Failure to Prevent and Manage Sacral Pressure Ulcer Leading to Stage 4 Infection
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to provide pressure injury prevention and care consistent with professional standards for one highly dependent resident, resulting in the development and deterioration of a severe sacral/right buttock wound. The resident was an older female with extensive comorbidities including stroke with quadriplegia, neurogenic bladder, diabetes, respiratory failure, dysphagia with PEG tube, morbid obesity, and chronic kidney disease. On admission, she was totally dependent for all ADLs, bedfast, completely immobile, and at high risk for pressure injuries per the Braden Scale, with constant moisture, friction, and shear problems identified. The admission nursing assessment, completed by an LVN, documented her skin as dry and intact with no pressure injuries, despite the LVN later stating she realized the next day that the resident had a sore on the sacral/right buttock area that should have been documented but was not. The comprehensive MDS and care plan identified her as at risk for skin breakdown and called for turning and repositioning every 2–3 hours, pressure-relieving devices, and skin monitoring, but the initial skin assessment failed to capture an existing wound or accurately reflect her skin status. A new skin issue on the right gluteus was formally documented on 1/20 by the wound care nurse as an in-house acquired trauma wound, with measurements recorded and a wound care NP noting that the wound appeared to result from trauma likely occurring during a mechanical lift transfer. The DON, however, later asserted that the wound did not result from a mechanical lift but from shear during repositioning of a large, immobile resident when staff could not fully lift her. CNAs reported the resident required two-person assistance and used a mechanical lift for transfers, and one CNA recalled first noticing a skin tear during a brief change and reporting it to the nurse. The facility’s TARs and progress notes show evolving documentation of skin issues, including MASD to the sacrum and incontinence-associated dermatitis to the buttocks, with weekly skin checks repeatedly coded as having no skin issues or no new skin issues even after the wound had been identified. The wound care NP later described the same area as sacral, noting significant deterioration of the wound over time despite the resident being on an air mattress and staff being advised to continue pressure-relieving interventions. Subsequent wound care notes documented continued deterioration, strong odor suggestive of infection, and the need for surgical debridement and advanced topical treatments. A wound panel led to initiation and extension of IV antibiotics for a polymicrobial wound infection. The wound progressed to an unstageable lesion and then to a full-thickness sacral decubitus ulcer with increased depth as devitalized tissue was removed. Despite serial debridements and ongoing dressing changes, the resident ultimately developed an infected stage 4 sacrococcygeal pressure ulcer with osteomyelitis and sepsis, as confirmed by infectious disease consultation and hospital records. Interviews with the DON, wound care providers, nursing staff, the resident, and her representative revealed inconsistent accounts regarding whether the wound was present on admission, whether it was trauma- or pressure-related, and the adequacy of repositioning and moisture management. The facility’s own skin and wound prevention policy required identification of risks, early detection of skin breakdown, and implementation of appropriate interventions, but the inaccurate admission assessment, delayed and conflicting characterization of the wound, and progression of the lesion to a stage 4 infected pressure ulcer with osteomyelitis and sepsis formed the basis of the cited deficiency. The resident and her representative also reported concerns about the visibility and progression of the wound. The resident stated she could not move her legs and relied on staff for repositioning, did not recall a wound care specialist regularly seeing her, and only recognized the term “debridement” from staff discussions. Her representative reported being told weekly by a wound care doctor that the wound was healing, while personally observing what she believed to be pus and mucus on the wound and doubting that it was improving. Facility leadership acknowledged that the resident was immobile, obese, and required staff to reposition her, and that comorbidities such as CVA, diabetes, and kidney disease were barriers to healing. The DON and ADM both described expectations for accurate skin assessments, weekly skin checks, and maintenance of skin integrity, and acknowledged that if a resident admitted with no skin issues and then acquired a wound, the resident could develop infection or sepsis. These documented actions, inactions, and inconsistent assessments and monitoring practices, in the context of a high-risk, fully dependent resident, led to the development and worsening of a sacral/right buttock wound into a stage 4 infected pressure ulcer with osteomyelitis and sepsis, constituting the cited failure to provide appropriate pressure ulcer care and prevention.
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.