F0689

J

Failure to Monitor Wander Guard and Supervise Resident Resulting in Elopement

Hilton Head Island, South Carolina Survey Completed on 03-18-2026

Penalty

No penalty information released

Summary

The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to ensure adequate supervision and prevent a successful elopement for one resident identified as at risk for wandering and elopement. The resident was admitted with diagnoses including traumatic subdural hemorrhage, muscle weakness, difficulty in walking, and need for assistance with personal care. An admission MDS showed a BIMS score of 9/15, indicating moderate cognitive impairment, and documented that the resident used a wheelchair and required substantial assistance for most ADLs. The facility’s own policy defined wandering and elopement, required staff training on elopement prevention, and called for interventions and care plan documentation for residents at risk of elopement.

Physician orders were in place directing staff to check the resident’s wander guard for effectiveness and function every shift beginning shortly after admission. However, review of the MAR/TAR for the period from admission through the date of elopement showed that this order was not consistently documented as completed. For the period 01/30/26–02/19/26, there was an order to check the wander guard every shift, but it was only signed once on the date of the elopement for the first shift. There was no documentation on the MAR/TAR for January related to checking the wander guard, despite the order being in effect. The resident’s care plan, initiated on admission and revised on 02/19/26, identified behavioral symptoms of wandering and elopement related to impaired cognition and impulsivity, and included an intervention to equip the resident with a wander guard upon admission for 48 hours and to check the device’s proper functioning every shift, but the documented implementation of these checks was lacking.

In the days leading up to the elopement, progress notes documented that the resident needed frequent redirection due to wandering in and out of other residents’ rooms, and that staff discussed with the resident’s representative the possibility of obtaining a sitter because of these behaviors. Another note described the resident being found seated on a fall mat after getting out of bed to remove pictures from the wall and pack his bag, indicating ongoing impulsive and wandering behavior. On the night of the elopement, a CNA reported that the resident had been described as hard to redirect and constantly pacing the unit in his wheelchair. Later that night, the resident was found wandering in the parking lot and brought back inside by a CNA; the nurse documented that the door alarm was not going off at the time the resident was found outside. The resident’s representative later stated that he had been informed that the front door was not working properly and that the resident had a wander guard device that should have locked the door when he left, but the door did not function correctly, allowing the resident to exit the building. Based on these findings, surveyors determined that the facility failed to provide adequate supervision and accident prevention, resulting in a successful elopement and an Immediate Jeopardy determination at F689.

The State Agency determined that the facility’s non-compliance with federal health and safety regulations caused or was likely to cause serious injury, harm, impairment, or death, and identified the Immediate Jeopardy as related to 42 CFR 483.25, Quality of Care. The Immediate Jeopardy was determined to have existed as of the date of the elopement. The survey findings emphasized the lack of documented adherence to physician orders and care plan interventions for checking the wander guard device, the presence of documented wandering and impulsive behaviors, and the fact that the resident was able to leave the building without triggering a door alarm. These combined actions and inactions led to the conclusion that the facility did not ensure the environment was free from accident hazards and did not provide adequate supervision to prevent the resident’s elopement.