Stay Ahead of Compliance with Monthly Citation Updates


In your State Survey window and need a snapshot of your risks?

Survey Preparedness Report

One Time Fee
$79
  • Last 12 months of citation data in one tailored report
  • Pinpoint the tags driving penalties in facilities like yours
  • Jump to regulations and pathways used by surveyors
  • Access to your report within 2 hours of purchase
  • Easily share it with your team - no registration needed
Get Your Report Now →

Monthly citation updates straight to your inbox for ongoing preparation?

Monthly Citation Reports

$18.90 per month
  • Latest citation updates delivered monthly to your email
  • Citations organized by compliance areas
  • Shared automatically with your team, by area
  • Customizable for your state(s) of interest
  • Direct links to CMS documentation relevant parts
Learn more →

Save Hours of Work with AI-Powered Plan of Correction Writer


One-Time Fee

$29 per Plan of Correction
Volume discounts available – save up to 20%
  • Quickly search for approved POC from other facilities
  • Instant access
  • Intuitive interface
  • No recurring fees
  • Save hours of work
F0689
J

Failure to Supervise Elopement-Risk Residents and Implement Elopement/AMA Policies

Troy, New York Survey Completed on 03-09-2026

Penalty

No penalty information released
tooltip icon
The penalty, as released by CMS, applies to the entire inspection this citation is part of, covering all citations and f-tags issued, not just this specific f-tag. For the complete original report, please refer to the 'Details' section.

Summary

The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to ensure that residents at risk of elopement remained under adequate supervision and that the environment was free from accident hazards, resulting in two separate elopement incidents. Facility policies required that when a resident was discovered missing, staff conduct a thorough search of the building and premises, notify the Administrator, Director of Nursing Services, the resident’s legal representative, attending physician, and law enforcement, and, under the emergency preparedness missing resident procedure, initiate a Code Pink, search the facility and grounds, and notify police if the resident was not found within 10 minutes. The facility also had an Against Medical Advice (AMA) policy requiring that cognitively intact residents who leave against professional advice receive information about risks, be asked to sign AMA documentation, and that staff complete careful, comprehensive documentation of education, counseling, options, reactions, and all facility actions, including contacts with the physician and Adult Protective Services. One resident, admitted with alcohol abuse with withdrawal delirium, dysphagia, and opioid dependence, was assessed as cognitively intact with a Brief Interview for Mental Status score of 14/15 and identified as an elopement risk on the interdisciplinary assessment. The care plan for wandering and elopement risk set a goal for the resident to remain safely under supervision and within the facility unless escorted, with interventions including documenting and notifying providers of behavior intensity, duration, or frequency and redirecting the resident. The resident also had a care plan for substance use disorder history, including monitoring for signs of acute intoxication or potential substance use and promoting supportive communication. Progress notes documented that an electronic monitoring device was applied on admission for wandering tendency, that the resident repeatedly expressed a desire to leave due to pain and facility restrictions, and that the resident attempted to leave through the front door several times, yelling and being aggressive, but was calmed. There was no documented evidence that the medical provider was notified of the resident’s repeated statements about wanting to leave against medical advice or of the attempts to leave the facility. On the night and early morning when the elopement occurred, documentation and interviews showed the resident continued to complain of pain, paced the hallway, and was sweating, swearing, and talking fast. An LPN documented promising to speak to the physician about an extra dose of tramadol, offering a topical analgesic that the resident refused, and then allowing the resident to sleep in a chair in the front lobby because they were calm. Later, when staff attempted to administer medications, the resident was no longer in the chair or room, and a head count showed the resident was the only one unaccounted for. The resident’s health care proxy reported not being called until hours after the resident had already arrived at a local hospital emergency department and stated the facility asked if they knew the resident’s whereabouts. The proxy also reported being told the resident had cut off their electronic monitoring device and left it at the front desk and that the facility said the resident had the right to leave and there was no risk. The DON stated they reviewed camera footage showing the resident with all belongings in the lobby and then leaving through the front door, and asserted that because the resident was alert and oriented, the facility had no responsibility and the incident was not an elopement. There was no documentation of AMA education, counseling, options, or resident/responsible party reactions, and no evidence that AMA paperwork was discussed or signed, despite the resident being treated as an AMA discharge. A second resident, admitted with Alzheimer’s disease, cognitive communication deficit, and generalized muscle weakness, had severely impaired cognition and was care planned as at risk for wandering into unsafe areas or elopement without supervision. The care plan goal was for the resident to be maintained safely under staff supervision and remain away from unsafe areas and within the facility unless escorted, with interventions including identifying behavior patterns, documenting behavior intensity, duration, and frequency, orienting to daily routines, referring for psychiatric consult as ordered, and ensuring proper placement and functioning of an ankle electronic monitoring device. Treatment records showed electronic monitoring device checks every shift beginning on a specified date. On the day of the incident, an alarm sounded from a unit exit door, prompting staff to initiate resident accountability, and dietary staff observed the resident alone outside near the exit door in a wheelchair and returned the resident inside. Investigation statements indicated the resident had last been seen on the unit shortly before being observed outside. During interviews, the DON acknowledged that electronic monitoring device orders for this resident were never placed in the Medication or Treatment Administration Record when ordered, and that monitoring of residents’ electronic monitoring devices was only added to the record after a quality assurance audit following the elopement incident. The DON also stated that the door the resident exited was an emergency exit with an alarm but was not connected to the electronic monitoring device system. These actions and omissions resulted in one resident leaving the facility without staff knowledge and being located hours later at a hospital, and another resident with severely impaired cognition exiting through an alarmed emergency door and being found outside on facility grounds, constituting Immediate Jeopardy and substandard quality of care for the first resident and no actual harm with potential for more than minimal harm for the second resident.

Long-term care team reviewing survey readiness and plan of correction

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.

Discover our solutions:

An unhandled error has occurred. Reload 🗙