F0686

G

Failure to Implement Ordered Pressure Ulcer Prevention and Treatment for Two Residents

Dearborn, Michigan Survey Completed on 03-27-2026

Penalty

No penalty information released

Summary

The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to implement ordered pressure ulcer prevention and treatment interventions, resulting in the development and worsening of pressure ulcers in two residents. One resident was re-admitted with diagnoses including cervical spine surgery, diabetes, and metabolic encephalopathy. An admission skin assessment documented no ulcers or skin treatments, but a subsequent assessment identified MASD in the groin and scrotum, a non-blanchable and discolored left heel, and an order for protective heel boots and Triad paste to the coccyx. There was no documentation that the Triad paste or heel boots were ever applied. The resident’s MDS later showed severe cognitive impairment, extensive assistance needs for mobility, and one unstageable DTI, with no pressure-reducing bed or chair and no turning/repositioning program documented. A care plan for risk of skin breakdown was initiated with interventions such as floating heels, pressure-reducing mattress and cushion, and assistance with turning and repositioning, but there were no progress notes or skin assessments for this resident’s skin from mid-December until late December.

On a later date, an LPN discovered a foam dressing on the resident’s coccyx during incontinence care and, upon removal, observed an area with eschar and additional open areas along the bilateral buttock region at the tailbone. There were no measurements or detailed descriptions of these wounds at that time, and a treatment order for Manuka Honey to the coccyx was documented as being administered only twice despite being ordered three times weekly. The LPN who found the dressing stated they had not known of any wound prior to that and confirmed there were no prior notes or treatment orders for the coccyx. The DON confirmed there were no skin assessments or treatment orders for the coccyx until that date and that this lack of documentation was not consistent with facility protocol. Another LPN later admitted to having applied the foam patch to the coccyx two days earlier after noticing an ulcer, but stated they became too busy and failed to chart the finding or notify the physician, acknowledging this was not in line with protocol. An initial wound care note several days later documented an unstageable coccyx pressure ulcer with extensive eschar and a DTI on the left heel, and an RN confirmed these pressure ulcers were acquired in the facility and that there had been a delay in prevention and treatment.

The second resident admitted with multiple diagnoses including osteoarthritis of the left knee and DVT. Shortly after admission, an RN documented a dime-sized open area on the coccyx, and an order was written for barrier cream as needed after incontinence care, along with a care plan for risk of skin breakdown that included frequent turning and repositioning, use of barrier cream, and pressure-reducing surfaces. There was no documentation that the barrier cream was applied to the coccyx wound. The resident’s MDS later indicated intact cognition, extensive assistance needs for mobility, and one stage 2 pressure ulcer, but the care plan was not revised to reflect actual skin breakdown. No additional progress notes or assessments for the coccyx ulcer were documented until nine days after admission, when a specific Triad paste treatment was ordered. MAR review showed that this treatment was given only three times instead of the prescribed six times over three days, and the order was then discontinued.

Subsequent treatment orders for this resident’s coccyx ulcer were repeatedly changed, including orders for oil emulsion and alginate dressings three times weekly and Triad paste to the periwound area, but MARs showed that these treatments were administered less frequently than ordered before being discontinued. An initial wound care note two weeks after admission documented a stage 3 coccyx wound with necrotic tissue and specific measurements. Later, a Manuka Honey and alginate regimen three times weekly was ordered, but again MARs showed missed treatments. A subsequent daily Santyl and alginate regimen was documented as administered on most but not all ordered days, with no PRN treatments documented, and then changed to a Dakin’s solution plus Santyl and alginate regimen. A later wound care note documented a larger stage 3 coccyx pressure ulcer with increased dimensions and depth, and the resident was transferred to the hospital for worsening of the pressure ulcer. An RN acknowledged that the resident admitted with a small open area on the coccyx that progressed to a larger stage 3 ulcer, confirmed that no skin treatments were documented until nine days after admission, and noted gaps in the MAR where ordered treatments were not administered. The facility’s Wound and Skin Management Policy required prevention of avoidable pressure ulcers, necessary treatment and services, routine preventive care including turning, pressure reduction devices, good skin care, and daily CNA skin assessments with prompt reporting of new breakdowns, as well as nurse validation and skin assessment on bath/shower days, which were not consistently carried out as documented in these cases.