F0686

D

Failure to Assess and Treat Multiple Pressure Ulcers on Readmission

Syracuse, New York Survey Completed on 03-10-2026

Penalty

No penalty information released

Summary

Surveyors identified that the facility failed to ensure a resident with multiple pressure ulcers received timely and complete assessment and treatment consistent with professional standards and facility policy. The resident was readmitted from the hospital with several documented pressure ulcers and specific wound care recommendations, including treatment to the sacrum, buttock, both feet, and leg wounds, as well as use of a wound VAC to the sacrum. The hospital discharge summary and the facility’s own readmission packet listed multiple pressure ulcer locations, including both heels, right lateral foot, left ankle, sacrum, coccyx, and left buttock. However, on admission, the RN admission assessment only documented “impaired skin” with a direction to see Skin and Wound for updates, and there was no documented skin assessment in the Skin and Wound section. Physician orders on readmission addressed only the sacral wound VAC and heel offloading boots, with no documented treatment orders for the other pressure ulcers identified in the hospital records and readmission packet.

In the days following readmission, the electronic record contained multiple “Skin Issue” notes indicating that 25 skin issues were “not evaluated,” and several of these notes were later disavowed by the RNs whose names appeared on them. The facility’s Skin and Wound policy required pressure injury risk assessment and documentation upon admission/readmission, weekly for three weeks, and then quarterly or with changes in condition, and required that all residents with pressure injuries on admission be documented in the Skin and Wound module and reported to the provider or wound nurse. Despite this, there was no evidence that all of the resident’s wounds were assessed and entered into the Skin and Wound module upon readmission, and the comprehensive care plan only reflected a potential for skin integrity alteration, without documenting the resident’s actual existing pressure ulcers. The DON later confirmed that they did not see any wound pictures from the admission date and that they expected a full head-to-toe assessment and Braden Scale within 24 hours, with corresponding treatments and interventions.

On 12/05/2025, a weekly wound assessment documented eight unstageable pressure ulcers and moisture-associated skin damage, including unstageable wounds with 100% eschar on the left heel, right 5th toe, right rear ankle, and right lateral ankle, as well as large gluteal and buttock wounds. Physician orders obtained that day addressed only the left buttock and a right rear hip blister, with no documented treatment orders for the right lateral ankle, right rear ankle, or right 5th toe. After a subsequent hospitalization, the resident returned on 12/16/2025 with documentation of 10 pressure ulcers, including unstageable wounds on both 5th toes, both heels, left rear ankle, right ankle amputation site, and left buttock fold, and Stage 4 pressure ulcers on the sacrum and right buttock. Physician orders dated 12/17/2025 implemented treatments for the heels, left and right buttock, and sacrum, but there was no documented evidence of treatment orders for the right rear thigh blister, unstageable right ankle amputation site, unstageable left rear ankle, or unstageable right and left dorsum 5th toes. Interviews with nursing staff and the DON confirmed that facility expectations were for skin assessments within 24 hours of admission/readmission and same-day implementation of wound treatments, but in this case, assessments were incomplete or not documented, and treatment orders were missing or delayed for multiple documented pressure ulcers.

The resident’s clinical profile included kidney cancer with metastasis, heart failure, and malnutrition, and the most recent MDS prior to these events documented intact cognition, partial/moderate assistance needs for mobility, and existing unstageable pressure ulcers, a deep tissue injury, and moisture-associated skin damage. Despite this high-risk profile and the facility’s own policy requiring Braden Scale assessments and care plan interventions based on risk, the comprehensive care plan did not reflect the resident’s actual pressure ulcers, and there was no evidence that all wounds were entered into the Skin and Wound module or that weekly evaluations and complete treatment orders were consistently obtained. Nursing staff reported issues with the new Skin and Wound electronic application and uncertainty about why orders were not obtained for all wounds, while also acknowledging that treatments should have been ordered for all identified pressure areas during their assessments. The DON stated that for every pressure ulcer beyond Stage 1, the wound nurse and wound provider were to be involved and monitor weekly, but the documentation reviewed by surveyors showed gaps in assessment, documentation, and timely ordering of treatments for several of the resident’s pressure ulcers at multiple points in time.