Untimely Call Light Response and Delayed Toileting Assistance Compromising Resident Dignity
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to answer resident call lights in a timely manner, resulting in delayed toileting assistance and compromised dignity for multiple residents. Call light response logs for several days showed repeated response times ranging from approximately 13 to over 40 minutes, despite residents’ documented needs for prompt toileting due to incontinence, diuretic use, constipation, and mobility limitations. The facility did not have a call light policy or a defined maximum wait time, and staff interviews revealed varying expectations for response times, generally around five to seven minutes, which were not consistently met, especially during high-activity periods such as mornings and mealtimes. One resident with intact cognition, chronic constipation, mixed urinary incontinence, and limited shoulder mobility required substantial assistance with toileting and transfers and was on a bowel regimen. Her care plan and bowel/bladder assessment directed staff to offer toileting at specific times, including before and after meals and at bedtime. Call light logs showed numerous instances where her call light remained unanswered for 18 to over 40 minutes. She reported that after lunch she activated her call light for help to have a BM, was unable to wait long when she had the urge, and ultimately had to flag down a therapy staff member in the hallway because no one responded for what she described as over an hour. She described feeling miserable, surprised she could hold her bowels that long, and stated that long waits occurred at least weekly, more often on day shift, and that she had small urine accidents because she could not get to the bathroom in time. Another resident with intact cognition, morbid obesity, impaired mobility, and on diuretics required substantial assistance with toileting hygiene and transfers and used a urinal with staff help. Call light data showed multiple delays between roughly 13 and 20 minutes. During one observation, he had already activated his call light for help with the urinal and reported that in the past it had taken up to 30 minutes to get assistance, and that long waits had been occurring for some time. During the observed episode, staff did not arrive for approximately 15 minutes, by which time he had already become incontinent in his brief and expressed embarrassment and frustration. He stated he had discussed long call light waits with other residents while staff were present, but the wait times did not improve. A third resident with impaired vision, hip fracture, impaired mobility, and urinary incontinence used a wrist call light and required assistance with ambulation and transfers, including use of a stand lift with total assist of two. Her assessment noted she had to rush to the bathroom when she felt the urge to void. Call light logs documented at least one instance where her call light was not answered for more than 15 minutes. She reported that while most staff answered quickly, she had waited up to 20 minutes at times, during which the urine came too fast for her to reach the bathroom, leading to incontinence episodes that made her feel upset and embarrassed. She also commented on staff turnover and some staff being on their cell phones frequently. A fourth resident with dementia, impaired mobility, and on diuretics and other psychotropic medications was dependent for transfers and toileting and used a four-point lift. Her care plan and assessments indicated she was continent of bowel and bladder, used the call light, and could report when she needed to void. However, nursing assistant documentation showed at least two episodes of urinary incontinence, and call light logs revealed multiple delays between approximately 14 and 37 minutes. She reported waiting up to 25 minutes for assistance at times, nearly urinating in her pants, and feeling upset and angry when unable to get to the bathroom when needed. She stated that long waits occurred every couple of days, more often during mealtimes, and that while she had not yet become incontinent on some days, she was frustrated that she could not take herself to the bathroom. Staff interviews confirmed that the expectation was to answer call lights within about five to seven minutes, and staff acknowledged that this often did not occur, particularly during early mornings, mealtimes, and evening “rush to bed” periods. Multiple nursing assistants stated that long waits could lead to residents attempting self-transfers, falls, or incontinence, and that residents across the building had voiced concerns about long call light times. One assistant described residents in the dining room discussing their frustration and using the call light cancel and re-press function to make their calls appear more recent. Another assistant reported witnessing a resident fall after attempting to self-transfer with the call light on. The DON confirmed there was no written call light policy and no specific maximum wait time in facility policies, while facility resident rights and dignity policies required that residents be treated with dignity and that staff promptly respond to requests for toileting assistance.
Penalty
Resources
Below are regulatory guidelines relevant to this citation:
Failure to maintain resident dignity was identified when three residents with indwelling urinary catheters had drainage bags hanging on the bedframe without privacy covers, despite physician orders for privacy covers every shift. In addition, a resident who was ordered to be fed by staff was observed being fed by a nurse aide standing beside the bed during lunch, and the DON confirmed the dining experience was not dignified.
A resident with dementia, anxiety, and osteoarthritis was observed sitting naked on the bed in full view of the hallway while a CNA assisted with dressing. The care plan directed staff to assist with dressing, and the CNA stated the curtain had not been pulled after returning the resident from the bathroom. The ED confirmed the facility failed to maintain the resident's dignity.
Failure to provide a dignified dining experience: Four residents with significant diagnoses, including Parkinson’s disease, schizophrenia, cerebral palsy, TBI, and dysphagia, were brought to the assistive dining room for lunch but were not served their trays until more than 50 minutes after the posted mealtime. While other residents were already being assisted with eating, these residents were left watching the meal service, and the DON stated they should have been served at the same time as the others or not brought in until their trays were ready.
A facility failed to protect the dignity of two residents when an LPN administered insulin injections in the commons area in full view of surveyors, staff, and other residents. The LPN lifted each resident’s shirt, cleansed the injection site, and gave the subcutaneous insulin injection publicly rather than in a private area.
A resident with dementia, depression, and anxiety was seated in the dining room while other residents ate, but the lunch tray was not served with the group on two occasions. In a separate event, an LVN administered oral meds to another resident with intellectual disability and cerebral palsy in the dining room while wearing gloves, rather than in a private setting, which staff stated was not the facility’s practice and could be seen as disrespectful.
A resident with dementia and Alzheimer's disease had his beard completely shaved by two CNAs without his RP's consent. The RP stated the resident had worn his beard for many years and had not been seen without it, and the DON stated the RP should have been notified because the resident lacked capacity to make decisions for himself. The facility policy required staff to ask the resident or, when appropriate, the resident representative about grooming preferences upon admission.
Failure to Maintain Resident Dignity During Catheter Care and Dining
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to maintain resident dignity by not ensuring privacy covers were applied to urinary catheter drainage bags for three residents. Resident R26, who had diagnoses of diabetes, high blood pressure, and coronary artery disease, had a physician order for catheter care to provide a privacy cover for the drainage bag every shift. During observation, the catheter drainage bag was hanging on the bedframe without a privacy cover. Resident R178, with diagnoses of diabetes, high blood pressure, and depression, also had an order for a privacy cover every shift, and the drainage bag was observed hanging on the bedframe without a privacy cover. Resident R179, diagnosed with COPD, atrial fibrillation, and heart failure, likewise had an order for a privacy cover every shift, and the drainage bag was observed hanging on the bedframe without a privacy cover. An RN confirmed that the bags should be covered and that the residents' dignity was not maintained. The facility also failed to provide a dignified dining experience for one resident who was ordered to be fed by staff. Resident R39, who had diagnoses of high blood pressure, heart failure, and diabetes, had a care plan and physician order for staff to feed all meals. During lunch observation on the 2B nursing unit, the resident was sitting upright in bed while a nurse aide stood beside the bed feeding the resident. The nurse aide stated that they should have been sitting down while feeding but did not know where the resident's chair was. The DON later confirmed that the facility failed to provide the right to a dignified dining experience for one of two lunches observed on 2B.
Failure to Maintain Resident Dignity During Dressing Assistance
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to provide care and services to maintain a resident's dignity for one of 11 sampled residents. Resident R23 had diagnoses including dementia, anxiety, and osteoarthritis. The MDS dated [DATE] indicated the resident had mild cognitive impairment and required assistance with dressing. The care plan identified a self-care performance deficit related to dementia and directed staff to assist the resident with dressing. During observation on 8/4/2026 at 10:15 a.m., Resident R23 was sitting on the bed naked in full view of anyone walking by in the hallway while a CNA was assisting with dressing. During interview, the CNA stated that the curtain had not been pulled after bringing the resident back from the bathroom, and the Executive Director confirmed the findings and that the facility failed to provide care and services to maintain the resident's dignity.
Failure to Provide Dignified Dining Experience
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure residents were treated with dignity and respect for 4 of 8 residents reviewed for respect and dignity. The facility’s Assistance with Meals policy stated that staff will serve resident trays and help residents who require assistance with eating, and that residents who cannot feed themselves will be fed with attention to safety, comfort, and dignity. The facility’s Dignity policy stated that each resident shall be cared for in a manner that promotes and enhances well-being, satisfaction with life, and feelings of self-worth and self-esteem, and that residents are supported in exercising their rights during care. Resident #4 had diagnoses including Parkinson’s Disease and major depressive disorder. Resident #13 had diagnoses including schizophrenia and abnormal involuntary movement. Resident #19 had diagnoses including spastic quadriplegic cerebral palsy and anxiety disorder. Resident #44 had diagnoses including traumatic brain injury and dysphagia. During observation of the assistive dining room during the lunch meal, eight residents were present and only four were being assisted with eating after their meals had been delivered. Residents #4, #13, #19, and #44 were not served their lunch trays until after 12:10 PM, more than 50 minutes past the posted lunch mealtime, and were observed watching other residents who were already being assisted with their meals. The DON stated these residents should have been served at the same time as the other residents or not brought into the dining room until their trays were ready.
Failure to Protect Resident Dignity During Insulin Administration
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to provide care for R4 and R1 in a manner that protected and promoted their dignity. On 08/04/2026 at 07:32 AM, observation in the commons area showed LN G pulling up R4's shirt on his left arm, cleansing the area with an alcohol wipe, and administering a subcutaneous insulin injection in his right upper arm while two surveyors, multiple facility employees, and numerous other residents could view the procedure from the four halls and dining room area. On 08/04/2026 at 07:40 AM, a similar observation in the commons area showed LN G pulling up R1's shirt on his left arm, cleansing with an alcohol wipe, and administering a subcutaneous insulin injection in his right upper arm in full view of two surveyors, multiple facility employees, and numerous other residents. On 08/05/2026 at 08:10 AM, Administrative Nurse D verified that LN G should not administer insulin injections in public areas and that residents should be taken to their rooms or a private area. The facility's Respect and Dignity; Right to Personal Property policy, dated August 2026, stated residents have the right to be treated with respect and dignity.
Late Meal Service and Public Medication Administration
Penalty
Summary
Facility staff failed to promote dignity and respect for Resident 3 when the resident’s lunch tray was not served with the other residents in the dining room on 7/30/2026 and again on 7/31/2026. Resident 3 was admitted with diagnoses including dementia, major depressive disorder, and anxiety, and the MDS indicated the resident had moderately impaired cognitive skills for daily decision making and required supervision or substantial assistance with multiple activities of daily living. During observation, Resident 3 was seated at a dining table with other residents while the other residents were eating, but Resident 3 had no lunch tray present. During the first observation, Treatment Nurse 1 verified that Resident 3 had no lunch tray and was watching the other residents eat, and stated he did not know why the tray was not included with the others. The Assistant DON later stated the resident was not served lunch on time and should have been served between 12:00 PM and 12:15 PM with the other residents in the dining room. On the second day, Resident 3 was again observed seated at the dining table at 12:15 PM with no lunch tray while other residents were eating. The DON and Dietary Supervisor stated the delay left the resident waiting while others ate, and the Dietary Supervisor stated the system for getting the dining room resident list to the kitchen staff was not working. Facility staff also failed to maintain Resident 4’s dignity during medication administration in the dining room. Resident 4 was admitted with diagnoses including mood disorder, intellectual disability, and cerebral palsy, and the MDS indicated the resident required substantial assistance with several activities of daily living. During observation, LVN 1 administered oral medication to Resident 4 in the dining room while wearing gloves. Treatment Nurse 1 stated medication should not be given in a public area and that the resident should have been assisted back to the room for private medication administration. The DON stated the resident could feel disrespected and that other residents might think the resident had an infectious disease because staff wore gloves while giving the medication.
Unauthorized Shaving of Resident's Beard
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure that two CNAs did not shave the beard of one resident without the resident's RP's consent. The resident had diagnoses including dementia and Alzheimer's disease, and his MDS indicated his cognition was moderately impaired and that he was dependent on facility staff for ADLs. The resident's RP stated that the beard was shaved without her knowledge or consent and that the resident had worn his beard for many years and she had never seen him without it. The DON stated that the RP should have been notified before the resident's beard was shaved because the resident did not have capacity to make decisions for himself. The DON also stated that CNA 1 and CNA 2 reported the resident looked unkempt and dirty on admission and that they felt he needed grooming. The facility policy on resident preferences stated staff should ask the resident and, when appropriate, the resident representative about preferences upon admission before initiation of treatment/therapy and/or during the initial IDT meeting, including preferences related to grooming.
Trusted data from CMS and state health departments
Every citation, penalty and Plan of Correction is sourced from public CMS records (latest release October 8, 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.