Petersburg Medical Center Ltc
Inspection history, citations, penalties and survey trends for this long-term care facility in Petersburg, Alaska.
- Location
- 103 Fram Street, Petersburg, Alaska 99833
- CMS Provider Number
- 025019
- Inspections on file
- 12
- Latest survey
- August 28, 2025
- Citations (last 12 mo.)
- 5
Citation history
Health deficiencies cited at Petersburg Medical Center Ltc during CMS and state inspections, most recent first.
Staff failed to follow infection control procedures when a CNA provided perineal care to a resident with peripheral vascular disease, stroke, and hemiplegia/hemiparesis. After cleansing the resident’s buttocks and anal area while wearing gloves, the CNA did not change gloves or perform hand hygiene before pulling up the resident’s swim trunks, moving directly from a dirty task to a clean task. Facility leadership and the ICP confirmed that staff are expected to perform hand hygiene and change gloves between contaminated and clean tasks, consistent with the facility’s hand hygiene policy.
The facility did not post complete daily nurse staffing information as required. Observations showed that a hallway whiteboard listed the date, first names of nursing staff and CNAs on duty, general shift times, and the resident census, but did not include the total number of CNAs, LPNs, and RNs per shift or the actual hours worked by each staff type. The CNO acknowledged that nurse staffing hours were not posted and that only a non-public file at the nurse’s desk contained historical staff schedules, with no notice to residents or visitors about its existence, resulting in inaccurate staffing information being available to residents and families.
The facility failed to submit mandatory PBJ data for FY Quarter 4 2023, resulting in a one-star staffing rating. The Interim Administrator acknowledged the missed submission during an interview.
The facility failed to attempt gradual dose reductions (GDRs) on psychotropic medications for three residents, placing them at risk for unnecessary medications. Despite the facility's policy requiring GDR attempts, no such attempts or contraindications were documented for these residents.
The facility failed to provide a Minced and Moist (MM5) diet as ordered for a resident and did not offer an alternative of MM5 texture when needed. The resident, with multiple diagnoses including dysphagia and poor dentition, received pureed food instead of the specified MM5 texture, leading to emotional distress and refusal to eat. Staff interviews and policy reviews revealed a lack of adherence to dietary specifications and failure to provide appropriate alternatives.
A facility failed to ensure proper hand hygiene during wound care for a resident with erythema and an ingrown toenail. An LN applied Bacitracin ointment without changing gloves or cleaning the site, leading to potential infection risk.
Failure to Perform Hand Hygiene and Glove Change Between Dirty and Clean Tasks
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves a failure to follow infection control procedures during personal care for one resident. Record review showed the resident had peripheral vascular disease, a history of stroke, and hemiplegia/hemiparesis. During an observation, the resident was standing at the bedside after using a bedside commode, with swim trunks around the lower legs and a gait belt secured at the waist for stability. One CNA stood in front of the resident holding the gait belt to assist with stability, while another CNA, who was wearing gloves, performed perineal care. The gloved CNA cleansed the resident’s buttocks and anal area with a wet washcloth and then used a dry washcloth to pat the area dry. After completing this contaminated task, the CNA did not change gloves or perform hand hygiene before proceeding to pull up the resident’s swim trunks, which constituted a clean task. In an interview, the CNO and ICP stated that staff were expected to perform hand hygiene and change gloves when moving from a dirty task to a clean task, and that the CNA should have changed gloves prior to touching the resident’s clothing. The facility’s hand hygiene policy required hand hygiene before moving from a contaminated body site to a clean body site during resident care.
Failure to Post Required Daily Nurse Staffing Information
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to post required daily nurse staffing information, including the total number of CNAs, LPNs, and RNs and the actual hours worked for resident care per shift. During observations over several days, surveyors noted a whiteboard in the LTC unit hallway labeled with the facility name that listed the date, first names of nursing staff and CNAs on duty, general shift times, and the resident census. However, the board did not include the total number of licensed nurses or CNAs per shift, nor did it display the total actual hours worked by each staff type. In an interview, the CNO confirmed that the facility did not post nurse staffing hours, explaining that the whiteboard was updated daily only for the current shift and that historical staff schedules were kept in a file at the nurse’s desk, which was not publicly posted and had no reference directing residents or visitors to its existence. This failure to post complete and accurate nurse staffing information resulted in residents and their families receiving inaccurate information about staffing levels.
Failure to Submit PBJ Data for FY Quarter 4 2023
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure the mandatory submission of staffing information based on payroll-based journal (PBJ) data for Fiscal Year (FY) Quarter 4 2023 (July 1 - September 30, 2023). This failure was identified during a review conducted from March 4-8, 2024, and on March 11, 2024, which revealed that the facility did not submit the required data for the specified quarter. As a result, the facility received a one-star staffing rating. During an interview on March 7, 2024, the Interim Administrator acknowledged that the PBJ data submission for FY Quarter 4 2023 was missed.
Failure to Attempt Gradual Dose Reductions for Psychotropic Medications
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to attempt gradual dose reductions (GDRs) on psychotropic medications for three residents, which had the potential to place them at risk for unnecessary medications. Resident #5 was admitted with depression and was taking Citalopram 20mg daily since 5/3/22. There was no documentation of a GDR attempt or contraindication for GDR in the medical record. The care plan identified the use of Citalopram but did not document any GDR attempts or contraindications in the physician notes dated 12/27/23 and 2/20/24. Resident #7, admitted with aggression in dementia and depression, was taking Divalproex, Clonazepam, and Citalopram. While GDR attempts were made for Citalopram and Clonazepam, no GDR attempt was documented for Divalproex, nor was there any contraindication noted. The care plan listed the medications but did not document any GDR attempts or contraindications. Similarly, Resident #10, admitted with dementia and aggressive behavior, was taking Divalproex, Olanzapine, and Escitalopram. There were no documented GDR attempts or contraindications for any of these medications in the medical record. During an interview, the physician confirmed that no GDRs were attempted for these medications and was unaware of any contraindications documented in the medical records. The facility's policy on unnecessary drugs required GDR attempts for psychotropic medications within the first year and annually thereafter unless clinically contraindicated. However, the facility did not adhere to this policy for the three residents in question.
Failure to Provide Ordered Diet and Alternatives
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure that a Minced and Moist (MM5) diet was provided as ordered for one resident, and an alternative of MM5 texture was not offered when needed. Resident #12, who had diagnoses including malnourishment, weakness, dysphagia, cerebral palsy, and poor dentition, was observed multiple times receiving food that appeared pureed instead of minced and moist. This discrepancy was noted during lunch, dinner, and breakfast observations, where the resident's meals did not meet the specified MM5 texture, leading to emotional distress and refusal to eat by the resident. Interviews with staff, including a Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) and the Dietary Manager (DM), revealed a lack of adherence to the MM5 diet specifications. The CNA acknowledged that the breakfast provided looked pureed rather than minced and moist. The DM explained the facility's process for preparing MM5 diets but admitted that certain foods, like bread, were pureed instead of minced and moist. The DM also noted that alternatives for foods that could not be minced were not provided, and the resident's emotional reactions to the pureed food were known but not addressed adequately. The facility's policies on dietary services and menu substitutions were reviewed, indicating that food should be prepared and served in a form designed to meet individual needs and that substitutes of similar nutritive value should be offered. However, the DM confirmed that alternatives were not provided for the MM5 diet, and the resident's dissatisfaction with the pureed food was documented in Resident Council meeting minutes and a dietary note to the resident's physician. Despite the resident's emotional distress and expressed dislike for the pureed food, the facility did not make necessary adjustments to meet the resident's dietary needs and preferences.
Failure to Perform Proper Hand Hygiene During Wound Care
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure proper hand hygiene was performed during wound care treatment for a resident diagnosed with erythema and an ingrown toenail. During an observation, a Licensed Nurse (LN) was seen removing an adhesive bandage from the resident's right toe while wearing gloves, palpating the toe and exposed wound, and then applying fresh Bacitracin ointment without changing gloves or cleaning the site. The LN placed the Bacitracin directly on the contaminated glove and applied it to the wound, only performing hand hygiene after removing the gloves post-application. The facility's infection preventionist confirmed that the proper practice would have included changing gloves and performing hand hygiene before applying the Bacitracin to avoid contamination. The facility's policy and resource instructions also emphasized the importance of hand hygiene and changing gloves when soiled. However, these protocols were not followed during the observed wound care treatment, leading to a potential risk for infection and compromised wound healing for the resident.
Latest citations in Alaska
A resident with ESRD and dependence on hemodialysis did not receive post-dialysis care according to physician orders, the care plan, and facility policy. The post-dialysis pressure dressing on the AV fistula was not documented as removed within the ordered timeframe, despite dialysis center instructions specifying timely removal. Although an LN later reported that the access site was bleeding and a dressing change was performed, the TAR documented the site as clear and nursing notes did not reflect any dressing change. Required shift assessments of the fistula site for bleeding, redness, and tenderness were not accurately documented, and there was no evidence that the physician was notified of the bleeding access site, contrary to facility policy and referenced CDC dialysis safety standards.
The facility failed to obtain and document informed consent for psychotropic medications before administration for multiple residents with dementia, Parkinson’s disease, and related behavioral and psychotic disturbances. In several cases, residents had OPA guardians or other representatives as medical decision-makers, yet there was no evidence that risks, benefits, alternatives, or treatment options for medications such as divalproex, valproic acid, olanzapine, quetiapine, pimavanserin, and antidepressants were discussed or that representatives were given an opportunity to choose among options. For one resident, consent for quetiapine was signed after the first dose had already been given. Staff interviews showed confusion about who was responsible for obtaining informed consent, when it should occur, and which medications required it, and leadership acknowledged that consents obtained via email were not consistently placed in the medical record and that consent audits were irregular, despite facility policies and resident rights documents requiring that residents or representatives be advised of psychotropic risks and benefits and that this be documented.
The facility failed to maintain sufficient RN, LPN, and CNA staffing levels as defined in its own facility assessment, particularly on weekends, and frequently relied on float staff to cover cottages without regularly assigned nurses. Staff and a resident reported that only one nurse and one CNA sometimes covered an entire cottage, that CNAs from other cottages had to pick up assignments when someone called in, and that staff shortages caused rushing and concerns about care. One resident with quadriplegia, fully dependent for bathing and preferring showers, missed multiple scheduled showers over several weeks and instead received bed baths or no documented hygiene care, and reported long call-light response times and staff declining small assistance due to being too busy. Another resident with multiple sclerosis and functional quadriplegia, dependent on staff and an overhead lift for transfers, was not consistently gotten out of bed on the days specified in their care plan and grievance resolution, and reported that requests to get up were often denied or deferred because staff said they were shorthanded.
A resident with multiple medical and psychiatric diagnoses, under a full court-appointed guardianship granting the guardian authority over medical and mental health treatment, was sent to a behavioral health consultation without documented notification to the guardian. The consultation report noted the resident was unescorted, that there was documentation of a guardian/POA, and that the resident could not state why they were there, with a recommendation to obtain guardian contact. The Administrator and DON confirmed there was no documented guardian notification, and although the AA reported that transportation was provided and that the resident’s recent BIMS showed intact cognition, there was no chart documentation that the guardian had been informed of or consented to the mental health appointment.
Two residents did not receive ADL services as assessed and care planned. A resident with quadriplegia, fully dependent on staff and preferring showers, was care planned for twice-weekly showers using a Carendo chair, but logs and interview showed prolonged gaps without showers and missed scheduled shower days, with staff citing CNA shortages and long call-light response times. Another resident with multiple sclerosis and functional quadriplegia, dependent on staff for bed-to-chair transfers, had a care plan and CNA tasks specifying transfers to a chair multiple times per week, and had previously expressed concerns and filed a grievance about limited opportunities to get out of bed; however, task logs showed the resident was either not gotten up or only once per week over several weeks, and the resident reported staff often declined requests to get up due to staffing and workload.
Two residents were discharged without adequate planning, resulting in unsafe and inappropriate transitions. One was sent home to an inaccessible and unsafe environment without necessary support or services, leading to distress, a fall, and reliance on unplanned third-party assistance. Another was discharged despite unresolved behavioral and cognitive issues, without required mental health referrals or involvement of their representative, causing distress and confusion. The facility lacked documented discharge planning standards and failed to coordinate essential post-discharge care.
A resident with dementia, depression, anxiety, and other complex conditions was admitted without the PASRR Level II report being available or reviewed. The facility did not initiate specialized mental health services as required, delayed updating the care plan, and discharged the resident without addressing PASRR-identified needs or following recommended discharge options. This resulted in untreated behavioral symptoms and increased psychotropic medication use.
A resident with complex medical needs developed multiple pressure ulcers and infections due to the facility's failure to provide timely and consistent wound care interventions, delayed care planning, poor documentation of noncompliance, and lack of coordination for higher-level wound care referrals. Discrepancies between wound care provider recommendations and actual treatment orders, as well as improper antibiotic administration in relation to dialysis, contributed to persistent wound infection and ultimately led to hospitalization with sepsis and death.
Systemic failures in the QAPI program led to ongoing deficiencies in staffing, grievance procedures, activities, medication management, and therapy services. Residents experienced long wait times for assistance, were not properly informed about grievance processes, and were not consistently offered activities as documented in their care plans. Incomplete narcotic count documentation and lapses in therapy services further contributed to suboptimal care.
Two residents did not receive care according to physician orders and care plans. One resident with hypertension and heart failure had daily vital signs ordered but only had them documented twice over several months. Another resident with skin breakdown risk had orders for offloading boots and wound care that were not implemented, as observed during the survey. Facility policies required adherence to these orders and care plans.
Failure to Follow Post-Dialysis Orders and Document AV Fistula Complications
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to provide dialysis-related treatment and care in accordance with physician orders, the resident’s care plan, and facility policy for one resident dependent on hemodialysis with ESRD and PVD. Physician orders and the MAR directed that the post-dialysis pressure dressing on the resident’s AV fistula be removed after a specified number of hours, and dialysis communication from the dialysis center reiterated that the fistula dressing must be removed within a defined timeframe to prevent clotting or narrowing of the AV graft. Record review showed no documentation that the post-dialysis dressing was removed within the ordered timeframe, and there was no indication on the MAR or in nursing progress notes that a dressing change was performed during the relevant dates. The facility also failed to assess, document, and communicate the condition of the dialysis access site as ordered and per policy. The care plan required daily checks and dressing changes at the access site with documentation and monitoring for signs and symptoms of complications, and the TAR included an order to assess the fistula site every shift for clarity, tenderness, redness, and bleeding. A nurse reported that upon the resident’s return from dialysis, the access site was bleeding and a dressing change was performed, but the TAR documentation for that shift indicated the site was “clear,” and nursing progress notes contained no record of a dressing change. Additionally, despite facility policy requiring monitoring for complications and immediate physician notification for bleeding, the medical record contained no evidence that the physician was notified about the post-dialysis bleeding AV fistula. CDC dialysis safety guidelines cited in the report state that standards of care require reassessment of the access site after dressing removal for bleeding, redness, or swelling, with accurate documentation and timely communication of findings, which was not demonstrated in this case.
Failure to Obtain and Document Informed Consent for Psychotropic Medications
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to obtain and document informed consent for psychotropic medications prior to administration, thereby failing to ensure residents or their representatives were informed in advance of the risks, benefits, alternatives, and options for treatment. For Resident #1, who had severe dementia with psychotic disturbance, anxiety disorder, and depressive disorder, the record showed extensive use of multiple psychotropic medications, including divalproex, lorazepam, olanzapine, quetiapine, sertraline, and trazodone over a defined period. The resident had an Office of Public Advocacy (OPA) guardian as medical decision-maker, yet there was no documented informed consent for any of these medications. Emails to the guardian referenced that Depakote and other psychotropics had been ordered or adjusted, but did not include information on risks, benefits, alternatives, or options, nor did they document that the guardian was given an opportunity to choose a preferred option. The guardian later stated the facility had never reviewed risks, benefits, alternatives, or options for any medications and that such information would have guided decision-making. For Resident #3, who had vascular dementia and cerebrovascular disease and also had an OPA guardian, the medical record showed long-term administration of valproic acid and a period of mirtazapine use, totaling hundreds of psychotropic medication administrations. The record contained no documented informed consent for these medications. A progress note indicated that a licensed nurse was unable to reach the resident’s representative and mailed a copy of notes, including the addition of mirtazapine, but there was no further documentation of efforts to contact the representative to discuss medications or obtain informed consent. The facility was unable to provide any proof of informed consent for Resident #3’s psychotropic medications, and the guardian similarly stated that information on risks and benefits would have guided decision-making. For Resident #4, who had Parkinson’s disease with dyskinesia, dementia due to Parkinson’s disease with behavioral disturbance, hallucinations, and Lewy body dementia with psychotic disturbance, the record showed an order and ongoing administration of pimavanserin, an antipsychotic, over approximately 90 days. The resident had a representative who made medical decisions, but there was no documented informed consent for this psychotropic medication, and the facility could not provide any proof when requested. For Resident #5, diagnosed with dementia with behavioral disturbance and Parkinson’s disease, quetiapine was ordered and first administered before the facility obtained a signed Psychotropic Risk/Benefits Verification of Informed Consent form; the consent was dated one day after the first dose was given. This demonstrated that consent was not obtained prior to initial administration. Interviews with nursing staff and leadership revealed confusion and inconsistency regarding responsibility for obtaining informed consent, when it should be obtained, and where it was documented. One licensed nurse believed physicians were ultimately responsible for obtaining consent and was unsure where signed consents were stored. Another nurse did not know who was responsible, when to obtain consent, or how to verify its presence before administering a new medication, and believed only antipsychotics required consent. A third nurse assumed that if a physician wrote an order, informed consent had already been obtained, and identified psychotropics and antipsychotics as requiring consent that included discussion of risks and benefits. The DON and LTC nurse manager stated that bedside nurses were trained to obtain informed consent before the first dose of medications needing consent and that the facility did not obtain new informed consent for psychotropics if a resident was already taking the same medication on admission, assuming the resident already knew the risks and benefits. The LTC nurse manager also stated that consents were sometimes obtained via email to representatives or guardians, but copies of those emails were not placed in the medical record, and audits of consents had not been done regularly. These practices conflicted with the facility’s resident rights document and its psychopharmacological drug use policy, both of which required that residents or their representatives be advised of potential risks and benefits of psychotropic medications and that this be documented.
Insufficient Nursing Staff Leading to Missed ADLs and Transfers
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to provide sufficient nursing staff, including CNAs and licensed nurses, to meet residents’ needs as established in its own facility assessment. The assessment specified minimum staffing levels of 6–8 licensed nurses on day shift, 5–7 licensed nurses on night shift, 8–10 CNAs on day shift, and 7–8 CNAs on night shift. Review of staffing schedules for December 2025 and January 2026 showed that on multiple weekend days, the number of licensed nurses and CNAs scheduled fell below these minimums. On specific dates, day and night shifts were staffed with fewer licensed nurses than required, and several day and night shifts were staffed with fewer CNAs than the assessment’s minimums. Payroll Based Journal data further showed the facility triggered for low weekend staffing for all four quarters of federal fiscal year 2025, establishing a history of low weekend staffing. In addition to low numbers, staffing patterns showed that licensed nurses and CNAs frequently picked up resident assignments in cottages that did not have regularly assigned staff. Staff interviews confirmed that some cottages, such as Aniak, did not have a regular nurse assigned and instead relied on float nurses from other cottages. A CNA reported feeling unable to provide good quality care because of rushing and expressed concern about resident falls due to having only one nurse and one CNA in the cottage. Another nurse stated there was only one CNA caring for residents and that if that CNA called in sick, CNAs from other cottages would pick up assignments. An anonymous resident reported that staff shortages were a big problem, with shared nurses and CNAs, and described long waits and receiving bed baths instead of showers when CNAs did not have time. The insufficient staffing directly affected the provision of ADLs for specific residents. One resident with quadriplegia, dependent on staff for showers and whose care plan required showers every Sunday and Thursday night using a Carendo chair, did not receive showers as scheduled. Shower logs showed a 14-day gap between showers in December 2025, with bed baths documented instead on some scheduled shower days and no documentation of shower or bed bath on another scheduled day in January 2026. This resident stated they had not been showered for three weeks in December and again on a recent scheduled day because staff told them there were not enough CNAs, and also reported long waits for call light responses and staff declining to assist with small tasks due to being too busy. Another resident with multiple sclerosis, muscle weakness, and functional quadriplegia, who was dependent on staff for transfers and required one-person assistance with an overhead lift, experienced reduced opportunities to get out of bed. Social service documentation noted the resident’s interest in being transferred to a chair more than once a week and identified staffing concerns as a primary factor because the transfer was a two-person assist, leading to decreased participation in usual activities when left in bed. The resident later filed a grievance stating they were concerned about only being able to get out of bed once per week and had been told this limitation was due to staffing, requesting to get up three times per week. CNA task logs showed that over several weeks in December 2025 and early January 2026, the resident was not consistently gotten up on the scheduled days, including an entire week with no documented transfers out of bed. The resident reported that when they asked to get up, staff often responded that they would see, which usually meant no, citing being shorthanded or too many people getting up at once.
Failure to Notify Guardian of Behavioral Health Consultation
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure a court-appointed guardian was informed of and able to participate in care decisions for a resident with multiple complex medical and mental health diagnoses, including multiple sclerosis, renal tubule-interstitial disease, bipolar disorder, delusional disorder, and anxiety disorder. The resident had a LETTER OF GUARDIANSHIP dated 4/17/14 that appointed the Office of Public Advocacy as full guardian, with explicit authority over medical care, mental health treatment, physical and mental examinations, and approval of all medications, medical procedures, and psychotropic medications. Despite this, the resident was sent to a behavioral health consultation on 10/22/25, during which the consultation report documented that the patient was unescorted, that documentation at the time of the visit indicated a guardian/POA, and that the patient was unable to explain the reason for the visit. The consultant recommended obtaining more information about the reason for the visit and guardian contact. Interviews and document reviews showed there was no documented guardian notification regarding the scheduled psychiatric consultation. The Administrator and DON confirmed there was no documented guardian notification. The staffing schedule for the date of the appointment noted the resident needed an escort, but the DON could not verify who the escort was. An email from the Assistant Administrator stated that the facility’s driver provided transportation and ensured check-in, and referenced a recent BIMS indicating intact cognition, which the facility typically used to determine that an escort was not required. The same email and a follow-up email acknowledged that it was standard practice to notify residents and representatives of appointments, but there was no documentation in the chart confirming guardian notification for this mental health appointment. The guardian later stated it was possible they had been made aware but could not recall due to a large caseload, and there was no facility documentation verifying that notification or consent had occurred.
Failure to Provide ADL Care per Care Plans and Resident Preferences
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to provide activities of daily living (ADL) services in accordance with assessed needs, care plans, and resident preferences for two residents. One resident with quadriplegia was care planned to receive showers every Sunday and Thursday night using a Carendo chair and was documented on the MDS as being fully dependent on staff for bathing. The resident’s MDS also reflected a preference for showers. Progress notes reiterated the order for showers every Sunday and Thursday night with licensed nurse skin evaluations. Despite this, the December shower log showed the resident did not receive a shower between 12/18 and 12/28 and instead received bed baths on two of those days, and the January log showed missed scheduled showers on 1/1 and 1/5, with only a bed bath documented on 1/1 and no shower or bed bath documented on 1/5. During interview, this resident stated they were dependent on staff for ADLs such as showering and reported not receiving a shower for three weeks in December and again on the prior day because staff told them there were not enough CNAs available. The resident also reported long waits for call light responses, sometimes 30–40 minutes, and stated that staff told them they were too busy when the resident requested assistance with smaller tasks such as getting water or adjusting the TV volume, even when staff were already in the room. The Director of Nursing reported that showers were audited twice a week and discussed during rounds and that CNAs were supposed to notify a nurse or supervisor if a resident did not receive a shower. The second resident had multiple sclerosis, muscle weakness, and functional quadriplegia and was documented on the MDS as having upper and lower limb impairments and being dependent on staff for bed-to-chair transfers. The care plan required supervision and physical assistance with transfers using a one-person overhead lift. A social service note documented that the resident wanted to be transferred to a chair more than once a week, identified staffing as a barrier due to being a two-person transfer, and reported decreased participation in usual activities when left in bed. A grievance later documented the resident’s concern about only being able to get out of bed once per week and their request to get up on Monday, Wednesday, and Friday. CNA task documentation directed staff to ensure the resident was up every Monday, Wednesday, and Friday, but the task log showed that over several weeks in December and early January the resident was either not gotten up at all or only once per week on specified dates. In interview, the resident stated they did not get out of bed twice during December and that when they asked to get up, staff often responded that they would see, which usually meant no due to being short-handed or too many people getting up at once, despite the plan of care specifying three times per week.
Failure to Ensure Safe and Appropriate Discharge Planning
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure that residents were discharged in a manner that protected their health, safety, and psychosocial well-being. Specifically, the facility did not develop or implement an effective discharge planning process for two residents, resulting in unsafe and inappropriate discharges. The facility lacked documented standards for discharge planning, relying instead on verbal expectations within the social services department. Discharge planning was limited to care conferences at admission and two weeks prior to discharge, with no ongoing reassessment or structured involvement of resident representatives. The facility also did not conduct home visits prior to discharge, and referrals for post-discharge services and equipment were inconsistently arranged or delayed. One resident was discharged to a home environment that was known to be unsafe and inaccessible, without adequate caregiver support or required services in place. The resident, who had a history of joint replacement surgery, infection, and a recent femur fracture, required wound care, mobility assistance, and ongoing medical follow-up. Despite the resident's home being multi-level, in disrepair, and infested with rodents, the facility proceeded with discharge planning that did not ensure safe access or adequate support. The resident was left reliant on unplanned third parties, such as the fire department and community members, for essential care and experienced distress, emotional harm, and physical compromise, including a fall after discharge. Another resident with cognitive impairment, acute behavioral changes, and a documented need for nursing facility level care and specialized mental health services was discharged without required referrals or representative involvement. The facility did not review or incorporate the resident's PASRR Level II findings into the discharge plan, nor did it address a documented change in condition on the day of discharge. As a result, the resident experienced distress, confusion, and loss of security, with the POA having to assume unplanned caregiving responsibilities to prevent harm. The failures in discharge planning led to actual physical and psychosocial harm for both residents.
Failure to Incorporate PASRR Level II Findings into Care and Discharge Planning
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to comply with PASRR (Pre-admission Screening and Resident Review) requirements by not incorporating the PASRR Level II determination into the assessment, care planning, and discharge planning for a resident with multiple mental health diagnoses. The PASRR Level II evaluation, which identified the need for continued nursing facility services and specialized mental health services, was not available at the time of admission and was not reviewed during the resident's stay or at discharge. The Level II report was only retrieved after the resident had already been discharged, and its recommendations were not integrated into the resident's care plan or discharge process. The resident in question had a complex medical history, including dementia, depression, anxiety, delirium, encephalopathy, and a recent femur fracture with surgical site infection. The PASRR Level II assessment specifically noted the need for specialized services to address mental health needs and provided recommendations for care and discharge options. Despite these findings, the facility did not order or initiate any specialized mental health services during the resident's stay. The care plan was delayed and, when eventually updated, did not include the specialized services recommended by the PASRR Level II evaluation. Throughout the resident's admission, there were documented episodes of aggression, combativeness, and non-compliance, which led to the initiation and escalation of psychotropic medications. The discharge summary and post-care instructions did not address the need for specialized mental health services or follow the recommended discharge options outlined in the PASRR Level II report. Facility staff acknowledged that the lack of access to and review of the PASRR Level II report negatively impacted the adequacy of care planning and discharge for the resident.
Failure to Provide Appropriate Pressure Ulcer Care and Timely Interventions
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to provide necessary treatment and services consistent with professional standards of practice for a resident with a facility-acquired pressure ulcer. The resident, who had significant comorbidities including end-stage renal disease and diabetes, developed multiple wounds during their stay, including a left iliac crest pressure injury and sacral wounds. There were significant delays and inconsistencies in wound assessment and treatment orders, with documented discrepancies between wound care provider recommendations and the actual orders transcribed and implemented by nursing staff. For example, wound care interventions recommended by the wound care team were not consistently reflected in the Treatment Administration Record (TAR), and antibiotics were not always administered as prescribed, particularly in relation to the resident's dialysis schedule, resulting in subtherapeutic dosing. Documentation revealed that wound care interventions were not promptly added to the resident's care plan, with a delay of 21 days after wounds were first identified. There was also a lack of documentation regarding the resident's reported noncompliance with repositioning and wound care, as noted by the wound care provider, with no corresponding nursing or CNA notes, risk/benefit documentation, or care plan updates to address these issues. Additionally, there was a failure to initiate and document referrals for higher-level wound care as recommended by external providers, and the facility did not coordinate or document efforts to ensure the resident attended outpatient wound care or follow-up appointments, despite family requests and external provider recommendations. Throughout the resident's stay, wound healing was minimal, and infections persisted despite multiple rounds of antibiotics, which were at times administered incorrectly or not as ordered. The lack of timely and appropriate wound care interventions, poor communication and documentation among staff, and failure to coordinate necessary higher-level care contributed to the resident's hospitalization with sepsis and subsequent death. The facility's actions and inactions directly resulted in a deficiency related to the provision of pressure ulcer care and prevention of new ulcers.
Systemic QAPI Failures Result in Multiple Deficiencies Across Facility Operations
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to develop, implement, and maintain an effective Quality Assurance and Performance Improvement (QAPI) program that identified, analyzed, and corrected systemic quality deficiencies. Despite collecting data from various sources such as electronic health records, staffing reports, maintenance logs, and resident council feedback, the QAPI committee did not effectively use this information to identify trends, prioritize high-risk issues, or implement and sustain corrective actions. This resulted in ongoing patterns of deficient practice in areas including staffing, grievance process, clinical care, activities, medication management, therapy services, discharge planning, environmental conditions, and care planning. Internal reports, resident council concerns, medical record documentation, staffing data, and direct observation all indicated these issues, but they were not recognized or acted upon through the QAPI process. Staffing deficiencies were evident, particularly on weekends, where staffing levels consistently fell below the facility's own assessment standards. Payroll Based Journal (PBJ) data and review of staffing schedules showed that the number of nurses, CNAs, and restorative aides scheduled was frequently less than the minimum required. Residents reported long wait times for assistance, with one resident waiting over two hours to be helped out of bed, and another experiencing delays in having a urinal emptied. Resident council meeting minutes repeatedly documented concerns about inadequate staffing and slow response times, with little evidence of effective facility response or improvement. The administrator and QAPI committee were not aware of the low weekend staffing, relying instead on reports that did not reflect actual staffing shortages. Additional deficiencies included failures in the grievance process, where residents were not properly informed of the current grievance officer, and posted information was outdated. Residents and council members were unaware of the new grievance officer, and there was no documentation of her introduction or updated contact information. The activities program was also deficient, with multiple residents reporting that they were not offered or able to participate in activities as documented in their care plans and assessments. Activity flowsheets showed minimal or no activity participation or offers for extended periods. Medication management was compromised by incomplete narcotic count documentation, with missing required signatures in narcotic logbooks across multiple units and months. Physical therapy services were not provided as ordered for a resident due to staff absence, with no evidence of alternative arrangements or continuity of care.
Failure to Follow Physician Orders and Care Plans for Vital Signs and Pressure Reduction
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to provide treatment and care according to physician orders and person-centered care plans for two residents. For one resident with a history of hypertension, heart failure, and transient ischemic attack, there was a physician's order for daily vital signs and an order for antihypertensive medication. However, record review showed that vital signs were only documented twice over a period of 177 days, despite the daily order. The acting DON confirmed that daily monitoring should have occurred, and facility policy required vital signs to be monitored as ordered for residents on antihypertensive medications. For another resident with diagnoses including weakness, mild cognitive impairment, and osteoarthritis, there were orders for wound care to leave the left heel open to air and to use offloading boots for the left lower extremity. Observation revealed the resident was lying in bed with both heels on the mattress and covered by non-skid socks, with no offloading boots in place. The care plan did not include interventions for keeping the left heel open to air or for the use of offloading boots, and a licensed nurse confirmed the order for heel boots. Facility policy required care plans to reflect services necessary to maintain the resident's highest practicable well-being and to follow recognized standards of practice.
Trusted data from CMS and state health departments
Every citation, penalty and Plan of Correction is sourced from public CMS records (latest release May 27, 2026) and official state health department websites — never guesswork.
Trusted by long-term care providers and associations.
