Failure to Protect Cognitively Impaired Residents From Repeated Resident-to-Resident Sexual Abuse
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to protect cognitively impaired residents from sexual abuse by another resident with a known pattern of sexually inappropriate behaviors. One resident (R4), who had moderately impaired cognition, a history of hypersexual behavior, and was able to self-propel in a wheelchair, repeatedly engaged in sexual contact with other residents who were severely cognitively impaired and dependent on staff for ADLs. On 11/22/25, R4 took a glove from a nurse’s cart while in a hallway on B wing and placed her gloved hand on another resident’s (R7) vaginal area, fondling her labia. Staff separated the residents, but R4’s care plan was not updated to address this sexual behavior, and no interventions were added to prevent further sexual abuse. R7’s care plan, which identified her as low risk for abuse despite dementia with depression and anxiety, was also not updated with interventions to protect her from sexual abuse. On 2/10/26, while in the dementia unit, R4 again engaged in sexual abuse, this time toward a male resident (R5) who had severe cognitive impairment and required assistance with ADLs. During the evening medication pass, staff observed R4 wheeling herself quickly toward R5, then placing her whole hand inside his pants and undergarments, touching his penile area. Staff immediately separated the residents, and R4 became upset and yelled that she wanted to return to R5. The incident was reported to the ADON, and R4 was reportedly placed on 1:1 supervision. However, R4’s care plan was not revised to address this sexual behavior, and R5’s care plan, which later documented him as moderate risk for abuse due to poor cognition, did not include interventions related to the sexual abuse incident or measures to protect him from further sexual abuse. On 3/11/26, R4 again sexually abused another male resident (R6), who had severe cognitive impairment, Alzheimer’s dementia, bipolar disorder, and was identified in his care plan as high risk for abuse due to dementia and mental health diagnoses. During an activity in the common area, R4 and R6 were seated side by side in wheelchairs when staff observed R4’s hand in R6’s groin area, moving toward his private area in an up-and-down tapping motion. R4 loudly expressed sexual intent, stating she wanted to have sex with R6 and would do whatever she wanted. Staff immediately separated them, and R6 appeared wide-eyed and looking around as if for help. Despite this incident and R4’s known pattern of hypersexual behavior, R4’s care plan still did not include interventions addressing her sexual behaviors, and R6’s care plan, although identifying him as high risk for abuse, had no interventions to address the sexual abuse or to protect him from further sexual abuse. Across these incidents, staff interviews confirmed that R4 had been hypersexual, touching other residents in their private areas and making sexually explicit statements to other residents. The DON acknowledged awareness that R4 had inappropriately touched residents in the dementia unit. The Dementia Director/Social Services stated that when abuse occurs, a trauma assessment should be done immediately to assess emotional and psychological impact and provide supportive interventions, but no trauma assessments were completed for R7, R5, or R6 at the time of their respective incidents. The physician reported he was not made aware of the sexual abuse incidents involving R4 and the other residents until 3/13/26. The Regional Director of Operations stated that the care plans for R4, R7, R5, and R6 should have been updated when the incidents occurred to ensure proper interventions were in place. The facility’s own Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation policy defined sexual abuse as non-consensual sexual contact of any type with a resident and required protection of residents’ health, welfare, and rights, but the facility failed to implement timely care plan updates and protective interventions following repeated episodes of resident-to-resident sexual abuse. These failures resulted in an Immediate Jeopardy situation beginning on 11/22/25 when R4 first sexually abused R7 and continuing through subsequent incidents involving R5 and R6. The surveyors determined that the facility did not protect residents from sexual abuse, did not promptly assess for trauma, did not notify the physician in a timely manner, and did not revise care plans or implement effective interventions despite clear evidence of ongoing sexually aggressive behavior by R4 toward severely cognitively impaired residents.
Removal Plan
- R4 was separated from other residents and placed under continuous 1:1 supervision to prevent further inappropriate contact until discharge from facility or her condition warrants immobility.
- R5, R6 and R7 were assessed by nursing staff for physical injury and psychosocial distress.
- SSD/Memory Care Director verified all memory care residents have had a risk for abuse assessment completed per policy.
- The physicians and parties responsible for all residents involved were notified.
- R4, R5, R6 and R7 had an Abuse/Neglect/Trauma assessment.
- R5, R6, and R7 had the Trauma Informed Care Assessment completed.
- Abuse policies were reviewed and no revisions were required.
- DON and ADON educated all staff on facility Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation policy with an emphasis on identifying abuse, reporting abuse, appropriate interventions, following resident care plans, and monitoring of residents with a history of aggressive or sexual behaviors.
- Any staff who did not receive education will be educated prior to next shift.
- The DON or designee reviewed facility abuse policies and procedures with any agency staff prior to their shift.
- Regional Nurse Director in-serviced Administrator and DON on identifying abuse (including sexual abuse) and reporting abuse.
- Regional Nurse Director in-serviced Administrator and DON on the process to relay information to staff regarding the resident's care plans or changes to a resident's care plans pertaining to interventions/strategies to redirect resident when exhibiting either aggressive or sexual behaviors.
- Emergency QAPI was held with Medical Director to discuss citation and develop interventions to ensure safety of other residents.
- Root Cause Analysis was completed.
- R5, R6, and R7 had their care plan updated with safety interventions to protect from abuse.
- R4's care plan was updated to reflect interventions put in place to safeguard other residents on the unit, including but not limited to: one-to-one supervision and providing residents with sensory items to help keep residents occupied and hands busy.
- Administrator will audit weekly for 6 weeks and then monthly for 3 months to monitor residents with history of sexual behaviors/resident abuse and verify appropriate interventions are in place and care plans updated accordingly.
- All abuse findings will be reviewed by the QAPI team to ensure appropriate measures have been put in place.
Penalty
Resources
Below are regulatory guidelines relevant to this citation:
A facility failed to protect two residents with severe cognitive impairment from sexual abuse by not completing a comprehensive assessment of each resident’s capacity to consent after repeated sexual encounters were discovered. Staff found the residents together in bed or in the bathroom, often unclothed, and allowed privacy based on their behavior without documenting a structured consent assessment. The facility also did not fully investigate unexplained bruising and reported vaginal bleeding for one resident in the setting of the known relationship, and the MD was not notified of the incidents or injuries.
Failure to protect a resident from resident-to-resident physical abuse: one resident entered another resident’s area, got into her belongings, and then grabbed, hit, and scratched her left wrist/hand, causing a skin tear, bruise, swelling, and pain. The injured resident said she was afraid of the other resident, while staff heard yelling, found both residents in the room, separated them, and documented the wound and bruising. The other resident had dementia with behavioral disturbance and used a walker and wheelchair.
Failure to protect a resident from resident-to-resident abuse: a resident with PTSD and a long history of physical and sexual abuse reported another resident repeatedly entered their room at night, then later exposed himself, blocked the resident from leaving, and used meth in front of them. The record lacked an investigation, trauma assessment, psychosocial monitoring, and documented behavior-based monitoring for the other resident, and staff interviews confirmed the concerns were not fully addressed in the chart.
A resident with dementia, CKD, HF, and severe cognitive impairment was involved in a physical abuse allegation when a CNA struck or batted his arm/hand during care after he grabbed at staff. A witness reported that the CNA hit the resident hard and yelled at him, while the CNA said she only tapped his hand away and did not consider it abusive. The resident could not answer questions about the event, and the facility’s records showed the allegation was not promptly escalated through the abuse reporting chain.
A resident with impaired cognition, stroke-related deficits, and constipation was subjected to manual stool removal by an LPN after a suppository did not work. Staff interviews and the resident’s statements indicated she said stop and begged the LPN to stop while he continued the procedure, and she later described the care as painful, violating, and demeaning. The LPN said he manually removed the stool in the bathroom, did not complete an abdominal assessment, and did not contact the provider for further direction.
A resident with CKD, CHF, ESRD, DM, and multiple foot wounds did not receive ordered daily wound care, and the TAR and progress notes lacked documentation that the treatments were completed on multiple occasions. The resident was later hospitalized for worsening wound infection, with purulent drainage and concern for osteomyelitis; the wound care provider also reported concerns that ordered dressing changes were not being done and noted worsening skin breakdown to the buttocks.
Failure to Assess Consent and Investigate Injury With Resident Sexual Activity
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to protect two cognitively impaired residents from sexual abuse by not completing a comprehensive assessment of each resident’s capacity to consent to sexual activity after becoming aware that they were engaging in sexual contact. One resident had diagnoses including Alzheimer’s disease, neurocognitive disorder with Lewy bodies, dementia, and anxiety, with documentation showing severe cognitive impairment, wandering, hallucinations, confusion, and inability to consistently orient to time or place. The other resident also had diagnoses including Alzheimer’s disease and dementia with psychotic disturbance, with repeated BIMS scores showing severe cognitive impairment and care plan documentation noting cognitive loss and a history of wandering and checking doors. The record showed repeated incidents in which the two residents were found together in bed or in the bathroom, often unclothed, and staff documented that they appeared calm or did not show obvious distress. Staff notes and interviews showed that the residents were allowed privacy and continued access to each other without documentation of a formal assessment of whether either resident understood the nature of the relationship or could knowingly and voluntarily consent. Staff interviews also reflected that they relied on the residents’ behavior, such as whether they pushed away or said no, rather than documenting a structured assessment of capacity after each incident. The facility also failed to investigate unexplained bruising and reported vaginal bleeding for one resident in the context of the known sexual activity. The record documented bruises on the forearms and thigh in various stages of healing, along with a report of bloody vaginal discharge, but there was no evidence of a physical assessment or investigation to determine whether the findings were related to abuse, coercion, trauma, or another cause. Interviews with the RN, LPN, DON, MD, and family showed that the physician had not been notified of the sexual incidents, the bruising, or the vaginal bleeding, and that staff had not documented a formal assessment after the incidents.
Failure to Protect Resident from Resident-to-Resident Physical Abuse
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to protect a resident from resident-to-resident physical abuse when one resident attacked another during the night, causing a skin tear to the left wrist, bruising to the left thumb, swelling, pain, and fear for safety. The injured resident was admitted with diagnoses including type 2 diabetes mellitus, unsteadiness on feet, need for assistance with personal care, and muscle weakness, and had a BIMS score of 15/15 indicating cognitive intactness. The other resident involved had diagnoses including type 2 diabetes mellitus, dementia with other behavioral disturbance, and essential hypertension, and used a walker and wheelchair for locomotion. According to the injured resident, she returned from the bathroom and found the other resident in her area getting into her refrigerator. When she told the other resident to get out of her things, the other resident became angry, grabbed her left wrist, hit her left hand, and scratched her, causing the injury. The injured resident stated she was afraid of the other resident and was glad the other resident had been moved to another unit so she could not hurt her again. At observation the next day, the resident’s left wrist/hand was bandaged, an observable bruise was present at the base of the left thumb, and the hand/wrist was slightly swollen and painful to touch. Facility documentation and staff statements confirmed that staff heard yelling from the room, found the residents in the room, and separated them. Nursing notes documented a skin tear with partial skin flap loss to the left wrist/forearm and bruising to the left thumb, with the wound cleansed and steri-strips applied. Staff statements described the other resident as being in the injured resident’s area and making unwanted contact, while the administrator stated the investigation was still ongoing and could not yet determine whether resident-to-resident abuse had occurred. The facility’s abuse prevention policy states residents are to be free from abuse by anyone, including other residents, and defines physical abuse as willful infliction of injury resulting in physical harm or pain.
Failure to Protect Resident from Resident-to-Resident Abuse
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to protect residents from abuse and failed to provide adequate supervision and effective interventions when Resident 7 reported fear and unsafe interactions with another resident. Resident 7 was admitted with COPD and PTSD and had a documented history of childhood through adulthood abuse, including physical and sexual abuse, domestic violence, and trafficking. A trauma questionnaire showed Resident 7 had previously tried to avoid reminders of past events and reported that nothing made them feel worse at that time. In one incident, Resident 7 told staff they were afraid to go to sleep because another resident came to their room at night and shook them awake. The resident admitted going to the room and waking Resident 7, and staff educated that resident about safety and respect. The progress note did not appear in the incident log or grievance log, and the record did not show an investigation, monitoring for negative psychological social outcomes, a trauma assessment, or care plan interventions to promote a sense of security. Staff interviews confirmed the social service department was unaware of the situation and that a trauma assessment should have been completed. In a second incident, Resident 7 reported that the same resident blew methamphetamine smoke in their face in the smoking shed, blocked them from leaving with a wheelchair, and exposed and masturbated in front of them. Resident 7 stated the event triggered past childhood trauma and made them feel trapped. The facility investigation documented a separation plan and one-to-one supervision for Resident 7, while the other resident was placed on alert status with increased monitoring and behavior risk. However, the record did not show implementation of behavior-based monitoring for the other resident, and observations later showed Resident 7 without staff supervision.
Physical abuse allegation involving a resident during care
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure a resident was free from physical abuse when a CNA slapped the resident’s arm during care. The resident was a male with dementia without behavioral disturbance, chronic kidney disease, and heart failure. His care plan identified that he could be physically aggressive due to poor impulse control and resistive to care because of impaired cognition, and his quarterly MDS showed severely impaired cognition with a BIMS score of 2, extensive assistance needs for most ADLs, and bowel and bladder incontinence. According to the incident documentation, the event occurred in the resident’s room during care when one CNA reported that another CNA hit the resident’s hand after the resident grabbed her. A written statement from the witnessing CNA said the CNA hit the resident hard on the arm and then yelled at him. The resident was unable to answer questions about the event because of his stroke and cognitive impairment, and the incident report noted that he had a history of hitting staff. The CNA involved stated that the resident struck her arm and that she tapped his hand gently, comparing her action to what one would do with a child. The facility’s investigation summary described the contact as the CNA batting the resident’s hand away, while the witness described it as striking the resident on the arm. The report also showed that the allegation was not immediately escalated through the facility’s abuse reporting process, as the witness said she reported it to an LVN and was told the DON had been notified, but the abuse coordinator did not receive the information until later. The facility’s records also reflected that the incident was ultimately treated as an unsubstantiated allegation of abuse.
Abuse During Manual Stool Removal
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure a resident was free from abuse during bowel care when an LPN performed manual removal of impacted stool from the rectum without consent and continued after the resident asked him to stop. The resident had moderately impaired cognition, was dependent on staff for transfers and toileting hygiene, and had a history of constipation. Her diagnoses included stroke, atrial fibrillation, hemiplegia/hemiparesis, adjustment disorder, and mixed anxiety and depressed mood. Her care plan identified limited physical mobility and the need for two staff with a stand lift for transfers. On the day of the incident, the resident had not had a bowel movement for several days and had received constipation medications and a rectal suppository. Progress notes documented that a rectal check found hard stool and that manual evacuation was performed with removal of large amounts of stool. Staff interviews described that the resident cried, said stop, and begged the LPN to stop while he continued the manual removal for additional time. The resident later reported that the procedure was painful, that she felt violated, embarrassed, and demeaned, and that she believed the nurse was smiling and laughing at her during the care. Multiple staff interviews confirmed that the resident was distressed during the procedure and that the LPN did not stop when she requested it. Staff also stated the procedure was invasive and should have been stopped when the resident expressed pain. The LPN stated he manually removed the stool in the bathroom, did not complete an abdominal assessment, did not administer an enema before manual removal, and did not contact the provider for further direction. The report also states the facility failed to ensure the resident was free from abuse during cares, and the immediate jeopardy was identified based on this event.
Failure to Complete Ordered Wound Care
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to provide wound care services as ordered by the physician for one resident with multiple chronic conditions, including CKD, CHF, HTN, ESRD, muscle wasting/atrophy, anemia, and diabetes-related foot wounds. The resident’s records showed a BIMS score of 15, indicating cognitive intactness, and documented multiple wounds, including ulcers on both feet, a diabetic foot ulcer, and a wound infection. Physician orders required daily wound care to the left calcaneus, right calcaneus, right plantar foot, right medial foot, and daily povidone-iodine application to the right foot, but the TAR did not document completion of these treatments on multiple dates in May 2026, and the progress notes also lacked documentation that the treatments were completed. The resident was hospitalized on 5/26/26 with worsening wound infection. The hospital history and physical documented ESRD on daily dialysis, CHF, COPD, DM, depression, HTN, prior MI with stenting, oxygen use, chronic wound status, and ulcers of both feet with necrosis of muscle. The hospital record stated the resident reported the nursing home should have been changing wound dressings daily but said that was not done. The wound care provider stated the right foot wound had purulent drainage, she was concerned about osteomyelitis, and she sent the resident to the emergency room. She also stated she had concerns that the facility was not completing the ordered dressing changes and that the resident had worsening buttocks skin breakdown, while the DON stated treatments should be completed as ordered and documented on the TAR or in progress notes.
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.