Failure to Coordinate Tracheostomy Care and Specialty Access Resulting in Harm and Death
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to ensure residents were free from neglect related to tracheostomy management and access to necessary outside specialty care, resulting in harm to two residents. One resident with chronic respiratory failure, tracheostomy status, pneumonia, and anoxic brain damage had physician orders for routine tracheostomy changes that were later discontinued, with no active order for trach changes at the time of death. An ENT referral was ordered due to subglottic and proximal tracheal stenosis, and the hospital H&P documented that ENT had changed the trach in the OR and recommended trach changes every three months instead of monthly, and against use of a Passy Muir Valve. A nurse practitioner note referenced continued trach care per RT protocol and follow-up with ENT, but the ENT appointment was never obtained. The transportation driver later documented that the ENT office would not schedule because the resident had no insurance and would be self-pay, and that repeated attempts to reach the family were unsuccessful; however, the business office manager stated that the resident was Medicaid pending and that, if an outside provider would not accept that status, the facility would be responsible for payment, and she was not informed of any barrier to the ENT visit. On the day of the first resident’s death, RT documentation earlier in the day showed the trach as midline, secure, and patent, with stable vital signs and no respiratory distress. Later, RT 1 documented attempting a scheduled trach change after the resident complained the trach was too tight, pre-oxygenating the resident, and then encountering resistance when removing and reinserting the trach tube; a smaller size trach was also unsuccessfully attempted. The resident developed acute respiratory distress with pallor and cyanosis, and a code blue was initiated. Nursing documentation described that during the attempted trach change, resistance was met twice, the resident exhibited respiratory distress with decreasing oxygen saturation and cyanosis, and manual ventilation and CPR were initiated, but the resident was ultimately pronounced dead by EMS. RT 1 reported that the resident had complained of tightness, that the trach appeared dislodged about 1.5 inches from the stoma earlier, and that she pushed it back in; she stated that complaints of tightness could indicate the trach was dirty and needed immediate change, and that she attempted the change with RT 2 assisting, met resistance with both the original and a smaller trach, and then the resident’s oxygen saturation dropped significantly before cardiac arrest. RT 2 stated he did not know the trach was not supposed to be changed and had never changed a vented patient’s trach before; he also noted that he learned only after the death that the physician was supposed to change the trach and that prior monthly trach-change orders had expired. Additional interviews revealed conflicting and incomplete communication about trach-change orders and ENT-only status. RT 3 stated that due to tracheal stenosis, the resident’s trach was not to be changed until seen by ENT, that he had seen the resident’s name on a whiteboard with a note stating “ENT only,” and that he would not change an ENT-only trach if it was patent, midline, and secure. The RT Director reported receiving a verbal order from the provider in early February that the resident’s trach should be changed only by ENT unless in an emergent situation, but acknowledged this order was never entered into the resident’s chart; she said it was communicated verbally to staff and written on a whiteboard as “trach change on hold until otherwise notified.” The DON stated she had seen a provider note indicating the trach should be changed every three months, but that this order was never placed in the medical record, and that the prior 45-day trach-change order had been changed to every 30 days by the contracted respiratory company and then dropped off the MAR in January, leaving no active trach-change order. The facility’s trach-change policy required changes per doctor’s orders or every 30 days, including emergency changes for damaged or non-patent tubes, and outlined steps for managing inadequate airflow and failed reinsertion, including manual ventilation and calling emergency services. The second resident involved in the deficiency had anoxic brain damage, acute and chronic respiratory failure, tracheostomy status, and pneumonia due to pseudomonas, and was comatose and in a vegetative state. Respiratory staff entered the resident’s room in the evening and found the trach flange broken, with the trach tube dislodged about 1.5 inches out of position, shifted to the right, and not midline. RT 4 stated that trachs should be centered and midline to avoid airway obstruction or bleeding, and that the ventilator was not alarming despite every breath being pressurized. The resident’s lips appeared cyanotic, and when the oxygen sensor was repositioned, the saturation was below 90%. RT 4 called for another RT and a nurse, determined the trach needed to be changed to ensure a patent airway, and changed the trach and suctioned the airway. On the first suction pass, a large amount of frank blood and mucus was removed, and two additional passes continued to yield large amounts of blood. The resident’s oxygen remained low, a nurse checked for a pulse and found none, the resident was lowered to the floor, and CPR was initiated while RT 4 continued suctioning large amounts of blood, stating he believed the airway was filled with blood. EMS arrived, but the resident could not be revived and died. The DON confirmed that respiratory staff had identified a broken trach and decided to change it, that there was increased bleeding, and that the resident went into cardiac arrest and passed away, and stated she did not know how the flange broke and was unaware of other residents with broken trach flanges.
Penalty
Resources
Below are regulatory guidelines relevant to this citation:
A facility failed to protect two residents with severe cognitive impairment from sexual abuse by not completing a comprehensive assessment of each resident’s capacity to consent after repeated sexual encounters were discovered. Staff found the residents together in bed or in the bathroom, often unclothed, and allowed privacy based on their behavior without documenting a structured consent assessment. The facility also did not fully investigate unexplained bruising and reported vaginal bleeding for one resident in the setting of the known relationship, and the MD was not notified of the incidents or injuries.
Failure to protect a resident from resident-to-resident physical abuse: one resident entered another resident’s area, got into her belongings, and then grabbed, hit, and scratched her left wrist/hand, causing a skin tear, bruise, swelling, and pain. The injured resident said she was afraid of the other resident, while staff heard yelling, found both residents in the room, separated them, and documented the wound and bruising. The other resident had dementia with behavioral disturbance and used a walker and wheelchair.
Failure to protect a resident from resident-to-resident abuse: a resident with PTSD and a long history of physical and sexual abuse reported another resident repeatedly entered their room at night, then later exposed himself, blocked the resident from leaving, and used meth in front of them. The record lacked an investigation, trauma assessment, psychosocial monitoring, and documented behavior-based monitoring for the other resident, and staff interviews confirmed the concerns were not fully addressed in the chart.
A resident with dementia, CKD, HF, and severe cognitive impairment was involved in a physical abuse allegation when a CNA struck or batted his arm/hand during care after he grabbed at staff. A witness reported that the CNA hit the resident hard and yelled at him, while the CNA said she only tapped his hand away and did not consider it abusive. The resident could not answer questions about the event, and the facility’s records showed the allegation was not promptly escalated through the abuse reporting chain.
A resident with impaired cognition, stroke-related deficits, and constipation was subjected to manual stool removal by an LPN after a suppository did not work. Staff interviews and the resident’s statements indicated she said stop and begged the LPN to stop while he continued the procedure, and she later described the care as painful, violating, and demeaning. The LPN said he manually removed the stool in the bathroom, did not complete an abdominal assessment, and did not contact the provider for further direction.
A resident with CKD, CHF, ESRD, DM, and multiple foot wounds did not receive ordered daily wound care, and the TAR and progress notes lacked documentation that the treatments were completed on multiple occasions. The resident was later hospitalized for worsening wound infection, with purulent drainage and concern for osteomyelitis; the wound care provider also reported concerns that ordered dressing changes were not being done and noted worsening skin breakdown to the buttocks.
Failure to Assess Consent and Investigate Injury With Resident Sexual Activity
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to protect two cognitively impaired residents from sexual abuse by not completing a comprehensive assessment of each resident’s capacity to consent to sexual activity after becoming aware that they were engaging in sexual contact. One resident had diagnoses including Alzheimer’s disease, neurocognitive disorder with Lewy bodies, dementia, and anxiety, with documentation showing severe cognitive impairment, wandering, hallucinations, confusion, and inability to consistently orient to time or place. The other resident also had diagnoses including Alzheimer’s disease and dementia with psychotic disturbance, with repeated BIMS scores showing severe cognitive impairment and care plan documentation noting cognitive loss and a history of wandering and checking doors. The record showed repeated incidents in which the two residents were found together in bed or in the bathroom, often unclothed, and staff documented that they appeared calm or did not show obvious distress. Staff notes and interviews showed that the residents were allowed privacy and continued access to each other without documentation of a formal assessment of whether either resident understood the nature of the relationship or could knowingly and voluntarily consent. Staff interviews also reflected that they relied on the residents’ behavior, such as whether they pushed away or said no, rather than documenting a structured assessment of capacity after each incident. The facility also failed to investigate unexplained bruising and reported vaginal bleeding for one resident in the context of the known sexual activity. The record documented bruises on the forearms and thigh in various stages of healing, along with a report of bloody vaginal discharge, but there was no evidence of a physical assessment or investigation to determine whether the findings were related to abuse, coercion, trauma, or another cause. Interviews with the RN, LPN, DON, MD, and family showed that the physician had not been notified of the sexual incidents, the bruising, or the vaginal bleeding, and that staff had not documented a formal assessment after the incidents.
Failure to Protect Resident from Resident-to-Resident Physical Abuse
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to protect a resident from resident-to-resident physical abuse when one resident attacked another during the night, causing a skin tear to the left wrist, bruising to the left thumb, swelling, pain, and fear for safety. The injured resident was admitted with diagnoses including type 2 diabetes mellitus, unsteadiness on feet, need for assistance with personal care, and muscle weakness, and had a BIMS score of 15/15 indicating cognitive intactness. The other resident involved had diagnoses including type 2 diabetes mellitus, dementia with other behavioral disturbance, and essential hypertension, and used a walker and wheelchair for locomotion. According to the injured resident, she returned from the bathroom and found the other resident in her area getting into her refrigerator. When she told the other resident to get out of her things, the other resident became angry, grabbed her left wrist, hit her left hand, and scratched her, causing the injury. The injured resident stated she was afraid of the other resident and was glad the other resident had been moved to another unit so she could not hurt her again. At observation the next day, the resident’s left wrist/hand was bandaged, an observable bruise was present at the base of the left thumb, and the hand/wrist was slightly swollen and painful to touch. Facility documentation and staff statements confirmed that staff heard yelling from the room, found the residents in the room, and separated them. Nursing notes documented a skin tear with partial skin flap loss to the left wrist/forearm and bruising to the left thumb, with the wound cleansed and steri-strips applied. Staff statements described the other resident as being in the injured resident’s area and making unwanted contact, while the administrator stated the investigation was still ongoing and could not yet determine whether resident-to-resident abuse had occurred. The facility’s abuse prevention policy states residents are to be free from abuse by anyone, including other residents, and defines physical abuse as willful infliction of injury resulting in physical harm or pain.
Failure to Protect Resident from Resident-to-Resident Abuse
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to protect residents from abuse and failed to provide adequate supervision and effective interventions when Resident 7 reported fear and unsafe interactions with another resident. Resident 7 was admitted with COPD and PTSD and had a documented history of childhood through adulthood abuse, including physical and sexual abuse, domestic violence, and trafficking. A trauma questionnaire showed Resident 7 had previously tried to avoid reminders of past events and reported that nothing made them feel worse at that time. In one incident, Resident 7 told staff they were afraid to go to sleep because another resident came to their room at night and shook them awake. The resident admitted going to the room and waking Resident 7, and staff educated that resident about safety and respect. The progress note did not appear in the incident log or grievance log, and the record did not show an investigation, monitoring for negative psychological social outcomes, a trauma assessment, or care plan interventions to promote a sense of security. Staff interviews confirmed the social service department was unaware of the situation and that a trauma assessment should have been completed. In a second incident, Resident 7 reported that the same resident blew methamphetamine smoke in their face in the smoking shed, blocked them from leaving with a wheelchair, and exposed and masturbated in front of them. Resident 7 stated the event triggered past childhood trauma and made them feel trapped. The facility investigation documented a separation plan and one-to-one supervision for Resident 7, while the other resident was placed on alert status with increased monitoring and behavior risk. However, the record did not show implementation of behavior-based monitoring for the other resident, and observations later showed Resident 7 without staff supervision.
Physical abuse allegation involving a resident during care
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure a resident was free from physical abuse when a CNA slapped the resident’s arm during care. The resident was a male with dementia without behavioral disturbance, chronic kidney disease, and heart failure. His care plan identified that he could be physically aggressive due to poor impulse control and resistive to care because of impaired cognition, and his quarterly MDS showed severely impaired cognition with a BIMS score of 2, extensive assistance needs for most ADLs, and bowel and bladder incontinence. According to the incident documentation, the event occurred in the resident’s room during care when one CNA reported that another CNA hit the resident’s hand after the resident grabbed her. A written statement from the witnessing CNA said the CNA hit the resident hard on the arm and then yelled at him. The resident was unable to answer questions about the event because of his stroke and cognitive impairment, and the incident report noted that he had a history of hitting staff. The CNA involved stated that the resident struck her arm and that she tapped his hand gently, comparing her action to what one would do with a child. The facility’s investigation summary described the contact as the CNA batting the resident’s hand away, while the witness described it as striking the resident on the arm. The report also showed that the allegation was not immediately escalated through the facility’s abuse reporting process, as the witness said she reported it to an LVN and was told the DON had been notified, but the abuse coordinator did not receive the information until later. The facility’s records also reflected that the incident was ultimately treated as an unsubstantiated allegation of abuse.
Abuse During Manual Stool Removal
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure a resident was free from abuse during bowel care when an LPN performed manual removal of impacted stool from the rectum without consent and continued after the resident asked him to stop. The resident had moderately impaired cognition, was dependent on staff for transfers and toileting hygiene, and had a history of constipation. Her diagnoses included stroke, atrial fibrillation, hemiplegia/hemiparesis, adjustment disorder, and mixed anxiety and depressed mood. Her care plan identified limited physical mobility and the need for two staff with a stand lift for transfers. On the day of the incident, the resident had not had a bowel movement for several days and had received constipation medications and a rectal suppository. Progress notes documented that a rectal check found hard stool and that manual evacuation was performed with removal of large amounts of stool. Staff interviews described that the resident cried, said stop, and begged the LPN to stop while he continued the manual removal for additional time. The resident later reported that the procedure was painful, that she felt violated, embarrassed, and demeaned, and that she believed the nurse was smiling and laughing at her during the care. Multiple staff interviews confirmed that the resident was distressed during the procedure and that the LPN did not stop when she requested it. Staff also stated the procedure was invasive and should have been stopped when the resident expressed pain. The LPN stated he manually removed the stool in the bathroom, did not complete an abdominal assessment, did not administer an enema before manual removal, and did not contact the provider for further direction. The report also states the facility failed to ensure the resident was free from abuse during cares, and the immediate jeopardy was identified based on this event.
Failure to Complete Ordered Wound Care
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to provide wound care services as ordered by the physician for one resident with multiple chronic conditions, including CKD, CHF, HTN, ESRD, muscle wasting/atrophy, anemia, and diabetes-related foot wounds. The resident’s records showed a BIMS score of 15, indicating cognitive intactness, and documented multiple wounds, including ulcers on both feet, a diabetic foot ulcer, and a wound infection. Physician orders required daily wound care to the left calcaneus, right calcaneus, right plantar foot, right medial foot, and daily povidone-iodine application to the right foot, but the TAR did not document completion of these treatments on multiple dates in May 2026, and the progress notes also lacked documentation that the treatments were completed. The resident was hospitalized on 5/26/26 with worsening wound infection. The hospital history and physical documented ESRD on daily dialysis, CHF, COPD, DM, depression, HTN, prior MI with stenting, oxygen use, chronic wound status, and ulcers of both feet with necrosis of muscle. The hospital record stated the resident reported the nursing home should have been changing wound dressings daily but said that was not done. The wound care provider stated the right foot wound had purulent drainage, she was concerned about osteomyelitis, and she sent the resident to the emergency room. She also stated she had concerns that the facility was not completing the ordered dressing changes and that the resident had worsening buttocks skin breakdown, while the DON stated treatments should be completed as ordered and documented on the TAR or in progress notes.
Trusted data from CMS and state health departments
Every citation, penalty and Plan of Correction is sourced from public CMS records (latest release July 29, 2026) and official state health department websites — never guesswork.
In your survey window? See what surveyors are citing.
The Survey-Prep Report maps your facility's risk from 12 months of CMS and state citation data — what's being cited around you and what to check first. $129 one-time.