F0689

J

Elopement of Cognitively Impaired Resident Despite Wander Guard Device

Warwick, Rhode Island Survey Completed on 03-30-2026

Penalty

No penalty information released

Summary

The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to provide necessary supervision and maintain an effective elopement prevention system for a cognitively impaired resident identified as an elopement risk. The resident had diagnoses including dementia, cognitive communication deficit, and anxiety disorder, and a Quarterly MDS showed a BIMS score of 4/15, indicating severe cognitive impairment. The resident’s care plan, initiated after prior attempts to leave the facility, required use of a wander guard bracelet, weekly assessment of the device’s functioning and battery status, and visual checks or supervision for safety. Physician orders directed staff to check placement of the Tektone wander guard bracelet every shift and to check its functionality weekly. Documentation on the March Treatment Administration Record indicated the device was in place on the day of the incident and that its functionality had been checked and found operational several days earlier.

On the day of the elopement, staff observed the resident wearing the wander guard bracelet in the activities room during a bingo activity in the mid-afternoon. An LPN reported last seeing the resident in the activity room seated with a visitor and wearing the wander guard. Later, when the LPN attempted to escort the resident to dinner, the resident could not be located, and a subsequent call to the resident’s spouse confirmed that the spouse did not have the resident and was unaware the resident was missing. The facility’s elopement protocol was then initiated, and staff, along with law enforcement, conducted searches of the building and surrounding community. During this time, staff and management did not know the resident’s whereabouts for several hours.

Interviews and witness accounts established that the resident exited the facility through the main entrance with a visitor. The Activities Director stated that she did not see the resident or visitor leave and did not hear a wander guard alarm at the exit. The Receptionist reported seeing the resident and a visitor walking toward the main entrance and also did not hear an alarm. A visitor later admitted that she removed the resident from the facility at the resident’s request to go home, drove the resident to the spouse’s house, dropped the resident off, and left without notifying staff; she stated that the wander guard alarm did not sound when they exited and that she had never been given a door code. A family member of another resident reported seeing the visitor leave with the resident through the main entrance without hearing an alarm or seeing a code entered. The resident ultimately arrived at the spouse’s home with a sandwich in hand, appeared confused, and could not explain how they had gotten there. EMS and hospital records documented that the resident had been missing from the facility for several hours, could not recall their whereabouts, and reported severe throat and chest pain; the hospital record also noted that the resident arrived with an ankle monitoring device in place.

Following the resident’s return, the facility did not evaluate or test the wander guard device that had been in use at the time of the elopement. A Regional Nurse documented that a new wander guard device was applied to the resident’s left ankle, and later acknowledged in interview that the original device had been discarded without assessment. The Regional Administrator and Regional Nurse were unable to provide evidence that the previous device had been checked or tested for functionality upon the resident’s return. The Administrator stated that it was unclear whether the wander guard system had failed, whether an alarm had sounded without staff response, or whether a visitor had entered a door code, and confirmed that visitors should not have the door code. The facility was also unable to provide documentation confirming that staff consistently monitored the resident in accordance with facility policy and physician orders. These failures resulted in the resident leaving the facility unsupervised for approximately six hours while staff were unaware of the resident’s whereabouts, placing the resident at risk for serious injury, serious harm, serious impairment, or death, and constituted a situation of Immediate Jeopardy.