Unsafe Smoking Environment, Inadequate Supervision, and Poor Smoking Care Planning
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to maintain a safe, hazard‑free smoking environment and to provide adequate supervision and care planning for residents who smoke. Surveyors observed the designated outdoor smoking area at the back of the facility to be a 10 ft by 10 ft covered space open to the parking lot, with a table, a wooden chair, a standing cigarette butt receptacle, and a carpet mat. Numerous cigarette butts were scattered on the ground under the shade structure, and residents and staff confirmed that not everyone used the ashtray and that the area was often dirty and only occasionally swept. Approximately 10–12 ft beyond the smoking area, the maintenance/housekeeping shed and surrounding grounds contained multiple empty to full cardboard boxes, tarped boxes and furniture, wood pallets and slabs, a plastic crate with spray bottles and a plastic bottle of cleaning solution, random debris, and two overfilled garbage bins. One shed door adjacent to the smoking area was left open and unattended, allowing access to maintenance supplies, tools, chemical solutions, aerosols, documentation, broken equipment, and boxes of glass fluorescent tube lights stored in a cluttered, disorganized space. The Life Safety/Housekeeping Director acknowledged that the shed and the overflowing garbage bins were hazardous and that flammable aerosol items and boxes of ethyl alcohol‑based hand sanitizer were stored there. The facility also failed to provide adequate supervision in the smoking area, which contributed to resident‑to‑resident abuse and unsafe smoking practices. Resident 1, with hemiplegia/hemiparesis and moderately impaired cognition (BIMS 12), was assessed as able to smoke without supervision and had signed the smoking policy and contract. Resident 2, with paranoid schizophrenia and severely impaired cognition (BIMS 5), was also assessed as independent and allowed to smoke without supervision, with his conservator signing the smoking policy and contract. Resident 3, cognitively intact (BIMS 15) with COPD, was likewise allowed to smoke unsupervised. Resident 4, with COPD, adult failure to thrive, and moderately impaired cognition (BIMS 11), was assessed as requiring supervision to smoke, and Resident 5, with a right femur fracture and history of falls and moderately impaired cognition (BIMS 11), was also assessed as requiring supervision. Resident 6, cognitively intact (BIMS 15) with a Colles fracture and repeated falls, was assessed as independent to smoke without supervision. Despite facility smoking policies and resident contracts specifying set smoking times and supervision requirements, surveyors observed residents smoking unsupervised outside of scheduled times. Resident 2 and Resident 3 were seen smoking alone, with Resident 3 positioned in the parking lot past the first row of cars. Resident 2 was observed with two small burn holes in the front of his coat, which he attributed to a burning cigarette that went out on its own while he was alone. An incident of resident‑to‑resident abuse occurred in the smoking area when Resident 2 hit Resident 1 on the right side of the face during an altercation while both were outside smoking unsupervised. Progress notes and care plans for both residents documented the incident and indicated that staff were to continue to monitor the smoking area, but staff interviews revealed that increased supervision after the altercation lasted only briefly and that there were not enough staff to consistently supervise smoking times or prevent residents from going out to smoke independently. Resident 4, who required supervision and was non‑ambulatory, was observed smoking outside unsupervised in his wheelchair, with both legs wrapped in kerlix gauze from ankles to knees. He reported that a CNA had brought him outside and left him in the sun, and he stated he could not help himself since his legs were wrapped. He was seen extinguishing his lit cigarette with his fingers and placing the butt in his coat pocket, and he needed assistance to turn his wheelchair and open the door to re‑enter the building. Resident 1 was observed flicking his cigarette into a plastic cup holder attached to his wheelchair, which contained ash and later two cigarette butts; the Activities Director and DON acknowledged that using a plastic cup holder as an ashtray was not allowed and posed a fire hazard. The facility also failed to adequately incorporate residents’ smoking status and supervision needs into their care plans. Resident 4’s care plan report contained no evidence of a smoking care plan, despite his documented need for supervised smoking. Resident 6’s smoking care plan was not initiated until the time of the survey, even though she had been admitted months earlier and had signed the smoking policy and contract. Facility policies required that any smoking‑related privileges, restrictions, and concerns, including the need for close monitoring, be noted on the care plan, and the DON stated that smoking status should be care planned within seven days of admission so staff would know a resident is a smoker and whether supervision is required. Staff interviews confirmed that care plans are used to guide monitoring and actions, including assessing whether residents are safe to use and keep lighters, and that without appropriate care planning, staff may not be aware of residents’ smoking needs. The DON acknowledged that residents who required supervision should not be outside unsupervised, that residents sometimes went out to smoke at any hour despite rules, that the smoking rules were not enforced, and that staff were not prepared for the interaction that occurred between Resident 1 and Resident 2 in the smoking area. Facility policies and job descriptions emphasized maintaining a safe environment, identifying safety risks and environmental hazards, and ensuring safe smoking practices. The Safety and Supervision of Residents policy stated that the facility strives to make the environment as free from accident hazards as possible and that resident supervision is a core component of safety. The Maintenance Service policy and the Maintenance Director and Housekeeper job descriptions required maintaining buildings and grounds in good repair and free from hazards, inspecting storage and work areas, and maintaining a safe, orderly, and clean environment free of obstacles. The Smoking Policy‑Residents documents, including the version signed by residents and responsible parties, specified designated smoking times, required that smoking‑related privileges and monitoring needs be noted on care plans, and stated that residents with smoking privileges may not keep smoking articles outside of designated times and that violations could result in loss of smoking privileges or discharge. Despite these written expectations, observations, interviews, and record reviews showed that the smoking area and adjacent maintenance/housekeeping area were cluttered and hazardous, that residents smoked unsupervised and outside of designated times, that unsafe methods of extinguishing cigarettes were used, and that smoking care plans were missing or delayed for some residents, resulting in unmet care needs and inadequate care planning.
Penalty
Resources
Below are regulatory guidelines relevant to this citation:
Unsafe Cord Placement and Failure to Follow Fall Interventions: A resident with cognitive impairment and wheelchair use had a TV power cord stretched tightly across the closet doorway, blocking access and creating an environmental hazard when staff had to lift the cord to open the closet. Another resident with severe cognitive impairment and a fall-risk care plan repeatedly ran barefoot in the hallway while staff observed but did not consistently provide planned interventions such as gripper socks, footwear, ambulation assistance, or redirection.
A resident with impaired cognition, cancer, non-Alzheimer's dementia, extensive ADL needs, and a fall history was identified as a high fall risk with care plan interventions including removing a movable bedside table. After a fall, the resident was found using the table as a walker, yet observations showed the table still placed beside the bed on multiple occasions, including when staff were present. Staff interviews confirmed they were unaware of the current fall prevention interventions and that the table remained at bedside for meals despite the care plan.
Failure to complete a restraint assessment before using a wheelchair alarm for a resident with muscle weakness, difficulty walking, repeated falls, and dementia. The care plan included the alarm as an intervention, but the record lacked an initial Restraint Evaluation, and the CNO confirmed the assessment had not been completed before the alarm was placed.
A resident with cognitive deficits, dementia, Alzheimer's disease, fracture, and repeated falls was dependent for toileting and care planned for an EZ stand with 2-person assist. During observed transfers, staff placed the harness and straps correctly, but the resident only rose to about 135 degrees and never came to a full stand, while staff remained by the bathroom door during privacy periods and continued the transfer despite the resident not standing fully. An RN stated the resident was expected to stand straight up with the EZ stand and that staff should sit the resident back down and try again if not.
A resident with Alzheimer's disease and dementia was found wandering in the parking lot after leaving the building unsupervised. A family member visiting another resident saw her looking into car windows and alerted staff, who were not aware she had exited until the report. Staff interviews showed the resident had been seen earlier eating in the dining room, but no one was actively looking for her or knew she had left the facility.
A resident with parkinsonism and Alzheimer's disease, severe cognitive impairment, and a fall history was pushed in her wheelchair without foot pedals and was not assisted when she called out for help. Nursing notes and staff interviews showed a CNA propelled the resident multiple times without foot pedals, including one instance where her socked foot hit the floor, and staff acknowledged that foot pedals should be used when pushing a resident.
Unsafe Cord Placement and Failure to Follow Fall Interventions
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure a television power cord was properly secured and maintained so it did not create an environmental accident hazard for R46. R46’s quarterly MDS identified moderate cognitive impairment, maximum assistance needed for dressing, grooming, and toileting hygiene, moderate assistance with transfers, and wheelchair use. During observation, R46 was in his room with the television mounted on the wall between the bathroom and closet, and the power cord ran across the closet doors and across the upper drawer of the dresser to a surge protector on top of the dresser. When R46 tried to open the closet doors, the cord was stretched tightly across the doorway and prevented the doors from opening fully unless the cord was lifted away. A later observation showed NA-D had to lift the cord above the closet door to open it and retrieve clothing. NA-D stated the cord had been positioned that way for about one year and could be dangerous if R46 pulled on it, and maintenance staff stated they were only notified that day that the television needed to be fixed. The facility also failed to ensure fall interventions were followed for R13, who had severe cognitive impairment with disorganized thinking and inattention, verbal behaviors toward others, and dependence on staff for footwear and partial to moderate assistance with dressing. R13’s care plan identified her as at risk for falls and included interventions such as ambulating with the resident, encouraging gripper socks, obtaining slip-on shoes, reducing noise, offering snacks, assisting her back to her room when running in the hallway, offering a wheelchair, and redirecting her to slow down. During observations, R13 repeatedly exited her room barefoot and ran through the hallway, including multiple times over an extended period, while staff observed but did not provide gripper socks or shoes, walk with her, redirect her to slow down, or offer other care-planned interventions. Staff interviews indicated they had difficulty redirecting her because she became agitated, and the DON stated the care plan should be followed to ensure safety.
Failure to Follow Fall Prevention Care Plan
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to implement care planned interventions to prevent further falls for one resident who was reviewed for falls. The resident had moderate impaired cognition, diagnoses including cancer and non-Alzheimer's dementia, required extensive assistance with ADLs including toileting, transfers, and locomotion, and had a history of falls. The resident's care plan identified the resident as a high fall risk related to de-conditioning, cognitive deficits, and prior falls, and included interventions such as anti-rollbacks on the wheelchair, appropriate footwear, keeping a wheelchair behind the resident when ambulating, and removing the mobile bedside table from beside the bed. After a fall in which the resident was found on the floor by the room doorway with the mobile bedside table in the hallway next to him, the resident stated he had been using the table as a walker. Despite the care plan and post-fall assessment identifying removal of the mobile bedside table as an intervention, observations showed the movable bedside table still placed alongside the bed on multiple occasions, including when staff were present in the room. Staff interviews confirmed they were unaware of the current fall prevention interventions, acknowledged the table was movable, and stated it remained at the bedside to facilitate meals. The DON confirmed the table had been at the bedside and was removed only after the surveyor discussed it with staff.
Failure to complete restraint assessment before wheelchair alarm use
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to complete a restraint assessment before implementing a wheelchair alarm for Resident #18. Resident #18 was admitted with multiple diagnoses including muscle weakness, difficulty walking, repeated falls, and dementia. The care plan for impaired mobility and fall risk, dated 3/8/26, included a wheelchair alarm as an intervention. A Bed Safety and Transfer Device Evaluation dated 4/28/26 documented that the bed/chair alarm did not restrict mobility, but the record did not include an initial Restraint Evaluation dated on or around 3/8/26 to identify the comprehensive evaluation of the chair alarm. On 7/9/26, the CNO stated that a Restraint Evaluation had not been completed prior to the chair alarm being placed for Resident #18.
Inadequate Supervision During EZ Stand Transfers
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure adequate supervision and assistance for one resident during transfers with an EZ stand lift. The resident had cognitive deficits and was dependent for toileting, with diagnoses including Alzheimer's disease, dementia, fracture, and repeated falls. The care plan identified a moderate fall risk related to weakness and directed toileting with an EZ stand and 2-person assist. During observation, nursing assistants placed the harness, safety belt, straps, and loops appropriately and assisted the resident with the lift, but the resident stood only to approximately 135 degrees and never came to a full stand. On two observed transfers, staff remained by the bathroom door while the resident was given privacy, then re-entered to continue the transfer and complete care. In both observations, the resident never achieved a full standing position despite encouragement and repeated attempts. One nursing assistant stated the transfer was safe because two staff were assisting, while the RN case manager stated she expected the resident to stand straight up when transferred with the EZ stand and that staff should sit the resident back down and try again if the resident did not. The RN case manager was unaware of any concerns about the resident transferring safely with the EZ stand. Facility policy was requested but not provided.
Resident Left Unsupervised and Was Found Wandering in Parking Lot
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to recognize that a cognitively impaired resident had left the building unsupervised and was wandering in the parking lot. The resident had diagnoses including Alzheimer's disease, dementia, and anxiety disorder, and records showed she had moderately impaired cognition, walked and transferred independently, and had no documented wandering behaviors during the MDS lookback period. Although an elopement evaluation had previously concluded she was not at risk for elopement, the care plan identified confusion, impaired cognition, and lack of awareness of safety needs. On the day of the event, a family member visiting another resident saw the resident outside in the parking lot looking into car windows and walking from car to car with a jacket and pocketbook on her arm. The family member stated the resident appeared to be looking for someone and was in the middle area of the parking lot before she reported it to staff. Nurse #3 was notified and went to check on the resident, who was then brought back inside the facility. Staff interviews showed they were not actively looking for the resident and did not know she had exited the facility unsupervised until the family member reported seeing her outside. Staff accounts indicated the resident had been seen earlier in the dining room eating, but no one was aware she had left the building. Nurse #2 and NA #1 both stated they were not aware the resident was missing until the report from the family member. The administrator stated the resident exited through the front entrance doors, but it was not known whether she pushed the button behind the receptionist desk or was let out by a visitor. The previous NP stated the resident needed someone with her if she was outside the facility and could have wandered away if left alone.
Failure to Respond to Help Requests and Use Foot Pedals During Wheelchair Transport
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure a safe environment free from accident hazards for R25 when staff did not respond to her requests for help and did not provide foot pedals while propelling her wheelchair. R25 had diagnoses of parkinsonism and Alzheimer's disease, and her records documented severely impaired cognition, including a BIMS score of four on a quarterly MDS. Her care plan stated she was independent with locomotion in her manual wheelchair, but other documentation reflected a history of falls and need for staff assistance with wheelchair mobility. The care plan also lacked documentation regarding foot pedals. Nursing notes and staff interviews showed multiple instances in which R25 was pushed in her wheelchair without foot pedals. On one occasion, a CNA propelled her out of the restroom and her socked foot hit the floor when the wheelchair was pushed. On another occasion, R25 was seated in her wheelchair, holding onto the back of a recliner and calling out for help, while the CNA walked by her. The CNA later propelled R25 down the hallway without foot pedals and at one point pushed the chair and let it go. Staff interviews confirmed that residents should have foot pedals when staff are pushing them, and the CNA stated she should not push R25 without foot pedals.
Trusted data from CMS and state health departments
Every citation, penalty and Plan of Correction is sourced from public CMS records (latest release August 26, 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.