Failure to Enforce Smoking Policy and Supervise Oxygen‑Dependent Smokers Resulting in Facial Burns
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to keep the environment free of accident hazards and to provide adequate supervision and safeguards for residents who smoke, particularly those on oxygen. The facility had a Smoking/Vaping policy requiring smoking only in a designated area, storage of cigarettes and lighters in a locked cart, and use of smoking evaluations and care plans, but staff did not consistently implement these requirements. During a tour, three residents assigned to rooms with “Oxygen in Use/No Smoking” signs were observed entering and leaving the designated smoking area with their own cigarettes and lighters, without obtaining or surrendering smoking materials to the supervising CNA. These residents routinely kept cigarettes and lighters on their person or in their rooms, contrary to policy, and staff did not enforce the requirement to store smoking materials in the locked cart. One oxygen‑dependent resident with COPD, alcohol abuse, noncompliance with treatment, and intact cognition had continuous oxygen at 2 LPM via nasal cannula and a care plan addressing smoking and behavior, including a goal not to smoke without supervision. Despite this, multiple nursing notes documented that he had been found smoking in his room on several dates, including the day of the incident. On the day of the burn event, an RN observed him smoking in his bathroom around midday but did not retrieve cigarettes or a lighter, only notifying the DON. That night, a CNA entered the room to care for the roommate, smelled smoke, and saw the resident smoking in his room when his nasal cannula ignited. The CNA called the nurse, a Code Red was paged, and 911 was called. The resident sustained second‑degree burns to his nose and cheek, respiratory distress, and required emergency transfer, intubation, and burn‑unit care. The CNA later stated she had seen this resident smoking in his room about six times during the week of the event, had reported this to the DON, but did not confiscate his smoking supplies due to his aggressive behavior. Other residents confirmed ongoing noncompliance with the smoking policy and lack of effective supervision. An oxygen‑dependent resident who used oxygen mostly at night stated he always kept his cigarettes and lighter on his person, intentionally did not disclose them to staff after LOAs, and admitted to smoking in his room bathroom in the past, though he reported not using oxygen while smoking there. Another oxygen‑dependent resident reported she kept cigarettes and a lighter in her purse, did not trust staff to store them, and acknowledged knowing she was violating the policy, while stating she only smoked on the porch and not while on oxygen. A non‑oxygen‑dependent smoker, who had been the roommate of the burned resident and was the current roommate of another oxygen‑dependent smoker, stated that both roommates smoked in the room and bathroom, that one smoked while wearing oxygen, and that he himself kept multiple packs of cigarettes and a lighter in his pockets. Multiple residents reported that nursing staff came into their rooms infrequently, often only a few times per day, and that residents continued to smoke inside every day despite education. Staff interviews further demonstrated failures in supervision, enforcement, and follow‑through. CNA B reported that resident rounding was not consistently done every two hours due to workload and that there was limited supervision, with no new measures implemented to prevent oxygen‑dependent residents from smoking inside after the burn incident. LPN C stated there had always been a problem with residents hiding cigarettes and lighters and smoking in their rooms, and that she had been told that two residents smoked in their bathroom, but she was not aware of any new interventions to address this. RN E acknowledged personally witnessing the burned resident smoking in his room earlier on the day of the incident and knowing of prior episodes, but she did not secure his smoking materials. The DON stated he was aware that the burned resident had been caught smoking in his room multiple times and had received repeated education and written notices. Despite this knowledge, residents continued to retain smoking materials, smoke in non‑designated areas, and, in the case of two oxygen‑dependent residents, smoke in their rooms, leading to one resident’s facial burns and respiratory compromise and leaving all residents at continued risk for serious injury, harm, impairment, or death. Immediate Jeopardy at scope and severity K was identified, beginning on the date of the burn incident and remaining ongoing at survey exit. The facility’s documentation and assessments did not align with observed and reported behaviors. Care plans for the smokers included interventions such as keeping smoking products in a locked cart, explaining the smoking policy, and notifying the charge nurse if policy violations were suspected, but these interventions were not effectively implemented. Smoking evaluations repeatedly deemed several residents to be “safe smokers” who did not require supervision, despite their admitted and observed noncompliance with the policy and, for some, oxygen dependence. For one resident, the first smoking evaluation was not completed until months after admission and after the serious smoking‑related incident involving his roommate. Progress notes and scanned records lacked documentation of noncompliance for several residents, even though residents and staff described repeated violations. Staff also reported that post‑incident education largely consisted of reading materials and sign‑in sheets, with little or no formal, focused training on smoking safety and oxygen‑therapy safety, and they did not believe the training provided had been effective.
Penalty
Resources
Below are regulatory guidelines relevant to this citation:
Unsafe Cord Placement and Failure to Follow Fall Interventions: A resident with cognitive impairment and wheelchair use had a TV power cord stretched tightly across the closet doorway, blocking access and creating an environmental hazard when staff had to lift the cord to open the closet. Another resident with severe cognitive impairment and a fall-risk care plan repeatedly ran barefoot in the hallway while staff observed but did not consistently provide planned interventions such as gripper socks, footwear, ambulation assistance, or redirection.
A resident with impaired cognition, cancer, non-Alzheimer's dementia, extensive ADL needs, and a fall history was identified as a high fall risk with care plan interventions including removing a movable bedside table. After a fall, the resident was found using the table as a walker, yet observations showed the table still placed beside the bed on multiple occasions, including when staff were present. Staff interviews confirmed they were unaware of the current fall prevention interventions and that the table remained at bedside for meals despite the care plan.
Failure to complete a restraint assessment before using a wheelchair alarm for a resident with muscle weakness, difficulty walking, repeated falls, and dementia. The care plan included the alarm as an intervention, but the record lacked an initial Restraint Evaluation, and the CNO confirmed the assessment had not been completed before the alarm was placed.
A resident with cognitive deficits, dementia, Alzheimer's disease, fracture, and repeated falls was dependent for toileting and care planned for an EZ stand with 2-person assist. During observed transfers, staff placed the harness and straps correctly, but the resident only rose to about 135 degrees and never came to a full stand, while staff remained by the bathroom door during privacy periods and continued the transfer despite the resident not standing fully. An RN stated the resident was expected to stand straight up with the EZ stand and that staff should sit the resident back down and try again if not.
A resident with Alzheimer's disease and dementia was found wandering in the parking lot after leaving the building unsupervised. A family member visiting another resident saw her looking into car windows and alerted staff, who were not aware she had exited until the report. Staff interviews showed the resident had been seen earlier eating in the dining room, but no one was actively looking for her or knew she had left the facility.
A resident with parkinsonism and Alzheimer's disease, severe cognitive impairment, and a fall history was pushed in her wheelchair without foot pedals and was not assisted when she called out for help. Nursing notes and staff interviews showed a CNA propelled the resident multiple times without foot pedals, including one instance where her socked foot hit the floor, and staff acknowledged that foot pedals should be used when pushing a resident.
Unsafe Cord Placement and Failure to Follow Fall Interventions
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure a television power cord was properly secured and maintained so it did not create an environmental accident hazard for R46. R46’s quarterly MDS identified moderate cognitive impairment, maximum assistance needed for dressing, grooming, and toileting hygiene, moderate assistance with transfers, and wheelchair use. During observation, R46 was in his room with the television mounted on the wall between the bathroom and closet, and the power cord ran across the closet doors and across the upper drawer of the dresser to a surge protector on top of the dresser. When R46 tried to open the closet doors, the cord was stretched tightly across the doorway and prevented the doors from opening fully unless the cord was lifted away. A later observation showed NA-D had to lift the cord above the closet door to open it and retrieve clothing. NA-D stated the cord had been positioned that way for about one year and could be dangerous if R46 pulled on it, and maintenance staff stated they were only notified that day that the television needed to be fixed. The facility also failed to ensure fall interventions were followed for R13, who had severe cognitive impairment with disorganized thinking and inattention, verbal behaviors toward others, and dependence on staff for footwear and partial to moderate assistance with dressing. R13’s care plan identified her as at risk for falls and included interventions such as ambulating with the resident, encouraging gripper socks, obtaining slip-on shoes, reducing noise, offering snacks, assisting her back to her room when running in the hallway, offering a wheelchair, and redirecting her to slow down. During observations, R13 repeatedly exited her room barefoot and ran through the hallway, including multiple times over an extended period, while staff observed but did not provide gripper socks or shoes, walk with her, redirect her to slow down, or offer other care-planned interventions. Staff interviews indicated they had difficulty redirecting her because she became agitated, and the DON stated the care plan should be followed to ensure safety.
Failure to Follow Fall Prevention Care Plan
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to implement care planned interventions to prevent further falls for one resident who was reviewed for falls. The resident had moderate impaired cognition, diagnoses including cancer and non-Alzheimer's dementia, required extensive assistance with ADLs including toileting, transfers, and locomotion, and had a history of falls. The resident's care plan identified the resident as a high fall risk related to de-conditioning, cognitive deficits, and prior falls, and included interventions such as anti-rollbacks on the wheelchair, appropriate footwear, keeping a wheelchair behind the resident when ambulating, and removing the mobile bedside table from beside the bed. After a fall in which the resident was found on the floor by the room doorway with the mobile bedside table in the hallway next to him, the resident stated he had been using the table as a walker. Despite the care plan and post-fall assessment identifying removal of the mobile bedside table as an intervention, observations showed the movable bedside table still placed alongside the bed on multiple occasions, including when staff were present in the room. Staff interviews confirmed they were unaware of the current fall prevention interventions, acknowledged the table was movable, and stated it remained at the bedside to facilitate meals. The DON confirmed the table had been at the bedside and was removed only after the surveyor discussed it with staff.
Failure to complete restraint assessment before wheelchair alarm use
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to complete a restraint assessment before implementing a wheelchair alarm for Resident #18. Resident #18 was admitted with multiple diagnoses including muscle weakness, difficulty walking, repeated falls, and dementia. The care plan for impaired mobility and fall risk, dated 3/8/26, included a wheelchair alarm as an intervention. A Bed Safety and Transfer Device Evaluation dated 4/28/26 documented that the bed/chair alarm did not restrict mobility, but the record did not include an initial Restraint Evaluation dated on or around 3/8/26 to identify the comprehensive evaluation of the chair alarm. On 7/9/26, the CNO stated that a Restraint Evaluation had not been completed prior to the chair alarm being placed for Resident #18.
Inadequate Supervision During EZ Stand Transfers
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure adequate supervision and assistance for one resident during transfers with an EZ stand lift. The resident had cognitive deficits and was dependent for toileting, with diagnoses including Alzheimer's disease, dementia, fracture, and repeated falls. The care plan identified a moderate fall risk related to weakness and directed toileting with an EZ stand and 2-person assist. During observation, nursing assistants placed the harness, safety belt, straps, and loops appropriately and assisted the resident with the lift, but the resident stood only to approximately 135 degrees and never came to a full stand. On two observed transfers, staff remained by the bathroom door while the resident was given privacy, then re-entered to continue the transfer and complete care. In both observations, the resident never achieved a full standing position despite encouragement and repeated attempts. One nursing assistant stated the transfer was safe because two staff were assisting, while the RN case manager stated she expected the resident to stand straight up when transferred with the EZ stand and that staff should sit the resident back down and try again if the resident did not. The RN case manager was unaware of any concerns about the resident transferring safely with the EZ stand. Facility policy was requested but not provided.
Resident Left Unsupervised and Was Found Wandering in Parking Lot
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to recognize that a cognitively impaired resident had left the building unsupervised and was wandering in the parking lot. The resident had diagnoses including Alzheimer's disease, dementia, and anxiety disorder, and records showed she had moderately impaired cognition, walked and transferred independently, and had no documented wandering behaviors during the MDS lookback period. Although an elopement evaluation had previously concluded she was not at risk for elopement, the care plan identified confusion, impaired cognition, and lack of awareness of safety needs. On the day of the event, a family member visiting another resident saw the resident outside in the parking lot looking into car windows and walking from car to car with a jacket and pocketbook on her arm. The family member stated the resident appeared to be looking for someone and was in the middle area of the parking lot before she reported it to staff. Nurse #3 was notified and went to check on the resident, who was then brought back inside the facility. Staff interviews showed they were not actively looking for the resident and did not know she had exited the facility unsupervised until the family member reported seeing her outside. Staff accounts indicated the resident had been seen earlier in the dining room eating, but no one was aware she had left the building. Nurse #2 and NA #1 both stated they were not aware the resident was missing until the report from the family member. The administrator stated the resident exited through the front entrance doors, but it was not known whether she pushed the button behind the receptionist desk or was let out by a visitor. The previous NP stated the resident needed someone with her if she was outside the facility and could have wandered away if left alone.
Failure to Respond to Help Requests and Use Foot Pedals During Wheelchair Transport
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure a safe environment free from accident hazards for R25 when staff did not respond to her requests for help and did not provide foot pedals while propelling her wheelchair. R25 had diagnoses of parkinsonism and Alzheimer's disease, and her records documented severely impaired cognition, including a BIMS score of four on a quarterly MDS. Her care plan stated she was independent with locomotion in her manual wheelchair, but other documentation reflected a history of falls and need for staff assistance with wheelchair mobility. The care plan also lacked documentation regarding foot pedals. Nursing notes and staff interviews showed multiple instances in which R25 was pushed in her wheelchair without foot pedals. On one occasion, a CNA propelled her out of the restroom and her socked foot hit the floor when the wheelchair was pushed. On another occasion, R25 was seated in her wheelchair, holding onto the back of a recliner and calling out for help, while the CNA walked by her. The CNA later propelled R25 down the hallway without foot pedals and at one point pushed the chair and let it go. Staff interviews confirmed that residents should have foot pedals when staff are pushing them, and the CNA stated she should not push R25 without foot pedals.
Trusted data from CMS and state health departments
Every citation, penalty and Plan of Correction is sourced from public CMS records (latest release August 26, 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.