F0550

H

Failure to Honor Resident’s Bathing Preferences and Timely Reassess Electric Wheelchair Use

Madisonville, Texas Survey Completed on 03-03-2026

Penalty

Fine: $16,065

Summary

The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to honor a resident’s rights to dignity, self-determination, and reasonable accommodation of preferences regarding bathing and mobility. The resident was an adult male with a history of cerebral infarction, morbid obesity, impulse disorder, depression, mood disorder, hemiplegia/hemiparesis, generalized muscle weakness, and need for assistance with personal care. His MDS assessments showed he initially had moderate cognitive impairment but later tested cognitively intact, and he had documented depressive symptoms on a PHQ‑9, including feeling bad about himself nearly every day. The care plan documented that he required two staff for bathing and transfers with a mechanical lift, but there were no care plan entries reflecting his stated preference for showers instead of bed baths. Point-of-care documentation over a one‑month period showed staff consistently provided bed baths, with no documentation of showers.

The resident reported during interview that he had not received a shower in over a month, despite often notifying staff that he preferred showers over bed baths. He stated that staff still did not ask or shower him, and he felt like a prisoner, dirty, down, and depressed. His family corroborated that he frequently called them to report that he had not been showered for over two weeks at a time, and they stated he was supposed to receive two showers per week and needed help with showering due to paraplegia. The family reported that the resident felt like a dog, believed he was being racially discriminated against because he saw other residents receiving showers, and felt down and depressed. Multiple staff members, including the MDS nurse, SW, ADON, and DON, stated that residents were to be showered according to their choices and schedules, but each reported that the resident had not expressed to them a preference for showers over bed baths, and there was no documentation that his shower preference had been assessed or incorporated into his care plan.

The deficiency also includes the facility’s failure to timely reassess the resident’s safety awareness and use of his electric wheelchair as required by policy. The resident had previously used a motorized wheelchair and had been identified in the care plan as posing a potential risk of injury to himself and others due to decreased awareness of surroundings, speed control, and later impaired vision. Electric wheelchair safety assessments documented that he initially could demonstrate safe operation but later was unable to control speed, maneuver safely, or stop on command, and had diminished eyesight. The care plan was revised to indicate that his wheelchair was unplugged, he became dependent on staff for locomotion, and he was placed in a Geri‑chair for comfort and safety. The last documented electric wheelchair safety assessment occurred in late December, with no subsequent evaluations, despite the facility’s policy requiring assessments on admission, quarterly, and upon significant change of condition.

During interview, the resident stated that staff had taken and stored his electric wheelchair about a month and a half earlier, telling him he was running over other residents, and that therapy had told him about a month earlier they would reevaluate him for safety awareness but never did. He reported that the Geri‑chair he was in was not his usual wheelchair, that he could not independently move himself in it, and that he had to beg staff to move him from room to room, but they often would not move him when he requested. He said he felt restrained, like he was still being treated like a prisoner, and was upset and depressed because he could not independently go anywhere. His family stated that the administrator, DON, and ADON had taken away his electric wheelchair due to his vision, that he was receiving vision treatment, and that he disliked the Geri‑chair because of his size and inability to move it himself. They described the Geri‑chair as a restraint because he could not propel it and staff did not push him when he asked, and they emphasized that he had a right to go where he wanted independently. Facility staff, including the DOR, MDS nurse, SW, ADON, DON, MD, and administrator, acknowledged that therapy was responsible for electric wheelchair safety evaluations, that the last evaluation was in December, and that they did not know why a reevaluation had not been completed, despite the resident’s expressed concerns and the facility policy requiring periodic and change‑in‑condition reassessments.