Failure to Protect Resident Privacy With In-Room Video and Delay in Incontinence Care
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to protect residents’ dignity and privacy related to unauthorized video recording in a shared room and failure to provide timely incontinence care. During a tour, surveyors observed a notice on a resident room door stating the area was under 24-hour video surveillance. A private caregiver reported that the family of one resident had installed a camera to monitor that resident’s care 24 hours a day, with the camera positioned toward that resident’s bed and not intended for the roommate. Record review showed that the cognitively intact roommate had no signed consent to be in a room under continuous video surveillance, and neither resident had a care plan addressing the camera’s operation or measures to protect privacy. The roommate later stated she did not know if the camera was recording her, expressed concern about being seen when walking to the bathroom, and confirmed no one had discussed the surveillance with her or obtained her consent. Interviews with staff and administration confirmed that the camera had been in place for a couple of months, that the family monitored the resident from home, and that facility staff did not know how many family members had access to the surveillance or the camera’s field of view. The weekend RN supervisor stated she did not know how wide the camera view was and believed it recorded visual only, with no audio, but could not confirm whether the other resident’s care was captured. The Nursing Home Administrator acknowledged that the roommate’s consent had been missed, that previous roommates had signed consents, and that there was no documentation of consent for the current roommate. The Administrator also stated she could not guarantee that the roommate was not recorded and could not confirm whether the family ever activated audio, despite an agreement that the camera would be video-only. Review of the facility’s policy on video monitoring showed that roommate consent is required before installation of a camera in a shared room, and that if consent is refused, the facility should attempt to accommodate the resident requesting the camera by room changes, subject to availability. The deficiency also includes failure to provide timely toileting and incontinence care to another resident who was dependent on staff for toileting and hygiene. This resident, with a diagnosis of metabolic encephalopathy and care plans indicating incontinence of bowel and bladder and dependence for toilet use, was heard calling out for help and was observed emotionally agitated and angry. She reported that she had been waiting to be toileted, that two staff members had responded and told her to wait, and that she had been waiting for about two hours, particularly noting that on weekends call lights were not answered and she had resorted to calling the Receptionist twice. A nurse confirmed the resident had requested to use the bathroom about 30 minutes earlier and that she had informed a CNA, assuming care had been provided. A CNA later acknowledged that the resident had requested toileting 30–45 minutes earlier, that she was busy with other residents, and that another CNA was also busy. When a CNA finally responded after surveyor intervention, the resident was heard crying out that she had waited too long and was now soiled, which she stated she did not want. The CNA apologized and stated she had 25 patients and had been caring for others. Another RN on the hallway stated that CNAs were expected to respond right away, that he would normally help if notified, and that the resident should not have waited that long to be toileted; he reported he had not been informed of the need. The weekend RN supervisor reported hearing from the Receptionist that the resident had called downstairs twice for help with toileting and had been waiting about 20 minutes, and stated that CNAs and nurses should have responded and that it was not acceptable for the resident to wait and end up soiling herself. The Receptionist confirmed receiving two calls from the resident seeking toileting assistance, paging the nurse each time, and then receiving another call close to an hour later indicating no one had come. The facility’s dignity and personal privacy policy states that care is to be provided in a manner that respects and enhances each resident’s dignity and includes assisting residents with grooming and personal care, which was not followed in this instance.
Penalty
Resources
Below are regulatory guidelines relevant to this citation:
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.