F0689

G

Failure to Implement and Communicate Effective Fall-Prevention Measures for High-Risk Residents

Homewood, Illinois Survey Completed on 03-26-2026

Penalty

No penalty information released

Summary

The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to maintain an environment free from accident hazards and to provide adequate supervision and fall-prevention interventions for multiple residents at high risk for falls. The facility’s own fall incident log showed 42 falls in a two‑month period. For one resident with anxiety, restlessness, agitation, hemiplegia, and hemiparesis, functional assessments documented a need for substantial/maximal assistance with bed mobility and that transfers were not attempted due to medical or safety concerns, yet this resident experienced two falls within days. After the first fall, the resident reported trying to go to the bathroom, and the incident report identified confusion, gait imbalance, and incontinence as predisposing factors, with a winged mattress added as an intervention. After the second fall, the resident was found on the floor outside the floor mats with a head laceration requiring staples, and staff documented that the resident was always attempting to get out of bed. Despite this, the care plan only reflected bed‑related interventions (wing mattress, ultra‑low bed, floor mats) and did not include supervision details, and therapy staff were unaware of the recent falls and left the resident in a specialty wheelchair in the therapy gym with only line‑of‑sight supervision while the therapist’s back was turned.

Another resident with seizures, lack of coordination, muscle wasting/atrophy, and a history of falling had multiple falls documented at the nurse’s station and in the room. The resident’s post‑fall risk assessment failed to include a history of falls and/or fracture in the past six months, which would have increased the fall risk score. Incident reports described the resident having a seizure and falling from a wheelchair at the nurse’s station with a head injury, later documentation at the hospital describing an abrasion and hematoma, and subsequent falls where the resident was found on the floor after attempting to go to another room, including a fall at the nurse’s station resulting in a laceration to the eyelid. The care plan identified the resident as high risk for falls with interventions such as staff assistance as needed and frequent rounding, but nursing staff interviewed only cited low bed, floor mats, soft helmet, and call light within reach, and did not mention frequent rounding. One LPN was not sure how the resident was to be transferred from bed to wheelchair, and another RN described the resident falling face down from a chair at the nurse’s station and sustaining a laceration to the eye, while documentation of the side of injury was inconsistent between facility and hospital records.

A third resident with Parkinson’s disease, muscle wasting/atrophy, cognitive communication deficit, diabetes, chronic kidney disease, hypertension, benign prostatic hyperplasia, history of falling, and a recent right pelvic fracture with a non‑weight‑bearing order to the right leg was admitted after a fall at home. Functional assessments showed impairment in range of motion and a need for partial/moderate assistance with toileting and substantial/maximal assistance with transfers, with walking not attempted due to safety concerns. The fall risk assessment scored the resident as high risk, but the care plan did not include the non‑weight‑bearing status or the fractured pubis as a factor, and interventions were limited to low bed, call light and frequently used items within reach, and staff assistance as needed. The resident fell while trying to get to the bathroom, was found on the floor with a knot and redness on the head, and was sent to the hospital, where he was admitted for a fall and non‑acute pelvic fracture. The DON later confirmed that the non‑weight‑bearing order was not on the care plan, and a nurse reported that CNAs were transferring the resident with one‑person assist and that she was unsure of the resident’s weight‑bearing status or specific fall precautions.

A fourth resident with legal blindness, multiple sclerosis, weakness, restlessness, and agitation had a care plan identifying high fall risk with floor mats as an intervention while in bed. The resident’s functional assessment showed a need for substantial/maximal assistance with rolling and that transfers were not attempted due to medical or safety concerns. During observation, the floor mat intended to protect the resident was folded and angled away from the bed, with an over‑bed table stored under the bed preventing proper placement of the mat. An LPN acknowledged that the mat should be bedside and that, in its current position, if the resident rolled out of bed between the beds, the resident would land on the floor. The ADON had to enter the room, move the over‑bed table, and reposition the mat correctly. Across these residents, staff interviews revealed lack of awareness of recent falls, uncertainty about transfer requirements and weight‑bearing status, incomplete or inaccurate fall risk assessments, and failure to implement or consistently apply care‑planned fall‑prevention interventions, including supervision and environmental safeguards, contrary to the facility’s fall prevention and management policy that requires identification of residents at risk, completion of fall risk evaluations, and modification of care plans after each fall.