F0684

J

Failure to Recognize and Respond to Resident’s Change in Condition Leading to Sepsis and Hospitalization

Ada, Minnesota Survey Completed on 03-05-2026

Penalty

No penalty information released

Summary

The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to identify and act on a resident’s change in condition despite clear signs of acute illness and a care plan for potential infection. The resident had intact cognition per the annual MDS and no baseline hallucinations, delusions, or behaviors. Her care plan identified a self-care deficit and potential for infection related to urinary incontinence, with directions to update the provider as needed. Beginning several days before hospitalization, progress notes documented new hallucinations and emotional distress, including the resident yelling and crying about her babies being murdered and being taken from her, and an IDT discussion noting hallucinations and behavioral changes. These symptoms were atypical for this resident and represented a change from her baseline.

Over the following days, the resident developed and sustained fevers and other signs of systemic illness. Vital signs showed temperatures of 101.7°F with a pulse of 140 bpm, later rising to 103.2°F and remaining elevated around 101–100°F over multiple readings, along with low-grade fevers on subsequent days. Progress notes documented vomiting, visible shaking, feeling cold, episodes of incontinent diarrhea, reports of pain “everywhere,” crying, tearfulness, fatigue, and refusal of medications and meals. Despite these findings, nursing staff treated the resident only with scheduled acetaminophen and did not conduct a documented comprehensive nursing assessment or notify the provider when the fevers and other symptoms emerged and persisted. The IDT discussed the resident’s fevers, fatigue, medication refusals, and verbal behaviors but did not review the progress notes or vital signs in detail, and no provider notification occurred at that time.

Staff interviews further confirmed that the change in condition was not appropriately recognized or escalated. One RN stated she had not identified anything out of the ordinary beyond weakness and a presumed low-grade influenza, and that staff believed the resident might be recovering when a single temperature reading was normal. Another RN acknowledged that the resident’s change in condition occurred over a weekend when the IDT was not present and that the team did not review the progress notes or vital signs during the subsequent IDT meeting. A different RN reported that she did not assess the resident after the IDT discussion because the resident was asleep and her temperature had decreased slightly, and she felt that the resident’s bipolar diagnosis and prior behaviors had masked the change and interfered with judgment. The facility’s own policy required licensed nurses to evaluate significant changes in condition, obtain vital signs, and notify the provider of abnormal vital signs, behavioral or neurological changes, and worsening pain, but this process was not followed for this resident, resulting in delayed recognition and treatment of sepsis and subsequent hospitalization.

Ultimately, the resident was sent to the ED only after she appeared pale with a grey hue, had dark circles under her eyes, was shivering, reported generalized pain, and continued to feel unwell. In the ED, she was found to be ill-appearing and toxic-appearing, with a high fever, tachycardia, hypotension, low GFR, and a diagnosis of sepsis with acute renal failure, septic shock, acute kidney injury, ureteral obstruction, and UTI. The attending MD later stated that the facility had not contacted her when the resident developed a fever and that earlier evaluation could have avoided the septic shock. The NP who saw the resident in the ED described her as barely responsive, with low blood pressure requiring IV fluids and vasopressors, and indicated that while the ureteral stone itself was not avoidable, the sepsis and unnecessary pain could have been prevented if the resident had been sent to the ED sooner. These facts support the finding that the facility failed to provide appropriate treatment and care according to orders, the resident’s preferences and goals, and its own change-in-condition policy.