Failure to Assess and Obtain Consent for Bed Rail Use
Summary
The facility failed to assess two residents for the risk of entrapment from bed rails before the rails were installed and failed to document informed consent for their use. Resident #38 had diagnoses including unspecified dementia, unspecified fall, subsequent encounter, and major depressive disorder. Her quarterly MDS showed a BIMS score of 11, indicating moderately impaired cognition, and Section GG showed she was independent with sit-to-lying and sit-to-stand. Her care plan identified a one-quarter bed rail for mobility, and physician orders dated 06/09/2026 authorized the rail for positioning and mobility, but the clinical record contained no signed bed rail consent and no current bed rail safety assessment prior to installation. During observation, she was seen in her room with the one-quarter bed rail up and locked in place. Resident #89 had diagnoses including senile degeneration of the brain, major depressive disorder, and history of falling. Her quarterly MDS showed a BIMS score of 03, indicating severely impaired cognition, and Section GG showed she required supervision or touching assistance with sit-to-stand and chair-to-bed transfer. Her care plan identified a one-quarter bed rail for mobility and positioning, and physician orders dated 06/01/2026 authorized the rail for positioning and mobility, but the clinical record contained no signed bed rail consent and no current bed rail safety assessment prior to installation. During observations, she was seen lying in bed asleep with the one-quarter bed rail up and locked in place. During interviews, the ADM stated she and the DON had recently audited bed rail assessments and consents, but Residents #38 and #89 had been missed. The DON stated the missed assessments were her responsibility and that bed rail assessments and consents were required before implementation and reviewed quarterly. Facility staff also stated that completion of bed rail assessments and consents was the responsibility of the charge nurse, and the facility policy required review of alternatives, assessment of entrapment risk, and informed consent before bed rail use.
Penalty
Resources
Below are regulatory guidelines relevant to this citation:
Failure to assess and obtain consent before bed rail use for two residents. Two cognitively intact residents with diagnoses including AFib, HTN, arthritis, CAD, and HF were observed with bed rails on their beds even though their MDSs indicated no bedrail use. Both records lacked a bedrail assessment, consent, and education, and the DON confirmed no assessment had been completed before the rails were installed.
A resident with severe cognitive impairment and total dependence for care fell from bed after an air mattress was set too high for the resident’s weight, causing the mattress to overinflate and push the resident into a siderail. The resident’s arm became trapped in the rail and the resident sustained neck and sternum injuries. The record also showed no siderail entrapment assessment for the resident, and multiple other residents with air mattresses and siderails also lacked documented side rail assessments.
A facility failed to complete ongoing reassessments of bed siderail safety for a resident with severe cognitive impairment and total dependence for bed mobility. The resident continued using the siderails for months without the required review, and later developed bruising and a traumatic posterior shoulder dislocation after the arm was reportedly caught in the rail. An internal investigation and later assessment found the siderails were unsafe and no longer indicated.
A resident with acute and chronic respiratory failure with hypoxia, Type 2 DM with hyperglycemia, generalized muscle weakness, and impaired cognition was placed in four locked bed rails for fall risk. The record showed only one alternative intervention, one-to-one activities and supervision, with no documented evidence explaining why it was ineffective, and the DON stated there was no documented active order for a low bed or other alternative. The resident was observed asleep with all four bed rails up and locked, and the care plan and active orders did not show monitoring for safe bed rail use.
Failure to Assess Bed Rail Entrapment Risk: A resident with severe cognitive impairment and multiple medical conditions was placed in a bed with assist rails without documented assessment for appropriateness, documented alternatives, or informed consent. Staff later found the resident with his head and neck trapped between the mattress and the assist bar, unresponsive and not breathing, and CPR was started before EMS transported him to the hospital. The resident was admitted with cardiac arrest and diffuse hypoxic injury and later expired.
Bed-mounted assistive devices were used for multiple residents without consistent documentation of prior alternatives, physician orders, safety assessments, informed consent, or installation dates. Several residents had rails or assistive poles attached to their beds, including devices used for repositioning or transfers, and one rail was observed to move when shaken. Staff reported that a custom mount bracket had been made for the devices, while the DON stated she was unaware the devices were not compatible with the bed frames per the manufacturer manual. Facility policy required least restrictive methods first, physician orders, care plan review, and ongoing documentation, but those elements were not consistently present.
Failure to Assess and Obtain Consent Before Bed Rail Use
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to comprehensively assess and attempt alternatives before using bed rails for 2 of 6 residents reviewed for bed rail use. R55’s MDS indicated she was cognitively intact and had diagnoses including atrial fibrillation, high blood pressure, and arthritis. Although Section P of the MDS indicated R55 did not use bedrails, during observation on 7/6/26 her bed had half-length bed rails attached to both sides. R55 stated the rails had been there since admission and that she did not routinely use them. Her medical record lacked an assessment, consent, and education for bedrail use. R16’s quarterly MDS indicated he was cognitively intact and had diagnoses including coronary artery disease, heart failure, and high blood pressure. Section P of the MDS indicated R16 did not use bedrails, but during observation on 7/6/26 his bed had quarter bed rails attached to both sides. R16 stated he did not use them and could not recall how long they had been on his bed. His medical record also lacked an assessment, consent, and education for bedrail use. The DON stated a resident using bedrails required an assessment for appropriateness, a physician’s order, consent, and education, and confirmed R55 and R16 had not had a bedrail assessment prior to installation.
Failure to Assess Bed Rail Entrapment Risk and Mattress Settings
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to assess residents for risk of entrapment from bed siderails and failed to calibrate an alternating air flow mattress setting for a resident’s weight. The report states that these failures resulted in one resident’s mattress becoming overinflated, which caused the resident to fall into the bedrail and to the floor. During the fall, the resident’s arm became entrapped in the bedrail and the resident was unable to reposition the head and neck away from the rail, resulting in neck and sternum injuries. The affected resident had diagnoses including unspecified dementia with agitation, osteoarthritis, osteoporosis with a history of left femur fracture, generalized muscle weakness, unsteadiness on feet, need for assistance, and abnormalities of gait and mobility. The resident’s MDS documented severe cognitive impairment and total dependence on staff for all ADLs, including bed mobility and transfers. The resident’s care plan included use of a low-air-loss mattress, but the record did not contain a side rail assessment to determine risk for entrapment or safety before siderails were used. After the fall, the resident was found sitting on the floor with the face and arm by the side rail, with bruising and abrasions/tears to the neck and bruising to the neck and sternum area. The fall investigation documented that the resident slid off the side of the bed and that the low air loss mattress appeared to be set for a much heavier weight than the resident’s actual weight. The investigation did not identify side rail involvement as part of the root cause or include an intervention related to the siderail. The report also states that 10 additional residents reviewed for side rails and accidents had no side rail assessments in their records, and all had air mattresses and bed siderails in place.
Failure to Reassess Bed Siderail Safety Led to Resident Injury
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure the correct use and ongoing reassessment of bed siderails for one resident who had severely impaired cognition and was totally dependent on staff for bed mobility. The resident was admitted with diagnoses including Alzheimer's disease and polyosteoarthritis, and a Quarterly MDS assessment showed a BIMS score of 4 out of 15, indicating severely impaired cognition. The record showed that the resident continued to use bed siderails, but the facility did not document the required reassessments of the continued need for and safety of the siderails for approximately 15 months after the last reassessment. After the resident was found with bruising to the right armpit and right posterior arm, the resident was transferred to the Emergency Department and diagnosed with a closed traumatic posterior dislocation of the right shoulder. Because of the resident's cognitive impairment, the resident could not recall how the injuries occurred. In the facility's internal investigation, the former DNS stated that the bruise appeared shaped like the side rail, with striations matching the bars on the rail, and that the resident slept on the right side with the arm around the side rail. The statement indicated the arm likely became caught in the siderail and the shoulder was dislocated when the resident tried to pull it out. The facility's records did not show evidence that the required ongoing reassessments were completed after 2/4/2025 to determine whether the bed siderails remained clinically appropriate and safe. During surveyor interview, the Administrator, with the current DNS present, was unable to provide evidence of the required reassessments. A bed siderail assessment completed after the injury determined that the siderails were unsafe for the resident's continued use and were not indicated because they created an accident hazard.
Failure to Document Alternatives and Monitor Bed Rail Use
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to evaluate why alternative interventions were ineffective before installing four bed rails for Resident 10 and failed to monitor the resident’s use of side rails as required by the facility’s Bed Safety and Bed Rails policy. Resident 10 was admitted with acute and chronic respiratory failure with hypoxia, Type 2 DM with hyperglycemia, and generalized muscle weakness. The record showed that the only alternative intervention documented before bed rail use was one-to-one activities and supervision, but there was no documented evidence explaining why that alternative did not work. An order dated 3/30/2026 indicated bilateral full bed rails due to fall risk, and the care plan later documented all bed rails up and locked when in bed with an intervention to attempt less restrictive devices on an ongoing basis. Resident 10’s history and physical stated the resident did not have capacity to understand and make decisions, and the MDS described moderately impaired cognition, dependence for ADLs and functional mobility, no prior falls in the 2 to 6 months before admission, and daily use of bed rails. During observation, Resident 10 was found asleep in bed with all four bed rails up and locked. The DON stated there was no documented evidence of an active order for a low bed and no other alternative attempted with a documented reason for its inability to meet Resident 10’s needs before placing four bed rails. The DON also stated the care plan did not indicate monitoring for bed rails while in use and the Active Orders list did not show an active order to monitor the safe use of the bed rails.
Failure to Assess Bed Rail Entrapment Risk
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to thoroughly assess residents for the risk of entrapment and the appropriateness of using bed rails. The deficiency involved Resident #11, who was admitted with diagnoses including a right hip fracture, anxiety disorder, orthostatic hypotension, depression, and Alzheimer’s disease. The resident’s MDS showed severe cognitive deficits and dependence on staff for activities of daily living, including rolling in bed. The record contained no documentation that the resident was assessed for the use of side rails, and there were no documented alternatives attempted before the resident was placed in a bed equipped with bed rails. On 05/23/26, staff found Resident #11 in distress in his room with his head and neck caught between the mattress and the assist bar, and his lower jaw stuck inside the handle of the assist bar. CNA #138 and RN #50 removed the mattress from the opposite side of the bed to free the resident and lower him to the floor. The resident was not breathing and was non-responsive, and RN #50 initiated CPR until EMS arrived and took over rescue efforts. EMS later reported the resident had a pulse and transported him to the hospital. Witness statements and the EMS run sheet described the resident as being found with his head stuck between the bed railing and the bed, with signs of obstruction to breathing. The hospital record stated the resident was admitted after being found down between the bed and an assist rail with cardiac arrest and diffuse hypoxic injury. He was intubated, mechanically ventilated, later transitioned to comfort-focused care, and expired on 06/01/26. The facility policy required attempts at alternatives, interdisciplinary evaluation, resident assessment, and informed consent before use of bed rails, and the report states these steps were not completed for Resident #11.
Bed-Mounted Assistive Devices Installed Without Required Documentation and Manufacturer Compliance
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure that assistive devices attached to residents’ beds were installed and used in accordance with manufacturer instructions and facility policy. Surveyors found that for nine sampled residents with bed-mounted assistive devices, the facility did not document the date the devices were installed, and for several residents there was no documentation that alternatives were tried before the devices were placed, that a physician’s order was obtained, that a safety assessment was completed, or that informed consent was obtained. The report identified residents 1, 9, 10, 32, 34, 35, 36, 43, and 47 as having these devices on their beds. During observations, resident 9 had an assistive device attached to the right side of the bed and used it to reposition in bed, but she was unsure whether she had been educated about the risks and benefits. Her record lacked documentation of prior interventions, signed consent, a physician’s order, a quarterly assessment for safe use, and the installation date. Resident 34 had a device attached to the left side of the bed, and her record lacked documentation of prior interventions, signed consent, a physician’s order, a safety assessment, and the installation date. Resident 35 also had a device attached to the left side of the bed, with no documentation of prior interventions, a safety assessment, or the installation date. Additional observations showed resident 43 had mobility bars on both sides of the bed, with the right and left vertical poles positioned 30 inches and 23.5 inches from the head of the bed, respectively, and the horizontal bars 6 inches and 7 inches above the mattress. Resident 10 had mobility bars on both sides of the bed, with the right-side rail 29 inches from the head of the bed and 9 inches above the mattress; that rail moved when shaken. Resident 1 had assistive devices on both sides of the bed, resident 36 had a bed rail on the right side used to move from sitting to standing, resident 47 had a left assistive device noted in a nursing entry with consent signed, and resident 32 had a signed consent for a left assistive device. The facility coordinator stated he made his own mount bracket because he did not like the mount that came with the device, and the DON stated she was not aware the current devices were not compatible with the residents’ bed frames per the manufacturer’s manual. The facility policy required least restrictive methods first, physician orders, care plan inclusion, quarterly review, and documentation of usage, and the Invacare manual stated to use only Invacare rails and accessories with Invacare beds, warning that non-Invacare accessories may increase the risk of injury or death.
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.