the chair continued forward into the bed, causing the resident’s right leg to strike the metal bed frame. The resident sustained a five-centimeter laceration to the right anterior lower leg, fractures of the right tibia and fibula, and a brief syncopal episode secondary to blood loss. The resident also received an anticoagulant, which contributed to significant bleeding. The clinical record contained no evidence that the resident had been assessed to safely operate the electric wheelchair before use. Resident 3 was admitted with a right total hip replacement with deep hardware removal and post-traumatic osteoarthritis of the right hip. The resident had a high fall risk on Morse Fall Scale assessments, cognitive impairment on OT evaluation, and a PT evaluation showing a score of zero on the Short Physical Performance Battery, indicating high fall risk and increased risk of mobility disability. The resident fell on 3/31/26 after getting up independently and sustained a right femur fracture requiring surgical repair, and fell again on 5/12/26 after getting up independently and sustained a skin tear to the right elbow. The care plan identified fall risk and included reminders to use the call light, non-skid socks, and one-person assistance for toileting and transfers, but revisions to the care plan did not add new or amended fall prevention interventions. Staff statements indicated the resident continued to self-transfer and toilet without assistance, staff believed the resident was independent, and the existing fall prevention interventions were ineffective.
Unsafe One-Person Use of Mechanical Lift
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure safe use of a mechanical lift for 2 of 3 residents reviewed for accidents. During an observation on 6/2/2026 at 8:42 AM, Resident #4 was lying on his bed on top of a Hoyer pad while CNA Staff K stood on the right side of the bed with a mechanical lift; the lift hand bags were observed over the resident, and no other staff member was in the room. Staff K stated that he was weighing Resident #4 and that normally only one person uses the Hoyer lift for weights, although the resident’s care plan documented a Hoyer lift with 2 assist. On 6/4/2026 at 10:15 AM, CNA Staff D was observed using a Hoyer lift alone to obtain Resident #13’s weight, with the resident lifted approximately 12 inches off the mattress in the sling and no other staff present. Staff D stated that he was performing weekly weights and most of the time did the weights using the Hoyer lift by himself. Resident #13’s MDS Section GG coded the resident as dependent, and the facility’s mechanical lift competency checklist stated that two caregivers are present, while the facility policy for using a mechanical lifting device stated that at least two nursing assistants are needed to safely move a resident with a mechanical lift. The DON and Director of Therapy both stated that a mechanical lift should always be used by two staff members.
Trusted data from CMS and state health departments
Every citation, penalty and Plan of Correction is sourced from public CMS records (latest release July 29, 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.