F0684 F684: Provide appropriate treatment and care according to orders, resident’s preferences and goals.
J

Failure to Recognize and Respond Timely to Sepsis and Acute Changes in Condition

Lake Manassas Health & Rehabilitation CenterGainesville, Virginia Survey Completed on 04-10-2026

Summary

The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to provide timely assessment, recognition, and response to signs and symptoms of sepsis and significant changes in condition for two residents, resulting in delayed transfer to the hospital. For the first resident, who had been admitted with a surgically repaired hip fracture and was consistently documented as alert and oriented with no cognitive impairment, vital signs on the night before the event showed no physical concerns and a blood pressure of 127/65. Early the following morning, the weekend on‑call provider was contacted about a low blood pressure of 84/49 and ordered holding aspirin and antihypertensives, a stool test for blood, and hourly blood pressure checks. By 7:30 a.m., the resident’s blood pressure had dropped to 80/41, oxygen saturation was 84% on room air, and the resident was unresponsive to verbal stimuli, with this unresponsive neurological status persisting throughout the day. After the 7:30 a.m. change in condition, the primary care physician (PCP) was notified and ordered IV fluids at 100 ml/hr. Subsequent vital signs showed continued hypotension and worsening respiratory status: at 8:00 a.m. blood pressure was 82/38 with O2 saturation 93% on 4 L oxygen; at 10:00 a.m. blood pressure was 85/43, heart rate 132, and O2 saturation 85–90% on 5 L oxygen; and at 11:08 a.m. blood pressure was 79/40 with O2 saturation 99% on 8 L oxygen. The PCP ordered additional IV fluids at 9:30 a.m. and did not order transfer to the hospital until noon, despite the ongoing hypotension and unresponsiveness. EMS was not called until 12:23 p.m., and EMS documented a primary impression of sepsis with hypotension as the primary sign. The resident’s death certificate listed sepsis as the cause of death. The LPN who cared for the resident from 11:00 p.m. to 7:30 a.m. stated he did not remember the resident or events and could not access the electronic record. The LPN who cared for the resident from 7:00 a.m. until transfer stated she did not recall the events, believed she followed the PCP’s orders, did not question those orders, and asserted she could not send a resident to the ER without a provider’s order. When given a scenario similar to the resident’s condition, she did not identify sepsis as a likely outcome and stated she did not know who the facility’s medical director was. For the second resident, who was also consistently documented as alert and oriented with no cognitive impairment and had a full code order, the deficiency involved delayed provider contact and transfer after an acute change in condition suggestive of sepsis. At 8:30 p.m., the resident was documented as alert, responsive, talking, and answering questions. At 9:00 p.m., a CNA reported a change in condition, and an LPN assessed the resident, finding a blood pressure of 78/46 and documenting acute distress, lethargy, respiratory congestion, labored breathing, and intermittent gasping. The LPN later stated she did not know the resident well but had been told the resident was ordinarily alert and oriented and recalled light‑hearted conversation earlier in the shift. She stated she identified the condition as possible sepsis but believed she was not allowed to send the resident to the hospital without a physician’s order and could not explain why she waited almost an hour between assessing the resident and contacting the provider. The on‑call provider was not contacted until 9:52 p.m., at which time an order was given to transfer the resident to the hospital, and the resident was sent to the emergency room around 10:30 p.m. The facility’s own “Significant Change of Condition” policy stated that potentially life‑threatening conditions require nursing assessment and critical thinking to determine whether a patient should be transferred to an acute care setting, and that this decision will be made by a licensed nurse when the patient’s condition is so acute that time does not permit waiting for a provider’s response. The Director of Nursing stated that sepsis had long been a major nursing topic, that nurses in the facility were expected to recognize early signs and symptoms of sepsis and take immediate action, and that nurses had autonomy to use nursing judgment to send residents to the hospital even without a provider’s order, while also acknowledging it would be very hard to say that either resident was transferred in a timely manner.

Penalty

Inspection fine: $22,509
tooltip icon
The penalty, as released by CMS, applies to the entire inspection this citation is part of, covering all citations and f-tags issued, not just this specific f-tag. For the complete original report, please refer to the 'Details' section.

Resources

Below are regulatory guidelines relevant to this citation:

See other F0684 citations
Failure to Monitor Blood Glucose After Rapid Drop
D
F0684 F684: Provide appropriate treatment and care according to orders, resident’s preferences and goals.
Short Summary

A resident with insulin-dependent type 2 DM and mild cognitive impairment had a rapid BG drop after receiving sliding scale insulin. The resident reported fear of overnight hypoglycemia and requested BG checks every 2 hours, but the record did not show overnight monitoring, reassessment, or follow-up. Staff later stated the night nurse was notified, while the resident said BG was not checked again until breakfast.

No penalty information released
tooltip icon
The penalty, as released by CMS, applies to the entire inspection this citation is part of, covering all citations and f-tags issued, not just this specific f-tag. For the complete original report, please refer to the 'Details' section.
Failure to Provide Ordered Wound Care and Aspiration Precautions
D
F0684 F684: Provide appropriate treatment and care according to orders, resident’s preferences and goals.
Short Summary

Failure to provide ordered wound care and aspiration precautions: A resident returned from a dermatology procedure with biopsy-site dressings and the chart lacked documentation of assessment or wound care, while the dressings remained in place and undated during observations. The same resident also had dysphagia with a FEES showing silent penetration with straw sips and an order for no straws, yet was observed drinking water from a cup with a straw; the SLP and DON confirmed the no-straw precaution and expectation to follow physician orders.

No penalty information released
tooltip icon
The penalty, as released by CMS, applies to the entire inspection this citation is part of, covering all citations and f-tags issued, not just this specific f-tag. For the complete original report, please refer to the 'Details' section.
Failure to Monitor Ordered Vital Signs
D
F0684 F684: Provide appropriate treatment and care according to orders, resident’s preferences and goals.
Short Summary

Failure to Monitor Ordered Vital Signs: A resident with COPD, chronic respiratory failure with hypoxia, and CHF had a provider order for daily vital signs, but the MAR showed an O2 sat of 87% with no follow-up vitals documented and another day with no vitals documented at all. Nursing notes did not show follow-up monitoring or documentation of the low O2 reading, and the CNO stated vitals were recorded on the night shift but not entered into the record or explained when the day-shift vitals were not completed as ordered.

No penalty information released
tooltip icon
The penalty, as released by CMS, applies to the entire inspection this citation is part of, covering all citations and f-tags issued, not just this specific f-tag. For the complete original report, please refer to the 'Details' section.
Medication Administered Despite Hold Parameters
D
F0684 F684: Provide appropriate treatment and care according to orders, resident’s preferences and goals.
Short Summary

Medication Administered Despite Hold Parameters: A resident with HTN and hyperlipidemia had an order for midodrine with BP hold parameters, but licensed nurses administered the medication multiple times even when the resident's BP met or exceeded the ordered limits. MAR review showed doses were given despite systolic and/or diastolic readings at or above the hold threshold, and the NHA acknowledged the medication was administered contrary to the physician's parameters.

No penalty information released
tooltip icon
The penalty, as released by CMS, applies to the entire inspection this citation is part of, covering all citations and f-tags issued, not just this specific f-tag. For the complete original report, please refer to the 'Details' section.
Failure to Assess and Report Abnormal Blood Glucose and Document Resident Change in Condition
D
F0684 F684: Provide appropriate treatment and care according to orders, resident’s preferences and goals.
Short Summary

Failure to assess and report abnormal blood glucose and document change in condition: The facility did not notify the MD of abnormal CBG results or assess for hypo/hyperglycemia for two residents with DM who had insulin orders and abnormal readings, including low and high values. The record also showed inaccurate documentation for another resident with a bruise of unknown origin that was monitored briefly and then no longer documented.

No penalty information released
tooltip icon
The penalty, as released by CMS, applies to the entire inspection this citation is part of, covering all citations and f-tags issued, not just this specific f-tag. For the complete original report, please refer to the 'Details' section.
Failure to Notify Provider of Significant Weight Changes
D
F0684 F684: Provide appropriate treatment and care according to orders, resident’s preferences and goals.
Short Summary

A facility failed to notify the provider about a resident’s weight changes per physician order. The resident had CAD, HF, HTN, and dementia, and the record showed weight fluctuations of 4 lbs and 5 lbs, but there was no evidence the provider was updated. The DON confirmed the provider was never notified and stated the provider should have been informed per the order.

No penalty information released
tooltip icon
The penalty, as released by CMS, applies to the entire inspection this citation is part of, covering all citations and f-tags issued, not just this specific f-tag. For the complete original report, please refer to the 'Details' section.
Citation search

Search every citation & Plan of Correction

Go to search
Citation watch

Track new serious citations across Virginia

Get a heads-up on the newest immediate-jeopardy (J–L) citations in Virginia — where surveyors are focused right now.

Free · about one email a month

Trusted data from CMS and state health departments

Every citation, penalty and Plan of Correction is sourced from public CMS records (latest release August 26, 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.

Get the Survey-Prep Report
An unhandled error has occurred. Reload 🗙

Connection lost — reconnecting… We couldn't reconnect automatically. Please reload the page to continue.