Failure to Assess Community Safety and Supervise Cognitively Impaired Resident Leaving Independently
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to comprehensively evaluate and implement individualized safety interventions for a cognitively impaired resident who was allowed to leave the facility independently on multiple occasions. The resident had diagnoses including stroke, hypertension, repeated falls, and a cognitive communication deficit. Hospital discharge orders specified that the resident needed ongoing supervision due to continued need for help with moving, thinking, safety, and eating. A SLUMS score of 15/30 indicated dementia, and multiple BIMS assessments showed moderate cognitive impairment. The admission MDS documented moderately impaired cognition, a need for maximum assistance with transfers, dependence on staff for wheelchair mobility, and that ambulation was not attempted due to medical or safety concerns. Despite these documented cognitive and functional limitations, the resident’s elopement risk assessments on admission and later dates consistently indicated a low risk for elopement. The care plan addressed impaired cognitive function and fall risk, with interventions such as cueing, reorientation, supervision as needed, and assistance with ADLs and mobility, but it did not include a comprehensive assessment of the resident’s ability to be safely unsupervised in the community. The record from admission through early February and again from early February through early March did not contain any detailed assessment of the resident’s level of supervision needed in the community, nor did it identify vulnerabilities or risks while the resident was in the community independently. Therapy staff were not asked to perform a community safety assessment, even though the OTA and speech therapist later stated that, based on the SLUMS score, the resident would need supervision in the community. The lack of assessment and individualized interventions contributed to two separate episodes in which the resident left the facility independently. In the first incident, around 3:30 a.m., the resident informed an LPN she was leaving; after attempts to convince her to stay, the resident signed out and left, and the family later contacted police and filed a missing person report before the resident was confirmed to be at a family member’s home. In the second incident, the resident told the receptionist she was leaving, signed out, and did not return by early morning the next day, prompting staff to search the facility, attempt to call her, and then contact police to file another missing person report before the resident returned. Interviews with the resident and family confirmed that the resident’s phone did not have active cellular service, that the facility had not provided safety instructions for being in the community, and that the family was upset and concerned about the resident’s decision-making. Staff interviews revealed inconsistent understandings of criteria for independent community access, reliance on BIMS and elopement lists, and acknowledgment by the nurse manager and DON that no formal process or assessment for community safety existed. Facility policies did not address protocols or criteria for residents to leave independently, and the elopement policy only addressed preventing unsupervised departure and responding to missing residents.
We Help Long-Term Care Teams Stay Survey-Ready
We process and analyze inspection reports and plan of correction using AI to extract insights and trends so providers can improve care quality and stay ahead of compliance risks.