F0600

J

Failure to Protect Cognitively Impaired Resident From Sexual Abuse by High-Risk Peer

Chicago, Illinois Survey Completed on 03-19-2026

Penalty

No penalty information released

Summary

The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to protect a cognitively impaired resident from sexual abuse by another resident with a known history of sexually inappropriate behavior and battery. The abused resident was admitted with diagnoses including bipolar disorder, autistic disorder, and drug-induced subacute dyskinesia, and had a BIMS score of 9, indicating moderately impaired cognition. Her care plan identified a difficult past related to severe mental illness and risk factors for being a recipient or perpetrator of mistreatment, with an expectation that she would remain safe and free of mistreatment. The alleged perpetrator had diagnoses including schizoaffective disorder bipolar type and generalized anxiety disorder, and a BIMS score of 15, indicating intact cognition. His care plan documented sexually oriented behavior, including making crude, sexually oriented, profane, or suggestive remarks, and directed staff to implement limit setting and intervene if he attempted inappropriate touching.

On the day of the incident, the newly admitted resident reported that the male resident approached her, asked if she was new, and obtained her room number. Later that night, video surveillance showed him entering her bedroom and remaining there for approximately 30 minutes before she went to the nurse’s station and he exited the room. The resident stated that while she was lying in bed, he entered her room, initially stood and talked, then sat on her bed, rubbed her leg, and asked for sexual favors. She reported that she told him to stop and said no, but he continued to rub her leg, unzipped his pants, exposed himself, masturbated while rubbing her leg, and ejaculated on her bed. She stated she did not scream because she feared he would harm her, and after he finished, she ran to the nurse’s station and informed staff of what had occurred. During interview, she was visibly shaken and crying, reported being afraid it would happen again, and said she cried every time she entered her room.

A roommate reported observing the male resident enter the room, go to the abused resident’s side of the room, and ask for sexual favors, then hearing “wet noise” and sexual sounds before telling him to leave; she stated he asked for a minute, later adjusted his pants, and left. Nursing staff documented that the resident came to the nurse’s station and reported that a male resident had entered her room and behaved inappropriately. An LPN assessed her and found her crying and in emotional distress; the resident told the LPN that the male resident exposed himself, pleasured himself while rubbing her leg, and ejaculated on her sheets, which the LPN removed and bagged. Social services staff and another resident reported that, prior to this incident, the male resident had been sexually inappropriate with another resident and had repeatedly asked another female resident for sexual favors, including offering marijuana in exchange, leading social services to instruct nursing staff to monitor him more closely and keep him in his room at night. The psychiatrist stated he was not informed by the facility that the male resident was making inappropriate sexual advances toward other residents, despite his known sexual preoccupation and comments about women. The facility’s own criminal history analysis for the male resident identified him as a moderate risk requiring closer supervision and more frequent observation than routine, with regular monitoring for behavioral changes and periodic assessment of supervision sufficiency, yet he was able to access and remain in another resident’s room at night, resulting in the sexual abuse.

The facility’s abuse policy defined sexual abuse as non-consensual sexual contact of any type with a resident, including forced observation of masturbation and coerced or extorted sexual activity, and stated that even if there is capacity to give consent, consent obtained through intimidation, coercion, or fear is considered sexual abuse. The policy also stated that sexual abuse includes non-consensual sexual relationships between residents or a consensual relationship involving a resident who lacks cognitive ability to consent. Social services staff stated that the facility uses BIMS scores to assess sexual appropriateness and that a sexual relationship is not consensual if residents’ BIMS scores are not on the same cognitive level, noting that the abused resident and the male resident were not on the same cognitive level. Despite the male resident’s documented sexually inappropriate behaviors, prior complaints from other residents, and a risk assessment recommending closer supervision, he was not effectively restricted from entering other residents’ rooms at night, and the psychiatrist was not made aware of his escalating sexual advances. These actions and inactions led to the incident in which the cognitively impaired resident experienced non-consensual sexual contact and exposure, constituting the cited abuse deficiency.