F0689

D

Failure to Timely Respond to Resident’s Non-Return From Appointment Resulting in Elopement and Missed Treatments

Stockton, California Survey Completed on 03-05-2026

Penalty

No penalty information released

Summary

The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to provide adequate supervision and timely intervention when a resident did not return from an outing as expected, resulting in an elopement. The resident had been admitted in 2025 with diagnoses including acute osteomyelitis of the right ankle and foot, cellulitis of the right lower limb, a non‑pressure chronic ulcer of the right heel and foot, type 2 diabetes with long‑term insulin use, asthma, difficulty walking, and generalized muscle weakness. The resident also had a right upper arm PICC line for IV Ertapenem to treat osteomyelitis and was receiving Heparin for DVT prevention and insulin for diabetes management. On the day of the incident, the resident left the facility around 12:30 p.m. for a medical appointment that he reported he had independently scheduled, including arranging his own transportation, and he signed out at the nursing station stating he was going out for this appointment.

Progress notes and interviews show that the resident did not return at his expected time, which staff understood to be between 6 p.m. and 7 p.m., and he remained out of the facility for approximately 29 hours. A late entry nurse progress note timed at 6 p.m. on the day of departure documented that the charge nurse reported the resident had signed out for his appointment and had not yet returned, and that the resident had also left the previous day with a friend but returned around 6:30 p.m. The note indicated the writer instructed the charge nurse to call the resident’s cell phone and listed contacts, and that the MD and administration were notified. Another progress note the following morning documented that the resident had not returned since leaving for the appointment, that attempts to reach him and his emergency contacts by phone were unsuccessful, and that the DON, Administrator, and MD were notified. The DON later confirmed that the physician was not called until 10 p.m. on the day the resident left and that law enforcement was not contacted until around 7 a.m. the next day, despite the facility’s policy that staff should immediately notify administration, the physician, and then law enforcement when a resident on pass or at an appointment does not return within four hours or by the expected time.

Interviews with nursing leadership and staff further described inaction and delays in following the facility’s elopement and out‑on‑pass procedures. The DON stated that based on the facility’s definition, the resident’s absence from the time he failed to return as expected until his arrival the next day constituted an elopement. The DON and ADON both confirmed that the facility did not promptly contact the police the night the resident failed to return, and the ADON stated she was the one who called law enforcement when she came on duty at 7 a.m. the following morning. LN 1 acknowledged that she did not call the police when the resident did not return at his expected time and recognized that not calling could affect the resident’s safety and left staff unaware of his whereabouts or condition. The DON also acknowledged that staff did not follow up with the community medical center to determine whether the resident was there. During the resident’s absence, medication records show missed doses of IV Ertapenem, insulin glargine, and Heparin, with the MAR marked as "AW" (away from center) or "X" (not given) on relevant dates. When the resident eventually returned, he was sent to the hospital, where toxicology screening was positive for methamphetamine and opiates, and social services documented that the resident described his experience outside the facility as frightening.

The facility’s written policies outlined specific steps that were not followed in this situation. The "Wandering and Elopements" policy required that if a resident is missing and not on an authorized leave, staff must initiate a search and, if the resident is not located, notify the Administrator, DON, legal representative, attending physician, and law enforcement. The "Out On Pass" policy required that residents have a physician’s order for an out‑on‑pass and that licensed nurses assess the resident’s status and ensure instructions for special needs and medication orders while on pass. Interdisciplinary team notes later clarified that the resident had an MD‑approved one‑day out‑on‑pass order for the previous day only and that he left on the day of the incident believing he did not need a new order. At the time he left, the facility did not have a current out‑on‑pass order for that day, and staff did not promptly implement the missing resident/emergency procedures when he failed to return within the expected timeframe, leading to the identified deficiency in supervision and accident prevention.