Improper One‑Person Gait‑Belt Transfer Causes Humerus Fracture in Dependent Resident
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to provide proper transfer assistance for a dependent resident, failure to communicate the resident’s transfer status to a new staff member, and failure to ensure staff were educated on correct transfer techniques. The resident involved had multiple diagnoses including dementia, anxiety disorder, peripheral vascular disease, hemiplegia and hemiparesis following a cerebral infarction affecting the right dominant side, reduced mobility, and a prior right humerus fracture. The MDS showed the resident was dependent for chair/bed-to-chair transfers, requiring the assistance of two or more helpers, and the care plan and Kardex specified use of a mechanical lift with two-person assist for all surface-to-surface transfers. Staff interviews confirmed that the resident was considered a total assist and normally transferred with a mechanical lift and two staff. On the day of the incident, the resident was up in a wheelchair and requested to return to bed. An LPN, who was not the resident’s primary CNA, asked a CNA who had been working at the facility for about one month and was not assigned to the resident to assist with the transfer. This CNA took the resident from the hallway to the room and, instead of using the ordered mechanical lift with two-person assist, applied a gait belt and performed a one-person stand-pivot transfer from wheelchair to bed. During the transfer, the resident grabbed the bed rail, let go, then grabbed the CNA, and the CNA sat the resident on the bed and then positioned the rest of the resident’s body in bed. The CNA reported that the nurse who requested the transfer did not tell him how the resident was supposed to be transferred, and he stated he was not aware that the resident required a two-person mechanical lift transfer. After the transfer, as the CNA was leaving the room, the resident complained of right arm pain, which the CNA reported he relayed to a nurse, although he could not recall the nurse’s name. Later that evening, nursing notes documented that the resident reported right upper extremity pain that began during the transfer from wheelchair to bed when the arm was twisted. Pain medication was given, but the resident continued to complain of pain, leading to telehealth notification and orders for STAT X‑rays of the right humerus, elbow, shoulder, wrist, forearm, and hand. Radiology results showed an impacted transverse fracture of the right humeral neck and greater tuberosity with associated soft tissue swelling. The provider documented this as an acute new fracture and ordered transfer to the emergency department for further evaluation and treatment. Interviews with the former DON, restorative staff, and therapy confirmed that the resident should have been transferred with a mechanical lift and two-person assist and that improper transfer technique was used during the incident. Additional interviews with other CNAs, nurses, and the unit manager showed inconsistent awareness of the resident’s required transfer method. Some staff correctly identified that the resident required a mechanical lift with two-person assist, while others were unsure of the transfer status or only “probably” believed a mechanical lift was used. The unit manager and administrator stated that staff are expected to obtain transfer information from the Kardex or by asking nursing staff, and that the root cause of the incident was failure to use the correct transfer technique. The resident’s family member reported being told initially that the resident may have fallen out of bed, but later learned from facility leadership that the injury was related to a poor transfer and mishandling, and the resident herself denied falling or being dropped. The survey findings concluded that the facility failed to ensure the resident was transferred according to the care plan and orders, failed to effectively communicate the resident’s transfer requirements to a new CNA, and failed to ensure staff were properly educated and competent in safe transfer procedures, resulting in the resident sustaining a right humerus fracture during the transfer. The report also documents that the facility had policies addressing transfer status determination, mechanical lift use, and restorative nursing programs, which required appropriate screening and individualized care plans. However, interviews revealed that not all staff were clear on where or how to verify transfer status, and some part-time or newer staff reported missing or not being clearly documented on in-service sign-in sheets related to transfer training. The administrator acknowledged that an issue with the resident transfer was identified and that the investigation determined the resident’s transfer was improper. A nurse practitioner/therapy provider stated that improper transfer techniques can cause injury and that, in this case, if proper transfer techniques had been used, the injury could have been avoided. These facts support the deficiency that the facility did not ensure safe, care-planned transfers, adequate communication of transfer status, and sufficient staff education for this dependent resident.
Penalty
Resources
Below are regulatory guidelines relevant to this citation:
A resident with spinal cord disease, chronic pain, COPD, right-eye blindness, and a history of falls required one-person assist for transfers and ADL. She repeatedly used her call bell and yelled for help after breakfast because she wanted to get up, shower, and attend BINGO, but staff did not assist her out of bed until mid-afternoon. Staff said the assigned NA got behind with showers and other duties, and an RN acknowledged the resident had voiced concern that no one had helped her up when she requested it.
A resident who was dependent on staff for toileting and transfers was left in bed in an incontinent brief for an extended period after asking for help, crying that staff told her to pee her pants and that this happened often. Staff later provided incontinent care and used a mechanical lift for transfer. Another resident who needed supervision and assistance with meals sat with food in front of her for 45 minutes before staff helped her eat, while staff reported the dining room was short-staffed and the resident needed more meal assistance.
A resident with severe cognitive impairment, Alzheimer’s disease, and dependence on staff for oral hygiene did not receive routine tooth brushing during morning ADL care. Nursing assistants helped with bathing, dressing, perineal care, grooming, and transfer, but oral care was not offered or completed. A family member said staff did not routinely brush the resident’s teeth, and the RN stated oral care and brushing were expected with morning and evening cares per facility policy.
Failure to provide routine grooming: a resident who was dependent on staff for ADLs and preferred no facial hair was observed with visible facial hair on multiple occasions, and records for baths/showers did not show shaving was offered, completed, or refused. The resident stated staff did not ask about shaving, and RN and DON interviews confirmed shaving should be offered as part of grooming and documented if refused.
Failure to provide timely nail care for three residents was identified during observation, interview, and record review. Two residents with significant functional dependence had fingernails that were about 1/2 inch long, thick, and yellow, and one resident with DM and limited ability to bend had toenails about 1/2 inch long. Staff interviews showed that overgrown nails should be reported and that nail trimming was part of resident care, while the DON stated there was no reason the nails had not been cut.
Two residents who depended on staff for personal hygiene were left with unwanted facial hair despite facility policy stating grooming includes shaving and removal of facial hair. Staff confirmed CNAs were responsible for addressing facial hair during shower time, and both residents were observed with chin hairs; one resident with severe cognitive impairment said she wanted them shaved, and the other said the hair bothered her and made her feel like an odd ball.
Failure to Assist Resident With Requested Transfer and Morning Care
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to assist a resident who required staff help with transfers out of bed when she requested it. Resident #8 was admitted with diagnoses including disease of the spinal cord, chronic pain, COPD with difficulty breathing, left hand contracture, and a history of falling. Her MDS indicated intact cognition, impairment on one side of the upper extremity, and the need for partial/moderate assistance with bed mobility and chair transfers, as well as substantial/maximal assistance with sit-to-stand. Her care plan also identified that she had impaired vision due to blindness in the right eye and required one-person assistance with transfers, with staff directed to assist her with all ADL she could not complete independently. On the day in question, Resident #8 stated she wanted to get up early, at least by 10:00 AM, and was unable to transfer independently. She reported that after breakfast she used her call bell repeatedly and yelled for staff because she wanted to get up, shower, and attend BINGO, but she was not assisted out of bed until about 2:45 PM. She stated that when staff finally came to her room, she was told they were running behind, and she said it hurt her feelings that she had to repeatedly request help. Staff interviews confirmed that Resident #8 was a one-person assist with a stand/pivot transfer and that she usually stayed in bed except for BINGO and showers. NA #1, who was new to the hall and assigned to Resident #8’s area, stated she got behind because she did not know the residents well, had two showers to provide, and was also assigned to assist in the dining room during lunch. Nurse #2 acknowledged that Resident #8 said before lunch that she wanted to go to BINGO and was concerned no one had helped her out of bed, but she did not assist because she was finishing medication pass. The Nurse Supervisor stated BINGO was scheduled for 2:30 PM and that no one had told her Resident #8 had not been assisted out of bed; the DON and Administrator both stated that if Resident #8 asked for assistance, staff should have provided it when requested.
Delayed Toileting Assistance and Meal Supervision
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to provide timely toileting assistance and transfer support for a resident who was dependent on staff for toileting and transfers, was frequently incontinent of bowel and bladder, and had diagnoses including non-traumatic spinal cord dysfunction, diabetes, and dementia. The resident’s MDS and care assessments identified the need for extensive assistance, including assistance of two for transfers and toileting, use of a full body mechanical lift, peri care after incontinent episodes, and toileting every three hours. During observation, the resident was found lying in bed in an incontinent brief, crying, and stating that staff told her to stay in bed and pee her pants so they could clean her up there. The resident stated this happened all the time and that staff shut off her call light just about every day. The resident remained wet and in bed for an extended period before staff returned to provide care. A nursing assistant later entered, acknowledged the resident was wet, and performed incontinent care, including cleaning feces and urine from the resident’s skin, applying barrier cream, and putting on a clean brief and pants. After care was completed, the nursing assistant had to leave and return with another staff member to complete the transfer using a ceiling lift before the resident was taken to the dining room for lunch. Staff interviews confirmed the resident should not have had to wait when she needed the bathroom and that timely toileting assistance was expected to prevent incontinence and skin breakdown. The facility also failed to provide timely supervision and assistance with eating for another resident who was identified as cognitively intact and independent with eating on the quarterly MDS, but whose nutritional assessment stated the resident normally ate 51-75% of most meals and was assisted with meals for optimal intake. During lunch observation, there was not enough staff in the dining room to assist residents, and at least two residents sat with food in front of them without eating or receiving help. The resident remained seated with a plate of food in front of her for 45 minutes before staff assisted her to eat. Staff interviews indicated the resident had begun to need more help with meals, had started pocketing food, and required supervision and cueing while eating. The DON stated residents who required supervision with eating should be watched closely and assisted in a timely fashion when they stopped eating or had not started eating.
Failure to Provide Routine Oral Care
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to provide assistance with routine grooming cares, including oral care, for a resident who was dependent on staff for oral hygiene, personal hygiene, eating, and dressing. The resident had severe cognitive impairment with diagnoses including Alzheimer’s disease, anxiety, and depression. The care plan identified a self-care performance deficit related to Alzheimer’s disease and dementia, along with impaired balance and weakness, and specified that the resident required total assistance of one with oral care and had her own teeth in good condition. A family member stated staff did not routinely brush the resident’s teeth and believed flossing occurred only occasionally. During morning observation, nursing assistants assisted the resident with transfer, bathing, dressing, perineal care, grooming, and getting her ready for the day, but oral care was not offered or completed. One nursing assistant later verified he did not offer to complete oral care or brush the resident’s teeth and stated he was not used to morning cares after recently working evening shifts. Another nursing assistant stated his usual practice was to complete oral care in the evening. The RN stated oral care and brushing of teeth were expected with morning and evening cares, and the facility policy required residents with their own teeth to have them brushed every morning, every evening, and as needed.
Failure to Provide and Document Routine Shaving for a Dependent Resident
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure routine personal hygiene, specifically shaving, was completed for a resident who was dependent on staff for ADLs. The resident’s quarterly MDS dated 5/11/26 indicated intact cognition, no hallucinations, delusions, behaviors, or rejection of care, and dependence on staff for personal hygiene, toileting, showering, dressing, and mobility. The care plan identified a preference for no facial hair and directed staff to provide grooming on shower days and as needed, with the resident totally dependent on staff for personal hygiene and oral care. Review of progress notes from 5/1/26 through 6/3/26 showed no documentation of refusals or completion of shaving. Weekly skin/bath assessments on 5/22/26 and 5/29/26 documented bed baths, and the weekly bath audit on 5/27/26 documented a shower, but none of these records showed that facial shaving was offered or completed. During observation and interview, the resident was seen with approximately 1/4 inch facial hair and stated staff did not ask if she wanted to be shaved and that she found it embarrassing to have to ask. On a later observation, the resident still had facial hair and stated no staff had asked if she wanted it removed. RN-A and RN-D stated shaving should be offered when staff notice facial hair and that shaving is part of daily grooming, while the DON stated shaving should be offered with showers and as needed and documented if refused.
Failure to Provide Timely Nail Care for Three Residents
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure that residents who were unable to carry out activities of daily living received the necessary services to maintain grooming and personal care, specifically nail care, for three residents reviewed for ADL care. Resident #88 had a history of CVA, lack of coordination, muscle weakness, muscle spasm, anemia, and hand contractures, and was fully dependent for self-care. On observation, he was in bed with contracted hands and fingernails about 1/2 inch long on both hands that were thick and yellow; he nodded yes when asked if he wanted his nails trimmed. Resident #45 had Parkinsonism, other lack of coordination, weakness, localized edema, chronic pain, wrist drop, and muscle weakness, with severely impaired cognition and full dependence for self-care. On observation, he was in bed with tremors in both hands, and all fingernails on both hands were about 1/2 inch long and thick and yellow. He stated he wanted his nails trimmed and did not remember whether he had been offered nail trimming or when they were last trimmed. Resident #67 had acute respiratory failure with hypoxia, CHF, type 2 diabetes mellitus, muscle weakness, muscle wasting, and lack of coordination. Although his MDS reflected intact cognition and independence with personal hygiene, he stated he could trim his fingernails but could not bend down to trim his toenails. Observation showed toenails about 1/2 inch long on both feet, and he stated that he had neither requested nor been offered toenail trimming. Interviews with CNA staff and the nurse in charge showed awareness that nail care was part of resident care, that overgrown nails should be reported, and that nail trimming was important, while the DON stated there was no reason the residents' nails had not been cut.
Failure to Provide Grooming and Facial Hair Removal
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to provide necessary ADL services for two sampled residents who were dependent on staff assistance for personal hygiene and grooming. Facility policy stated that grooming includes shaving and removal of facial hair, and staff interviews confirmed that CNAs were responsible for shaving residents as needed during shower time. Surveyors observed Resident #67 with several long, curly facial hairs on her chin during one observation, and the hairs were still present during a later observation and interview. Resident #67, who had diagnoses including weakness and vascular dementia and a BIMS score of 4 indicating severe cognitive impairment, stated she did not know the hairs were there and said she would like someone to shave them off. Resident #59 was also observed with scattered chin hairs approximately one-half to three-fourths of an inch long. She stated she could not recall staff asking whether she wanted them shaved, said it would be good if staff had a time and place to get it done, and explained that the facial hair bothered her and made her feel like an odd ball. She said she wanted the hair shaved, not plucked. CNA #1, LPN #2, and the ADON all confirmed that facial hair removal should be addressed during shower time and that leaving female residents with unwanted facial hair was a dignity issue. Resident #59 had diagnoses including unspecified dementia, weakness, and hypertensive heart and chronic kidney disease without heart failure, and her BIMS score was 08 with MDS documentation showing substantial/maximal assistance needed for personal hygiene.
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.