Failure to Notify Physician of Elopement Behaviors Before Discontinuing Dementia Diagnosis
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to notify the physician of a resident’s significant change in condition related to repeated elopement behaviors when requesting discontinuation of the resident’s dementia diagnosis. The resident was an older male with diagnoses including cerebral infarction and osteoarthritis, and had a documented history of psychiatric conditions such as schizophrenia, depression, anxiety, cognitive impairment, and high-risk behaviors including elopement. His care plan, initiated and revised in October and November, identified him as at risk for elopement, having impaired cognitive function/dementia, and requiring Donepezil for dementia. Despite this, on a late November date, the Resident Nurse Coordinator (RNC) struck out dementia as a primary diagnosis, and it no longer appeared on the face sheet. The RNC later stated she removed the dementia diagnosis because of a high BIMS score and nursing assessments, and reported that the MD said it was acceptable to discontinue the diagnosis. The resident’s record showed multiple episodes of exit-seeking and elopement-like behavior. Progress notes documented that on one October date, security called nursing staff because the resident was at the gate wanting to go home; he was ambulatory with a walker and had to be redirected back into the building, after which he was placed on two-hour monitoring. On an early November date, notes described two episodes of elopement from the facility, aggression and combativeness when he was prevented from leaving, statements that he was being held hostage, inability to articulate a destination, involvement of police to control behavior, and transfer to a psychiatric hospital. Family members reported that the resident had a long-standing pattern of leaving facilities and psychiatric hospitals independently, often checking himself out or attempting to leave, and that this behavior had occurred at multiple prior settings. They also stated he had records of a dementia diagnosis, wore a medical bracelet listing dementia and stroke, and that he sometimes contacted them after leaving before the facility did. Elopement risk evaluations and documentation in the record were inconsistent with the resident’s behaviors and abilities. An October elopement risk evaluation identified him as a moderate risk, cognitively impaired, ambulatory, and potentially going outdoors but not leaving the grounds. Subsequent evaluations in November were locked as “No Risk,” with staff only completing the “No Risk” section and not answering triggered questions for moderate or imminent risk, resulting in the system not classifying him as higher risk. These evaluations also contained discrepancies about his decision-making ability and ambulation status. Psychiatry/therapy notes from November indicated he was referred for depression, confusion, elopement, adjustment disorder, and high-risk behavior, described him as an unreliable historian who did not remember attempting to elope, disoriented to situation, endorsing decreased concentration, forgetfulness, and ADL difficulties, and receiving Donepezil for cognitive symptoms. During interview, the MD confirmed he approved discontinuation of the dementia diagnosis based solely on the reported BIMS score, stated he was not aware of the resident’s exit-seeking or elopement behaviors, and noted there was no documentation of such behaviors in his or the NP’s notes. Facility policies required physician notification for changes in condition and for elopement events, but the MD’s lack of awareness of the resident’s elopement behaviors at the time the dementia diagnosis was discontinued demonstrated that the facility failed to ensure the physician was properly informed of these significant changes. Additional documentation and interviews further highlighted the disconnect between the resident’s documented behaviors and the information provided to the physician. A late November progress note described the resident as aware of his needs, able to make decisions regarding his care and safety, and independently checking himself into a local hospital, characterizing this as consistent with his baseline pattern and as evidence of preserved decision-making capacity. This narrative contrasted with psychiatric documentation of cognitive impairment and with family statements that he could not make decisions for himself and had dementia. The Administrator later stated that he did not consider the resident’s departures to be elopements because of the high BIMS score and belief that the resident could make his own decisions, and he did not report the events as elopements. The DON and other staff reported that they had been in-serviced on elopement, exit-seeking behaviors, and the need to notify the physician, and facility policies on wandering and elopement required physician notification when a resident was missing and upon return after leaving without proper procedures. Despite these policies and the documented episodes of exit-seeking and elopement-like behavior, the MD was not informed of these behaviors when the dementia diagnosis was discontinued, resulting in the identified deficiency. The facility’s Medical Record Content policy required accurate, timely documentation and prompt physician notification of changes in condition and unusual occurrences involving the resident, including documentation of attempts to notify the physician. The wandering and elopement policy required assessment of elopement risk upon admission, quarterly, and with changes in condition, and mandated physician notification when a resident could not be located and upon return after leaving without following proper procedures. In this case, the resident’s repeated attempts to leave, documented episodes involving security and police, transfer to a psychiatric hospital, and independent check-in to a local hospital were not fully or consistently reflected in the elopement risk evaluations or in communications to the physician. The MD’s statement that he was unaware of the resident’s exit-seeking and elopement behaviors at the time he agreed to discontinue the dementia diagnosis, combined with the facility’s own policies requiring such notification, formed the basis of the deficiency for failure to ensure the physician was notified of significant changes in the resident’s condition related to elopement behaviors.
Penalty
Resources
Below are regulatory guidelines relevant to this citation:
Failure to Notify MD of Worsening Wound: A resident with multiple comorbidities and a pressure injury had a right gluteal abrasion that progressively worsened from an open wound to a stage IV ulcer with drainage, odor, slough, and exposed tissue. Staff documented the decline in skin assessments and notes, but there was no reproducible evidence that the MD was notified when the wound first deteriorated. The wound later became infected and required hospital transfer for surgical debridement.
A resident with severe cognitive impairment and a history of falls, weakness, malnutrition, and difficulty walking was found on the floor and later developed persistent right hip, thigh, and RLE pain with inability to bear weight. PT and OT notes documented worsening pain and limited mobility, but progress notes did not show notification to the MD or NP. The resident was later sent to the hospital, where imaging showed a displaced right femoral neck fracture.
Failure to notify legal representative of significant change in condition: A resident with dysphagia, CKD, and moderate cognitive impairment had a vasovagal episode in the shower and later vomited, but the family was not immediately informed. Staff notified the PA and monitored the resident, yet the legal representative said the first notice from the facility was after the resident had died. The facility policy required notification of the resident or legal representative for significant changes such as vomiting or vital sign changes.
Failure to Notify Provider of Elevated Heart Rate: A resident with CVA, HTN, atherosclerotic heart disease, and inappropriate sinus tachycardia had a documented HR of 122 bpm after prior readings were consistently lower, but the record did not show that the MD or NP was notified. The unit manager and NP both stated they would expect notification of the abnormal HR and further assessment of the resident's status.
A resident had an unwitnessed fall, but the physician and resident representative were not notified until the next morning. The facility’s policy required prompt assessment and notification after a fall, and the resident had capacity to understand and make decisions. An LVN said the delay occurred because the resident did not show a change in condition, while an RN stated the nurse should have notified the physician and representative immediately after assessing the resident.
A facility failed to notify family representatives about missed morning medications for eight residents. MARs showed blank administration entries for the medication pass, and Progress Notes did not document family notification. Interviews with family members and the POA confirmed they were not told about the medication omissions, while the DON stated notifying families of medication errors is standard practice and should be documented.
Failure to Notify Physician of Worsening Pressure Ulcer
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to notify the physician when a resident’s right gluteal wound deteriorated. The resident was admitted with diagnoses including major depressive disorder, atrial fibrillation, obesity, osteoarthritis, and a pressure ulcer of the left heel, and was cognitively intact with a BIMS score of 15. The resident required substantial to maximal assistance with bed mobility and was dependent on staff for transfers. The care plan and MDS documented pressure injury risk, pressure-reducing devices, turning and repositioning, weekly skin assessments, and reporting abnormal findings to the PCP. The resident’s right gluteal abrasion was first identified after a hospital return and was treated with ordered wound care. The wound then worsened over time, with skin issue reports documenting deterioration, increasing size, non-healing tissue, pain, drainage, odor, slough, and exposed adipose tissue. A nurse note on 3/23 documented increased drainage, slough, foul odor, exposed adipose tissue, and that the resident needed to see a doctor and may need antibiotics, but the facility could not provide reproducible evidence that the physician was notified or what the physician ordered in response. Staff statements reflected that notes were placed for the physician to see, but documentation of actual notification was not available. The wound continued to decline after the 3/23 note, with later reports showing worsening odor, purulent drainage, bleeding, and rapid enlargement. The wound nurse practitioner later documented that the wound had significantly deteriorated and required debridement, and the resident was ultimately hospitalized for surgical debridement. Hospital records documented a stage IV pressure ulcer with infection and sepsis/shock, and the wound culture grew multiple organisms. The survey findings also included staff and physician interviews indicating that the physician had no documentation of notification during the period when the wound was worsening and that earlier notification could have allowed more aggressive treatment.
Failure to Notify Provider of New Right Hip Pain and Inability to Bear Weight
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to follow its policy for notification of a change in resident condition by not notifying the physician and/or nurse practitioner when a resident developed new right lower extremity pain and inability to bear weight. The resident had a history that included weakness, unspecified fall, hypotension, severe protein calorie malnutrition, major depressive disorder, cognitive communication deficit, metabolic encephalopathy, and difficulty walking, and had a BIMS score of 4/15 indicating severe impairment. After the resident was found on the floor on the right side next to the bed with lacerations, redness to both knees, a laceration to the right ankle, and redness to the right hip, the resident initially denied pain. Subsequent PT and OT documentation repeatedly recorded pain in the right hip, thigh, and right lower extremity, with pain increasing with movement, sitting, standing, bending, and weight bearing. PT notes documented that the resident required walker support, took only a few small steps with max assist due to pain, later became unable to ambulate because of severe right lower extremity pain, and was unable to put weight on the leg and had difficulty standing. OT notes also documented aching right lower extremity pain that limited lower body ADLs and functional mobility tasks. The progress notes did not document notification to the doctor or nurse practitioner about the pain or the changes in the resident's right lower extremity. When the resident was later sent to the hospital at the family’s request, the nurse practitioner and ADON were made aware, and the resident was transported by ambulance. The hospital record documented right hip pain, tenderness to palpation and with range of motion of the right hip, and x-ray findings of a superolateral displaced right femoral neck fracture. The hospital history noted the resident may have fallen two weeks earlier, and the daughter reported the last time she saw the resident walking was four weeks earlier. Staff interviews indicated the APRN and NP were not notified of the pain or inability to bear weight, and both stated they would have assessed the resident and likely ordered an x-ray if they had been informed.
Failure to Notify Legal Representative of Significant Change in Condition
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to immediately notify the resident's legal representative of a significant change in condition for one resident reviewed for notification of changes. The resident was admitted with pneumonitis due to inhalation of food and vomit, dysphagia, and stage 3 chronic kidney disease. The Minimum Data Set dated 05/06/2026 documented that the resident could sometimes be understood, could sometimes understand others, and had moderate cognitive impairment. On 05/14/2026, the resident experienced a vasovagal episode while in the shower and later had episodes of vomiting, including brown-colored emesis. Progress notes documented that staff notified the PA of the resident's condition, assessed the resident, and monitored vital signs. The facility policy titled Notification Policy required the attending physician or designee and the resident or resident's legal representative or interested family member to be notified by the nurse of a significant change in condition, including vomiting, change in mentation, change in vital signs, or respiratory distress. There was no documented evidence that Family Member #2 was immediately notified of the vasovagal episode or the vomiting. Family Member #2 stated they were not informed of these events and first learned from the facility when told the resident had passed away at 12:07 PM. Staff interviews confirmed that family notification was expected for significant changes, and the PA stated they were contacted about the vasovagal episode, the vomiting, and later the resident's death.
Failure to Notify Provider of Elevated Heart Rate
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to notify the resident's physician or nurse practitioner when the resident had a change in vital signs that could have required physician intervention. Resident #2 was admitted in January 2026 with diagnoses including cerebral infarction, hypertension, atherosclerotic heart disease, and inappropriate sinus tachycardia. Review of the resident's heart rates from January 2026 through 3/4/26 showed rates ranging from 57 to 89 beats per minute, with no documented heart rate over 100 beats per minute during that period. On 3/5/26 at 9:00 AM, the resident's March 2026 MAR documented a heart rate of 122 beats per minute. The medical record did not show that the physician or NP was notified of this increase. During interview, the unit manager stated she would expect the physician to be notified because the rate was far outside the resident's usual range and said she would notify the doctor and recheck the heart rate after medication. The NP stated he would expect to be notified about a heart rate of 122 because he would want to know whether the resident was symptomatic, whether the respiratory rate was elevated, or whether other issues such as sepsis, pain, or positioning were contributing.
Delayed Notification After Resident Fall
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to notify Resident 4’s physician and resident representative of an unwitnessed fall in a timely manner. The facility’s Fall Prevention and Response policy stated that after a fall, a licensed nurse shall promptly respond, assess the resident, and notify the physician and resident representative. Resident 4 was admitted to the facility and had an H&P showing the resident had the capacity to understand and make decisions. Resident 4’s SBAR Fall Report documented a fall on 5/3/26 at 2330 hours, but the physician and resident representative were not notified until 5/4/26 at 0744 hours. LVN 1 stated the resident was monitored closely after the fall and that notification was delayed until the following morning because the resident did not exhibit a change in condition. RN 1 verified the fall occurred and stated the licensed nurse should notify the physician and resident representative immediately after assessing the resident rather than waiting until the next morning. The DON was informed and acknowledged the findings.
Failure to Notify Families of Missed Morning Medications
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to notify resident family representatives of missed administration of significant morning medications for eight residents. Review of the Medication Administration Records for R1, R2, R3, R4, R5, R6, R7, and R8 showed blank boxes without nurses’ initials to indicate the medications were administered on 5/10/26 during morning medication pass. The residents’ Progress Notes did not document that family representatives were notified of the medication omission errors. Interviews confirmed the lack of notification. On 5/21/26, R8’s POA stated the facility did not notify her that R8 missed medications on Mother’s Day. On the same day, R1’s family member stated she was not contacted about the missed medications, and R2’s family member stated no one called or told him there were problems with his father receiving medications. The Interim DON stated it is standard practice for family representatives to be notified of medication errors, that floor nurses are expected to contact families, and that the notification should be documented in the resident’s medical record. The facility policy on Physician-Family Notification-Change in Condition states the facility will inform the resident, consult the physician or authorized designee, and if known, notify the legal representative or interested family member.
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.