F0607

D

Failure to Thoroughly Investigate and Track Resident‑to‑Resident Altercations

Florissant, Missouri Survey Completed on 03-05-2026

Penalty

No penalty information released

Summary

The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to implement its Abuse and Neglect Policy by not conducting a thorough investigation into resident‑to‑resident physical altercations and by not clearly identifying or tracking multiple incidents between the same two residents. The policy requires protection from abuse, including resident‑to‑resident physical abuse, and mandates thorough investigation of alleged incidents. An investigation document identified a single altercation in which one resident entered another resident’s room, an argument ensued, and one resident attempted to choke the other, resulting in a reddened neck and dislodgement of the aggressor’s inner tracheostomy cannula. The investigation summary concluded that one resident initiated physical contact by attempting to choke the other, that both residents were assessed, and that no significant injuries were found beyond a slightly reddened neck and a bruise to a knee.

However, progress notes, resident interviews, and staff interviews describe more than one altercation or conflict between these same two residents, and staff and leadership were inconsistent and uncertain about how many incidents occurred and when they occurred. One resident’s medical record notes an altercation on one date with a slightly reddened neck and no bruising, followed by another note several days later documenting that residents in the hallway reported they were fighting, and that the same resident again reported being choked by the same peer, with a slightly reddened neck observed. The resident later described two separate encounters: an initial episode where the other resident came into the room cursing and was made to leave by a nurse, and a subsequent episode where the same resident returned, blocked the doorway, pushed the resident against the wall, went for the airway, and the resident responded by pulling out the other resident’s tracheostomy. The resident also reported ongoing headache and feeling unsafe around the other resident.

The other resident’s record documents being found in the peer’s room holding the inner cannula, reporting that the peer told them to get out of the room, and admitting to trying to choke the peer because they did not like being yelled at. Later documentation shows that this resident’s tracheostomy was found decannulated days after the altercation, with uncertainty about when it had been removed and conflicting accounts between staff, the resident, and the guardian. Interviews with staff and the Administrator show confusion about whether there was one or two incidents, with some staff only aware of a single event and others acknowledging that the resident should not have been allowed back into the room after an initial altercation. The Administrator stated she believed there were two incidents but that they occurred on the same day and that she should have been informed of more than one incident. The ADON acknowledged prior non‑physical problems between the residents involving inappropriate words. This inconsistent awareness and documentation of multiple altercations, and the lack of a clearly defined history between the two residents, demonstrate that the facility did not fully investigate or track all related events as required by its abuse prevention policy.

The residents involved had significant medical and psychosocial histories relevant to the incidents. One resident had no cognitive impairment documented on the MDS but had multiple sclerosis, a tibia fracture, depression, PTSD related to prior traumatic experiences, seizures, and asthma, and a care plan identifying a history of sexual, physical, and emotional abuse with a focus on minimizing trauma triggers and promoting de‑escalation. The other resident had diagnoses including diabetes, generalized muscle weakness, bipolar disorder, chronic respiratory failure, and a tracheostomy, with a care plan identifying potential for physical aggression related to anger and poor impulse control. Despite these known conditions and behavioral risks, the facility’s investigation did not clearly reconcile the differing accounts, did not clearly delineate the number and sequence of altercations, and left leadership and direct care staff unsure about the history between the two residents, constituting a failure to implement the abuse prevention policy’s investigative requirements.