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:
Staff failed to honor a resident’s expressed preference to use a mounted doorbell instead of knocking before entering the room. The resident had PTSD and a history of trauma, and knocking was a known trigger. During observation, a CNA knocked, rang the doorbell, and opened the door while the resident was being interviewed, despite a posted sign requesting staff ring the bell and not knock. Interviews confirmed staff knew the resident’s preference and trigger.
Failure to maintain resident dignity and privacy during care: multiple residents reported CNAs used personal cell phones while assisting with showers, peri-care, and other care, including texting and talking in resident areas and during meals. A resident with stroke-related paralysis and severely impaired cognition was observed receiving wound care with the door open and the privacy curtain not pulled, allowing others to see into the room while the LPN provided care.
A resident who was dependent on staff for toileting and transfers, and who was frequently incontinent, was left in bed in only a sweatshirt and brief while crying after staff told her to stay in bed and pee her pants so they could clean her up later. The resident said this happened often and that her call light was frequently turned off. Staff interviews confirmed she should not have been told to remain incontinent, and the DON stated residents should never be told to be incontinent because it is a dignity issue.
A resident with a foley catheter was observed with the catheter bag hanging uncovered on the side of the bed while the room door was open. The resident had diagnoses including stroke-related hemiplegia/hemiparesis and UTI, and the care plan noted a foley catheter related to neurogenic bladder. CNA staff stated the bag should have been covered, and the DON acknowledged it was a privacy issue.
Failure to Maintain Female Residents' Dignity With Unwanted Chin Hair: Three female residents were observed with visible chin hair after showers, despite needing staff assistance with bathing and grooming. Two residents had severe cognitive impairment and one had moderate cognitive impairment; one resident said the hair bothered her and another said she was waiting for the beauty shop to shave it off. Family members stated the residents would not choose to have beards and that the unwanted chin hair caused embarrassment and affected dignity.
A resident with impaired cognition, incontinence, and a catheter for neurogenic bladder had his catheter drainage bag visible in the commons area and later from the hallway, with clear yellow urine showing. Staff, including therapy, the IP, and an RN, did not arrange privacy, and the bag was also hung facing out toward the room entrance. The DON stated staff were expected to keep the blue side of the bag facing the public to cover it and maintain dignity.
Staff Failed to Honor Resident’s Doorbell Preference
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure staff treated Resident #39 with dignity and respect by honoring the resident’s expressed preference for how staff announced themselves before entering the room. Resident #39 was admitted with diagnoses that included PTSD and frontal lobe and executive function deficit, and stated during interview that knocking on the door was a known trigger related to a history of trauma. The resident preferred that staff use the mounted doorbell instead of knocking when the door was shut for privacy. During observation, CNA #2 approached the resident’s room, knocked on the door, rang the mounted doorbell, and then opened the door while surveyors were interviewing the resident. The resident responded, “Not now, I’m busy,” and the CNA closed the door. A sign posted outside the room stated, “Pls. Ring the Bell, Don’t Knock! STOP,” and a doorbell was mounted next to the sign. Interviews with the ADON and CNA #9 confirmed staff were aware of the resident’s preference and that knocking was a known trigger, yet the observed practice did not follow the resident’s stated wishes.
Failure to Maintain Resident Dignity and Privacy During Care
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to treat residents with respect, dignity, and privacy by allowing staff to use personal cell phones while providing care and by failing to maintain privacy during wound care for one resident. Twelve confidential residents stated that CNAs used personal cell phones while assisting with showers, providing care in resident rooms, and performing peri-care, and that staff also texted and talked on phones while walking in hallways, at nurses’ stations, and in the dining area during meals. The residents stated this occurred on every shift and made them feel embarrassed, concerned about the quality of care, and that their privacy was violated. During interviews, the DON and ADM stated staff should not use cell phones or earbuds while providing care and should keep phones in breakroom lockers. They stated residents should receive undivided attention and that staff were trained on resident rights, dignity, privacy, and cell phone use during orientation, ongoing education, and in-services. They also stated staff were monitored through rounds, and both acknowledged that cell phone use in resident care areas could violate privacy and reduce attention to care. Resident #7 was a male resident with a history of cerebral infarction, left-sided hemiplegia and hemiparesis, and urinary tract infection, and his MDS indicated severely impaired cognitive skills for daily decision making. During observed wound care, LVN D did not close the door or pull the privacy curtain around the resident, and two female residents were seen passing by and looking into the room while care was being provided. LVN D stated she had been trained to close the door and pull the curtain but did not do so because she was waiting for the CNA, and the DON and ADM stated they expected the door to be closed and the curtain pulled for privacy during resident care.
Failure to Preserve Resident Dignity During Toileting Assistance
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure dignified care for one resident who was dependent on staff for toileting and transfers, frequently incontinent of bowel and bladder, and had diagnoses that included dementia, diabetes, non-traumatic spinal cord dysfunction, depression, heart failure, and asthma. Her care plan directed staff to assist her with toileting, provide incontinence care, and offer toileting every 3 hours so she could remain free of skin breakdown and have her dignity respected. She was also documented as being able to verbally ask for toileting assistance and requiring extensive assistance with transfers and toileting needs. During an observation, the resident was found lying in bed wearing only a sweatshirt and an incontinent brief, with no pants and not fully covered by bedding. She was crying and stated staff told her she had to stay in bed and could not get up, and that they told her to pee her pants and they would clean her up in bed. She stated this happened all the time and that nursing assistants shut off her call light just about every day. While she was crying, a nursing assistant entered, said she was wet and needed to be cleaned up, told her not to cry, and then provided incontinent care. During interviews, staff acknowledged the resident should not be told to go in her pants or be encouraged to remain incontinent. One NA stated the resident was encouraged to stay in bed because staff were short and the NA had other residents to care for, and that the resident had asked to get up but was waiting because she required assistance of 2. Other staff stated the resident should never be told to just go in her pants, that residents should not be told to be incontinent, and that such statements were a dignity issue. The DON stated staff were expected to provide care when requested and never tell a resident to be incontinent because it was a dignity issue.
Uncovered Foley Catheter Bag Observed With Door Open
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure a resident was treated with dignity when Resident #3’s foley catheter bag was observed hanging on the side of the bed without a cover while the room door was open. Resident #3 was admitted with diagnoses including hemiplegia and hemiparesis following a cerebral infarction affecting the left non-dominant side and a UTI, and his care plan documented that he had a foley catheter related to neurogenic bladder. The facility’s Promoting/Maintaining Resident Dignity policy stated that residents are to be protected and promoted in their rights and treated with respect and dignity. During interview, CNA #1 stated the catheter bag should have been covered since the door was open, and the DON stated she had never thought the catheter should have been covered in the room with the door open and acknowledged it was a privacy issue.
Failure to Maintain Female Residents' Dignity With Unwanted Chin Hair
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to treat three residents with dignity and respect when each had visible chin hair that was not consistently removed after bathing. Resident #1, a female resident with moderately impaired cognition, was dependent on staff for toileting and required assistance with bathing. Her record showed she was showered on 06/02/26, but on 06/03/26 and again on 06/04/26 she was observed with several white, approximately one-inch-long hairs on her chin. During interview, she stated the hairs bothered her and said she was waiting for the beauty shop ladies to come because they usually shaved her chin hair off for her. She also stated CNAs never shaved her chin. Resident #37, a female resident with severely impaired cognition, was dependent or required partial/moderate assistance across all ADLs except eating and required one staff member to assist with bathing. Her record showed she received a shower on 06/02/26. On 06/03/26, she was observed multiple times lying in bed with several dark and light grey hairs sprinkled across her chin, approximately half an inch long. During interview, her family member stated she would not choose to have a beard and that when at home she used a trimmer to remove unwanted chin hair. The family member also stated CNAs shaved her chin when they showered her. Resident #44, a female resident with severely impaired cognition, Parkinson's disease, lack of coordination, and muscle weakness, was dependent across all ADLs except eating and required two staff members for bathing. Her record showed she was showered on 06/02/26. On 06/03/26 and again on 06/04/26, she was observed with long, white, curling hairs on both sides of her chin. During interview, she stated it bothered her to have chin hair and that she did not like it. She said she could shave her chin if she had a razor and stated CNAs had shaved her chin in the past, but she did not know why they had not done so lately. Her family member stated the chin hair bothered her, that he had never seen her with chin hair before she came to the facility, and that she would become emotional and embarrassed if it was mentioned.
Visible Catheter Drainage Bag Not Kept Private
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure dignity was maintained for one resident who had moderately impaired cognition, was dependent on staff for dressing, bed mobility, and toileting, was always incontinent of bowel and bladder, and had intermittent catheterization for neurogenic bladder. The resident’s care plan identified a catheter and included an intervention to position the catheter bag and tubing below the level of the bladder and away from the entrance room door. During an observation, the resident’s urinary catheter drainage bag was visible while he was seated in his wheelchair in the commons area, with clear yellow urine showing and the bag hung under the wheelchair. After the resident was brought to his room, staff emptied the catheter drainage bag and hung it on the side of the bed facing out to the room entrance. On a later observation, the catheter drainage bag was uncovered in the commons area, with the clear side facing toward the hallway and elevator space so that clear yellow urine was visible from the hallway. Therapy staff, the infection preventionist, and the resident’s RN were present in the area and did not arrange privacy for the catheter drainage bag. Staff later stated the bag should be covered for privacy, and the DON stated staff were expected to keep the blue side facing the public to cover the bag and maintain dignity. The facility’s dignity policy stated catheter drainage bags and colostomy pouches should be covered with commercial covers or tucked out of plain sight.
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.