Failure to Identify and Monitor Accessed Implanted Port Leading to Sepsis
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to identify, monitor, and provide care for an implanted venous access device (port) that remained accessed after a resident returned from multiple hospitalizations. The resident had a complex medical history including colorectal cancer, recurrent sepsis, chronic anemia requiring multiple blood transfusions, severe protein-calorie malnutrition, recurrent infections, and an implanted vascular access port placed in the left chest. Hospital records repeatedly documented the presence of this implanted port, including notes that it was accessed on several admissions. However, on each readmission to the facility (12/29/25, 01/09/26, 01/20/26, 02/20/26, and 03/12/26), there was no evidence in the facility’s admission assessments, baseline care plans, or progress notes that staff identified the presence of the implanted port. Following the resident’s hospitalization from 02/17/26 to 02/20/26 for anemia and nephrostomy tube concerns, the resident returned to the facility on 02/20/26 with the implanted venous access device still accessed with a Huber needle and covered by a dressing. Despite this, the facility’s admission assessment and baseline care plan dated 02/20/26 did not document the port or that it was accessed. Subsequent skin observations on 02/21/26 and 02/28/26, and daily skilled nursing assessments from 02/21/26 through 02/28/26 and again on 03/02/26, 03/03/26, and 03/04/26, contained no indication that staff recognized the accessed port, provided any site care, or monitored the site. Physician orders from 02/20/26 to 03/04/26 showed no orders for monitoring or care of the implanted device. The facility’s venous access policy required routine assessment and monitoring of venous access sites at least once per shift, but the DON confirmed there was no evidence in the record that the device had been identified or monitored in any way. On 03/04/26, when the resident arrived at an outside oncology infusion center for a chemotherapy appointment, an oncology RN observed that the implanted port was still accessed with a Huber needle and covered by a heavily soiled, partially intact dressing with a date that appeared to be 02/11/26, later clarified as likely 02/17/26. The oncology nurse described the resident as disheveled, unbathed, lethargic, uncomfortable, and unable to keep his head upright, and noted that the dressing edges were peeling and that there was significant concern for infection risk. The oncology nurse removed the dressing, obtained blood return from the port, and, after the resident reported feeling weak and dizzy, the oncology physician directed that the resident be sent to the ED. Hospital records from that day documented sepsis and shock, with blood cultures drawn from the implanted port growing gram-positive cocci and MRSE, and the resident was admitted to the ICU for treatment of sepsis. The DON, facility RNs, and the resident’s physician later acknowledged that the facility did not access ports, that most nurses were not trained in port use, and that the device had not been identified or monitored while the resident was in the facility, despite the port remaining accessed during that time.
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 June 24, 2026) and official state health department websites — never guesswork.
Trusted by long-term care providers and associations.




Self-audit
Pick a level of detail and, optionally, what to focus on — then generate a survey-ready checklist distilled from the most recent citations.
Beta · AI-generated — for reference only, not professional advice. Verify against current CMS guidance before relying on it. Assisto accepts no responsibility for how this checklist is used.