Cavalier Healthcare Of England
Inspection history, citations, penalties and survey trends for this long-term care facility in England, Arkansas.
- Location
- 400 Stuttgart Highway, England, Arkansas 72046
- CMS Provider Number
- 045442
- Inspections on file
- 25
- Latest survey
- July 3, 2025
- Citations (last 12 mo.)
- 11
Citation history
Health deficiencies cited at Cavalier Healthcare Of England during CMS and state inspections, most recent first.
The facility did not consistently review or update care plans after assessments or changes in condition for several residents, including those with severe cognitive impairment, recent falls, new hospice services, and recent admissions. In multiple cases, care plans were not revised to reflect significant events or interventions, and required assessments were not completed within the specified timeframes.
Dietary staff did not follow hand hygiene protocols during meal service, including handling food and food service equipment with bare hands and failing to wash hands between tasks that could cause cross contamination, as required by facility policy.
A resident with severe cognitive impairment and a diagnosis of Alzheimer’s and dementia was not provided with a care plan meeting involving their designated POA, despite facility policy requiring such involvement and care plan interventions that included family participation. Staff interviews confirmed that no care plan meeting had occurred since admission, and the POA was not invited to participate.
A resident with severe cognitive impairment had conflicting advance directive documentation regarding life-sustaining treatment, with forms signed by a family member who was not the legal healthcare POA. The facility did not have a valid POA on file, resulting in unclear and potentially invalid code status for the resident.
A resident who was re-admitted on hospice services after multiple hospitalizations did not have a significant change MDS assessment completed within the required 14-day period. The MDS was started but remained incomplete for over two months, and the care plan was not updated to reflect the resident’s hospice status. The MDS Coordinator confirmed the assessment should have been completed and was unaware of the delay.
A facility did not complete and transmit required MDS assessments, including entry, significant change, and quarterly MDS, within the mandated timeframes for a resident with COPD and pneumonia who experienced changes in care, such as hospice admission. The care plan was not updated to reflect these changes, and the MDS Coordinator confirmed the assessments were incomplete and not submitted as required.
A resident with severe cognitive impairment and incontinence was not checked or changed for an extended period, resulting in saturated clothing and a soiled brief. Despite facility policy and staff training requiring checks every two hours, CNAs admitted the resident was overlooked due to other duties. Nursing staff interviews confirmed expectations for regular incontinence care and repositioning were not met.
The facility failed to maintain proper food temperatures, leading to resident dissatisfaction and potential nutritional issues. Observations revealed that food carts were left open, causing temperature drops in meals served. Residents reported receiving cold food, and staff admitted to procedural lapses. The Dietary Manager acknowledged equipment issues, and facility policies on food temperatures were not adhered to.
The facility failed to ensure proper food storage, hand hygiene, and kitchen cleanliness. Observations included uncovered and undated food items, improper hand hygiene by dietary staff, and unclean kitchen and dishwashing areas. Additionally, a hot food item was found to be below the required temperature, posing a risk of foodborne illness to residents.
The facility failed to ensure that a diabetic resident's nails were clean and trimmed as per her care plan. Despite the responsibility lying with the nurses, the resident was observed multiple times with long nails and a black substance underneath them. The resident indicated that her nails were only cleaned when there was enough help.
The facility failed to ensure a safe and hazard-free environment for two residents. One resident with severe cognitive impairment had hazardous items left accessible in their room, while another resident with moderate cognitive impairment was observed vaping indoors despite a policy prohibiting it. The facility's inconsistent enforcement and communication of safety policies led to these deficiencies.
The facility failed to ensure that refrigerated narcotic medications were stored in a permanently affixed compartment, potentially leading to misappropriation. An LPN confirmed the narcotic box was not affixed, and the DON acknowledged it should be. Facility policy mandates secure storage of medications.
The facility failed to ensure meals were served at acceptable temperatures, affecting residents who received meal trays in their rooms. Residents reported that hot food items were often cold, and cold items were warm. Temperature checks confirmed these observations, with unheated food carts resulting in food items not being maintained at safe and appetizing temperatures.
The facility failed to ensure pureed food items were blended to a smooth, lump-free consistency, posing a risk to residents requiring pureed diets. Observations revealed that pureed lasagna, garlic bread, vegetable blend, bread, and sausage were not prepared correctly, affecting six residents.
The facility failed to ensure that the biohazard and oxygen rooms remained locked at all times, potentially affecting all 57 residents. Unattended keys were found in the Biohazard Room door, and another room containing oxygen cylinders and used syringes was found unlocked. The DON and Administrator confirmed these findings.
The facility failed to ensure that residents had knowledge of the State Inspection Book and that it was accessible to them. Residents were unaware of the book's existence or location, and the survey results binder was found to be kept behind the nurse's station, making it inaccessible to residents and their representatives. The Administrator admitted the book was not returned to its proper location after painting.
Failure to Review and Revise Care Plans After Assessments and Changes in Condition
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure that the interdisciplinary team reviewed and revised the comprehensive care plan after each assessment or change in condition for four out of five sampled residents. For one resident with severe cognitive impairment and a history of falls, the care plan had not been updated following multiple falls and hospitalizations, despite documentation of these events in progress notes. Observations also revealed the resident continued to attempt to get out of bed, and interventions such as an extra mattress were implemented without corresponding updates to the care plan. Another resident was admitted with multiple complex diagnoses, but a comprehensive care plan was not developed following admission, nor was a baseline care plan completed within the required timeframe. The MDS Coordinator confirmed that the care plan was overdue and not available for staff reference. Additionally, a resident who was started on hospice services did not have this significant change reflected in their care plan, as the last revision predated the hospice order. A further resident experienced multiple falls over several months, with some falls lacking documented interventions and others having interventions that were not incorporated into the care plan. The care plan did not reflect the resident's recent falls or the interventions implemented, and a significant change MDS assessment was not completed within the required timeframe. The facility's policy required care plans to be reviewed and revised after comprehensive assessments and significant changes, but this was not consistently followed for the sampled residents.
Failure to Perform Hand Hygiene During Food Service
Penalty
Summary
Dietary staff failed to perform proper hand hygiene during meal service, as observed on two separate occasions. On one occasion, a dietary staff member opened a box of rolls without gloves, reached into the box with bare hands, and handled the rolls without washing hands after touching the outside of the box. The staff member acknowledged during an interview that hand washing should have occurred after opening the box and before touching the food to prevent cross contamination. In another instance, the same staff member opened and closed the lids of hot plate warmer containers with bare hands, retrieved plates, and proceeded to the tray line to serve food without performing hand hygiene between these tasks. The facility's policy requires hand washing before food preparation and after handling soiled equipment or utensils, as well as as often as necessary to prevent cross contamination. The administrator and another dietary aide confirmed that the top of the plate warmer was considered dirty, and that staff hands would be considered contaminated after touching it, yet hand hygiene was not performed before returning to food service.
Failure to Involve POA in Care Plan Development for Cognitively Impaired Resident
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure that a resident’s designated Power of Attorney (POA) was invited to participate in the development and implementation of the resident’s person-centered care plan. The resident, who was admitted with Alzheimer’s and dementia and had severe cognitive impairment as indicated by a Brief Interview for Mental Status score of 04, had a care plan that included interventions requiring family involvement, particularly in nutritional evaluation. Despite this, the POA reported never being invited to a care plan meeting since the resident’s admission. Interviews with facility staff revealed that care plan meetings were supposed to be held quarterly, upon admission, and with changes in condition. However, the MDS Coordinator confirmed that no care plan meeting had been conducted for the resident since admission. The Nurse Manager stated there was no one available to conduct care plan meetings at the time, and the Administrator was unsure if the POA had been contacted, noting that two of the resident’s family members worked at the facility. The DON also acknowledged that care plan meetings should have occurred but could not explain why they had not been held for this resident.
Conflicting Advance Directive Documentation and Lack of Legal Authorization
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure that a resident's advance directive documentation accurately reflected the resident's wishes regarding life-sustaining treatment. Record review revealed that the resident, who was admitted with severe cognitive impairment and multiple medical diagnoses including dementia and chronic kidney disease, had conflicting information documented regarding their code status. Specifically, two separate acknowledgment forms were signed by a family member—one indicating a Do Not Resuscitate (DNR) order and another indicating a desire for all life-sustaining treatments. Additionally, the family member who signed these documents was not documented as having legal authority as the resident's healthcare Power of Attorney (POA). Further review and interviews confirmed that the facility did not have a healthcare POA on file for the resident, and the family member who signed the forms stated they did not possess POA authority, as the resident was not competent to appoint one. The facility's policy requires that advance directives be honored only if completed prior to a resident being deemed incompetent, and that such directives must be legally valid. The presence of conflicting documentation and lack of a legally authorized decision-maker resulted in unclear and potentially invalid advance directive status for the resident.
Failure to Complete Significant Change MDS Assessment for Hospice Resident
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to complete a significant change Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment within 14 days after determining a significant change in a resident’s physical or mental condition. The resident in question was initially admitted with abnormal blood chemistry and pneumonia, and was later re-admitted from the hospital on hospice services with a diagnosis of acute kidney injury, following multiple hospitalizations in the previous month. Documentation showed that the significant change MDS was started three days after the resident’s re-admission and transition to hospice care, but as of more than two months later, the assessment remained incomplete and pending with the MDS Coordinator. Further review revealed that the resident’s care plan had not been updated to reflect the hospice admission, and the MDS Coordinator confirmed that the significant change MDS should have been completed within 14 days of initiation. The coordinator was unaware of why the assessment did not appear on their dashboard, resulting in the failure to complete the required assessment and update the care plan accordingly. Orders and documentation from the hospice company and physician confirmed the resident’s hospice status, but the necessary MDS and care plan updates were not completed as required.
Failure to Complete and Transmit MDS Assessments Within Required Timeframes
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure that a comprehensive entry Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment was encoded and transmitted within the required timeframe for one resident. Record review showed that the resident was admitted with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and pneumonia, and later had significant changes in care, including admission to hospice services. Examination of the electronic health record revealed that several MDS assessments, including a discharge MDS, an entry MDS, a significant change MDS, and a quarterly MDS, were either not completed or not transmitted as required. The care plan had not been updated to reflect the resident's changes in care. During interview, the MDS Coordinator confirmed that the significant change MDS and other required assessments were incomplete and not submitted within the mandated timeframes, and that the facility did not have a specific policy for MDS timing, relying instead on the RAI OBRA guidelines.
Failure to Provide Timely Incontinence Care and Repositioning
Penalty
Summary
A deficiency occurred when staff failed to provide timely perineal care and repositioning for a resident with severe cognitive impairment, stroke, dementia, and depression. The resident was observed to have been left in a saturated brief containing stool and soaked clothing, with the last change reportedly occurring early in the morning. Certified Nursing Assistants (CNAs) admitted the resident had been overlooked due to being asked to assist with other residents, and were unsure of the exact time the resident was last changed. The resident was dependent on staff for all activities of daily living and was always incontinent of bladder and frequently incontinent of bowel, as documented in the Minimum Data Set (MDS) and care plan. Facility policy and the resident's care plan required that incontinent residents be checked and changed at least every two hours, and that staff monitor for signs of infection and skin breakdown. The care plan also directed frequent hourly rounds while the resident was in a wheelchair. Interviews with nursing staff, including the RN, treatment nurse, DON, and administrator, confirmed that staff were expected to check and change residents every two hours, especially those with incontinence, to maintain skin integrity and prevent infection. Despite these policies and staff training, the resident was not checked or changed as required, resulting in prolonged exposure to urine and feces. The incident was directly observed by the surveyor, and staff interviews confirmed a lapse in following established protocols for incontinence care and repositioning. Facility documents and in-service records showed that the involved CNAs had been educated on these requirements prior to the incident.
Failure to Maintain Proper Food Temperatures
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure that meals were served at appropriate temperatures, which compromised the palatability and nutritional intake of residents. During observations, it was noted that food carts were left open while being loaded and transported, causing significant temperature drops in both hot and cold food items. For instance, cream corn and chili were served at temperatures well below the required 150 degrees Fahrenheit for hot foods, and milk was served above the acceptable 40 degrees Fahrenheit for cold foods. This issue was observed during multiple meal services across different halls. Residents expressed dissatisfaction with the temperature of their meals, with some reporting that their food was cold by the time it reached them. Staff interviews revealed a lack of adherence to proper procedures for maintaining food temperatures, with several CNAs admitting that leaving the cart doors open was faster but resulted in temperature drops. The Dietary Manager acknowledged that the steam table and food carts were not functioning optimally, contributing to the problem. The facility's policies on food temperatures were not followed, as evidenced by the repeated instances of food being served at incorrect temperatures. Despite previous grievances and complaints from residents about cold meals, the facility continued to struggle with maintaining appropriate food temperatures during service. The failure to address these issues effectively led to ongoing resident dissatisfaction and potential impacts on their nutritional intake.
Multiple Deficiencies in Food Storage, Hand Hygiene, and Kitchen Cleanliness
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure food items stored in the refrigerator were covered and dated, and the kitchen vents were cleaned to provide a sanitary environment for food preparation. Observations included an open gallon of enchilada sauce and an opened box of bacon in the refrigerator without proper covering or dating. Additionally, the ceiling tile above the refrigerator had peeling paint, exposing the wood. Similar issues were found in the meat and vegetable freezer, where opened zip lock bags containing onion rings and chicken fried steak were not sealed properly. Dietary staff failed to follow proper hand hygiene protocols, leading to potential contamination. One dietary employee washed his hands but then turned off the faucet with his hands, contaminating them before handling food items. Another dietary employee was observed handling utensils and food items without changing gloves or washing hands after touching dirty objects. These actions were repeated by multiple dietary employees, indicating a systemic issue with hand hygiene practices. The facility also failed to maintain the cleanliness and integrity of the kitchen and dishwashing areas. Observations included peeling paint, water damage, and stains on the ceiling tiles, floors, and walls. The dishwashing room had black/brown stains on the floor, rust stains on the baseboards, and white sediment accumulations on dish racks. Additionally, the temperature of a hot food item on the steam table was found to be below the required 135 degrees Fahrenheit, posing a risk of foodborne illness to residents.
Failure to Maintain Nail Hygiene for Diabetic Resident
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure that the nails of Resident #2, who has a diagnosis of Type 2 Diabetes mellitus, were clean and trimmed. The resident's care plan specified that nails should be checked, trimmed, and cleaned on bath days and as necessary, with changes reported to the nurse. On multiple occasions, Resident #2 was observed with long fingernails and a black substance underneath them. The resident mentioned that her nails were only cleaned when there was enough help. Both a CNA and an LPN confirmed that nurses were responsible for cutting and cleaning the resident's nails due to her diabetic condition. However, the LPN admitted that there was no excuse for the nails being dirty, even if the resident sometimes refused to have them cut.
Failure to Ensure a Safe and Hazard-Free Environment
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure a safe and hazard-free environment for two residents, leading to deficiencies in their care. Resident #50, who has severe cognitive impairment due to dementia, was observed multiple times with potentially hazardous items such as aftershave, shaving gel, shave cream, and body lotion left on the dresser by the door. Despite the care plan indicating that staff should ensure a safe environment, these items were not removed. A Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) acknowledged that these items should not be there and that it was the aides' responsibility to put them away. The Director of Nursing (DON) confirmed that these items should not be accessible to demented and confused residents, as per the facility's policy on avoiding accidents and incidents involving patients. Resident #43, who has moderate cognitive impairment and impaired physical mobility due to a stroke, was observed vaping in their room. The facility's smoking policy was updated to prohibit vaping indoors and only allow it in designated outdoor areas. However, Resident #43 indicated that they were previously allowed to vape in their room and were only informed of the new policy after being observed vaping. The Administrator could not provide a clear answer on when the facility became vape-free, indicating a lack of consistent enforcement and communication of the policy. The updated smoking policy was provided to the resident after the incident, but the initial failure to enforce the policy created a hazardous environment.
Failure to Securely Store Refrigerated Narcotic Medications
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure that refrigerated narcotic medications were stored in a permanently affixed compartment, which could potentially lead to the misappropriation of resident property. During an observation, an LPN was seen pulling a narcotic medication box out of the refrigerator and placing it on the counter; the box was not affixed to the refrigerator. The LPN confirmed that the narcotic box was not permanently affixed. When questioned, the Director of Nurses was unaware of the reason but acknowledged that the box should be affixed. The facility's policy on drug acquisition, storage, and inspection mandates that medications be stored securely.
Failure to Maintain Appropriate Food Temperatures
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure meals were served in a method that maintained the appearance of cold products and at temperatures that were acceptable to the residents. This deficiency was observed during two meals, affecting residents who received meal trays in their rooms on the A, B, and C halls. Specifically, residents reported that hot food items were often cold, and cold items were warm. For instance, Resident #41 and Resident #30 both indicated dissatisfaction with the temperature of their meals, noting that the food was not served at appropriate temperatures, which impacted their dining experience and nutritional intake. Temperature checks conducted by the surveyors confirmed these observations. On multiple occasions, unheated food carts were used to deliver meal trays, resulting in food items not being maintained at safe and appetizing temperatures. For example, milk temperatures ranged from 45 to 53 degrees Fahrenheit, and hot food items like biscuits with gravy and scrambled eggs were recorded at temperatures between 102.7 and 115 degrees Fahrenheit. These findings indicate a systemic issue with the facility's meal delivery process, affecting the quality and palatability of the food served to the residents.
Improper Preparation of Pureed Foods
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure that pureed food items were blended to a smooth, lump-free consistency, which is essential to minimize the risk of choking or other complications for residents requiring pureed diets. During observations, it was noted that the pureed lasagna prepared by Dietary Employee (DE) #3 was gritty and not smooth. Similarly, the pureed garlic bread was thick, lumpy, and contained pieces of bread. The pureed vegetable blend was initially runny, and even after adding thickener, it remained lumpy and not smooth. These observations were made during two separate meals, indicating a consistent issue with the preparation of pureed foods in the facility. Further observations on the steam table revealed that the pureed bread and pureed sausage intended for residents on pureed diets were also not prepared to the required consistency. The pureed bread was thick, and the pureed sausage was gritty. When asked to describe the consistency of the pureed food items, DE #1 confirmed that the pureed bread was thick and the pureed sausage was gritty, acknowledging that they needed to be smooth. This deficiency had the potential to affect six residents who were on pureed diets, posing a significant risk to their safety and well-being.
Failure to Secure Biohazard and Oxygen Rooms
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure that the biohazard and oxygen rooms remained locked at all times, which had the potential to affect all 57 residents. On 04/02/2024 at 03:09 PM, the Surveyor observed an unattended set of keys in the doorknob to the Biohazard Room on 300 Hall. The Maintenance staff later removed the keys, admitting they had only been gone for a couple of minutes. The Administrator confirmed the keys were left in the door unattended. Additionally, on 04/03/2024 at 10:11 AM, the Surveyor observed a door on Hall 3 with a sign indicating it should be kept closed at all times, but it was found unlocked and open. The room contained oxygen cylinders, used syringes and needles, disinfecting wipes, a small refrigerator, and multiple PPE items. The DON and Administrator confirmed the room's contents and that the door was unlocked. A document provided by the Administrator titled 'Incident and Accident Reporting' effective 05/15/2024, with a revised date of 08/22/2017, indicated that everything possible should be done to avoid accidents or incidents involving patients. Despite this policy, the facility's failure to keep the biohazard and oxygen rooms locked at all times was observed on multiple occasions, posing a potential risk to the safety of all residents.
Failure to Ensure Accessibility of State Inspection Book
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure that residents had knowledge of the State Inspection Book and that it was accessible to them. During a Resident Council meeting, four residents stated they were unaware of the State Inspections Book or its location. The surveyor was unable to locate the survey results binder in the facility. The Activity Director indicated that the state inspection results were kept behind the nurse's station, making them inaccessible to residents and their representatives. The Administrator acknowledged that the state inspection book was not returned to its proper location after painting.
Latest citations in Arkansas
Two residents with moderate cognitive impairment and independent mobility were repeatedly seeking each other’s attention and were found by a CNA on the floor with their pants down, appearing to be engaged in consensual sexual activity. Staff separated them and returned them to secure units, and an LPN reported there was no plan for a consensual sexual relationship or private time, despite awareness of prior similar behavior. Both residents described themselves as being in a loving relationship, but the facility completed no assessments related to sexual activity, made no related care plan revisions, and obtained no orders for contraception, STD testing, or specialty consults. Conversations held by leadership with the residents about privacy and protection were not documented, and there was no facility policy addressing resident sexual relations, despite a general resident rights policy referencing self-determination and support in exercising rights.
The facility failed to develop and implement comprehensive care plans addressing sexual health and a consensual sexual relationship for two cognitively impaired, independently mobile residents with psychiatric and neurological diagnoses. Both residents were known to seek each other’s attention and had a prior relationship, yet their care plans only directed staff to separate and redirect them, without any individualized interventions for sexual health, privacy, or safe sex. A CNA later found the two residents on the floor with their pants down, appearing to engage in consensual sexual activity, and they were separated by staff. Subsequent staff interviews confirmed there was no documented assessment, no care plan revisions for sexual health or the relationship, no safe sex education, no established access to contraception, and no facility policy on resident sexual relations.
A resident with hemiplegia, hemiparesis, a below-knee amputation, moderate cognitive impairment, and wheelchair dependence was transported in a facility van by a CNA who had previously been in-serviced and skills-checked on van safety. During the trip, the CNA secured only three of the four required wheelchair floor locks, and a hold-down device had been removed from the van and not replaced. As the CNA drove over a road irregularity and braked, the incompletely secured wheelchair tilted backward, causing the resident to fall onto the van floor and report head pain with a nodule at the base of the skull. Facility policy required an environment free from accident hazards and staff competency in preventing avoidable accidents, but the missing tie-down and failure to fully secure the wheelchair led to this transport-related fall.
Surveyors found that the facility failed to follow physician orders for PICC line dressing changes, wound care, and catheter care for two residents. One resident with osteomyelitis, pressure ulcers, and an indwelling catheter had multiple missing entries on the TAR for ordered PICC line dressing changes, daily pressure ulcer treatments to the heel and coccyx, and catheter care every shift, with the DON confirming that blank TAR blocks indicated treatments were not completed. Another resident with a PICC line for antibiotic therapy had an order for weekly dressing changes, but the dressing was not changed as scheduled, the PICC site was left uncovered for several minutes during medication administration, and an LPN admitted initialing the TAR to indicate a dressing change that she had not performed, while the TN and APN confirmed the order required adherence to the weekly schedule.
A resident with MRSA colonization and a PICC line for IV antibiotics experienced multiple breaches in infection control by nursing staff. An LPN repeatedly double-gloved, handled room surfaces, trash can lids, and the medication cart, then donned new gloves without performing hand hygiene before preparing and administering oral and IV medications. During PICC access, the LPN wiped the access port for only a few seconds, allowed IV tubing to touch bedding, let the access port fall onto the resident’s arm, and then re-accessed the line without hand hygiene or glove changes. At another time, the PICC site was left uncovered while a treatment nurse prepared for a dressing change, and the LPN entered without prior hand hygiene, disconnected IV tubing, and flushed the line after only a brief alcohol wipe. Staff interviews showed uncertainty and inconsistency regarding required scrub times, glove use, and dressing change schedules, which conflicted with facility policies and stated expectations for aseptic PICC care and hand hygiene.
A resident with dementia, anxiety, depression, and on hospice had a Durable Power of Attorney, Living Will, and signed DNR order all specifying no CPR, and the face sheet reflected no CPR; however, physician orders, a MD progress note, and the MAR repeatedly listed the resident as full code from admission onward. Nursing staff and leadership (including a RN, LPN, ADON, DON, and the Administrator) acknowledged that while the advance directives and resuscitate/DNR form showed DNR status, the active orders and MAR still indicated full code, even though staff commonly rely on these documents to determine code status, contrary to facility policy requiring alignment of the care plan and physician orders with the resident’s documented treatment preferences.
A resident with depression, insomnia, and non-Alzheimer’s dementia experienced a documented decline from moderate to severe cognitive impairment on successive MDS assessments, but the care plan was not revised and continued to include an active "Sexual Expression" problem allowing engagement in sexual behavior with other consenting residents. This care plan had been initiated after an incident where two residents were found in bed together partially undressed and engaging in intimate behavior. The resident’s responsible party stated the resident was not capable of consenting to sexual activity, an LPN reported the resident could not express needs or make decisions about sexual relationships, and another LPN stated the care plan no longer reflected the resident’s needs due to steady decline. The Social Services Director had previously completed sexual consent questionnaires only at the time of the incident, and the Medical Director indicated that a sexual activity care plan was not appropriate for a resident with a very low BIMS score, while the Administrator acknowledged care plans were expected to be updated when MDS changes occurred.
A resident with traumatic brain injury, stroke history, and altered mental status was placed on a secured unit for elopement risk but had only general care plan interventions that were not updated when new wandering, exit‑seeking, and aggressive behaviors emerged. Over time, staff documented that the resident walked the halls at night, entered other residents’ rooms, voiced not living there, stated plans to leave through a window, followed staff through locked doors, and sought ways to get out after a home visit. Despite an elopement assessment and multiple behavior notes, no individualized elopement‑prevention interventions were added to the care plan. Eventually, during a night shift when a CNA reported dozing off and not re‑checking the room, the resident broke a bedroom window with furniture, left the building, and was later found off‑site by police after nearly being hit by a car, confirming that the care plan had not been effectively revised or implemented to address the resident’s exit‑seeking behaviors.
A resident with traumatic brain injury, altered mental status, and a history of wandering was housed on a locked unit with a care plan identifying elopement risk but focused mainly on therapeutic activities and medication monitoring. After returning from a home visit, the resident exhibited escalating behaviors over several days, including being up all night walking halls, entering other residents’ rooms, standing at locked exits, following staff out locked doors, voicing a desire to leave, and stating a plan to escape through a window. On the night of the incident, camera footage showed the resident moving between the room, day room, and bathroom until entering the room and not re-emerging, while the CNA on duty did not perform checks, reported that staff did not usually re-check the resident once in the room, and admitted to dozing off. The resident broke the bedroom window with furniture, left the building unnoticed, and was later found by police nearly two miles away after a citizen reported almost hitting the resident with a car, demonstrating that the facility failed to provide adequate supervision and monitoring during a period of increased exit-seeking.
Two residents with significant cognitive and neuromuscular/orthopedic conditions experienced falls when staff did not follow care-planned assistance and supervision requirements. One resident, care-planned for two-person assist with bed mobility, transfers, and personal hygiene, was found on the floor after a CNA attempted incontinent care alone. Another resident, care-planned for staff assistance with dressing and two-person assist for transfers with a slide board, was left seated at the edge of the bed and told to dress themself; the resident fell while unattended and was later found on the floor wearing a C-collar. CNAs reported relying on the electronic care plan/Kardex for instructions, but one CNA described unclear and brief initial training on accessing the system, while leadership stated CNAs were expected to verify care needs in the electronic care plan before each care episode.
Failure to Support and Assess Consensual Sexual Relationship Between Residents
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to support residents’ rights to engage in a consensual sexual relationship between two cognitively impaired residents. Both residents had documented moderate cognitive impairment on their MDS assessments (BIMS scores of 11 and 12) and were independent with mobility. Their care plans identified "inappropriate seeking of other individual's attention" with interventions limited to separating and redirecting them. There was no documented assessment of their capacity for sexual decision-making or sexual activity either before or after an incident in which they were found with their pants down on the floor together. On the date of the incident, a CNA discovered the two residents in a room with their pants down, appearing to be having sex, and reported that it looked like they were consenting and that she had been told they had a history together. The CNA notified an LPN, and the residents were separated and returned to their secure units. The LPN confirmed there was no plan in place to allow a consensual sexual relationship or to provide private time for the residents, despite being aware that similar behavior had occurred previously. Interviews with the residents indicated that they viewed themselves as being in a relationship, that they loved each other, and that they did not intend harm. Record review showed no orders for birth control, sexually transmitted disease testing, or referrals to specialized clinics or physicians for either resident. There was no documentation in progress notes of education or conversations with staff regarding the incident, and no assessments related to sexual activity were completed before or after the event. The MDS nurse and Administrator acknowledged speaking with the residents about the incident and the possibility of providing privacy and protection, but the MDS nurse stated that none of these discussions or interventions were documented and nothing was added to the care plans. The Administrator also stated the facility did not have a policy on resident sexual relations, despite a resident rights policy referencing residents’ rights to self-determination and to be supported in exercising their rights.
Failure to Care Plan for Residents’ Sexual Health and Consensual Relationship
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to develop and implement comprehensive, measurable care plans addressing sexual health and consensual sexual relationships for two cognitively impaired residents. Resident #3, admitted with traumatic brain injury, bipolar disorder, mood disorder, and an unspecified mental disorder, had a BIMS score of 11 indicating moderate cognitive impairment and was independent with mobility. Resident #4, admitted with schizophrenia, schizoaffective disorder bipolar type, dementia, and psychosis, had a BIMS score of 12, also indicating moderate cognitive impairment, and was independent with mobility. Both residents’ care plans, updated on 03/11/2026, identified “inappropriate seeking of other individuals’ attention,” but the only interventions listed were to separate and redirect, with no individualized care plan addressing their sexual health, their ongoing relationship, or parameters for consensual sexual activity. On 03/11/2026, a CNA discovered Resident #3 and Resident #4 on the floor with their pants down, appearing to be engaged in consensual sexual activity. The CNA notified an LPN, and staff separated the residents and returned them to their secure units. Staff interviews revealed that there was no existing plan for a consensual sexual relationship, no plan for private time, and no documented assessment or care plan interventions related to sexual health, safe sex education, or contraception for these residents, despite knowledge of a prior relationship and the residents’ expressed desire and intent to engage in sexual activity. The MDS nurse and the Administrator acknowledged that no care plan revisions were made to address sexual health or the relationship, no documentation of related discussions or interventions was completed, and the facility had no policy on resident sexual relations and no established interventions for birth control.
Failure to Properly Secure Wheelchair During Van Transport Resulting in Resident Fall
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to ensure that a resident’s wheelchair was fully and properly secured with all required safety straps before transport in the facility van, resulting in the resident falling backwards in the van. The resident had physician orders for LTC admission and diagnoses including hemiplegia and hemiparesis affecting the right dominant side, as well as an acquired absence of the left leg below the knee. The resident’s MDS showed moderate cognitive impairment, functional limitations in lower extremity range of motion bilaterally, and use of a wheelchair for mobility. The care plan documented a self-care performance deficit requiring limited assistance by one staff for transfers and noted an actual fall earlier in the month, with an intervention for staff education on proper van transport. On the date of the incident, the resident was being transported in the facility van by a CNA who served as the van driver. According to the facility’s reportable and the CNA’s written witness statement, the CNA applied two back floor locks and one front floor lock to secure the wheelchair but did not secure all four required locks. During the drive, as the CNA approached a dip or hump in the road and applied the brakes, the resident’s wheelchair tilted backwards. The resident stated they were falling, and when the CNA stopped the van, she found the resident lying flat on their back on the van floor with the wheelchair also on the floor. Nursing documentation indicated the resident reported pain at the base of the skull, had a nodule on the back of the head, and declined transfer to the emergency room. Interviews and document reviews showed that the CNA had previously received in-service training and skills checkoffs on how to properly secure residents in the van and had signed best-practice forms stating that wheelchairs would be securely attached to the van body and kept centered during transport. The Administrator reported that the CNA admitted she did not use the correct number of straps to secure the wheelchair and that a hold-down device (tie-down/safety strap) had been removed from the smaller van to be used in a larger van and was not replaced. The Maintenance staff confirmed that a hold-down device for the back of the wheelchair was missing from the van used for the transport and that tie-downs were interchangeable between vans. Subsequent observation with other CNAs demonstrated that when all four locks and the seat belt were properly engaged, the wheelchair did not move, but loosening the front locks allowed the wheelchair to move, illustrating how incomplete securement could permit wheelchair movement during transport. The facility’s Safety and Supervision of Residents policy stated that the environment should be made as free from accident hazards as possible and that employees should be trained and demonstrate competency in identifying and preventing accident hazards. Despite this policy and prior in-services, the resident’s wheelchair was not fully secured with all required straps at the time of transport, and a necessary hold-down device was missing from the van, directly contributing to the resident’s fall inside the vehicle.
Failure to Follow Physician Orders for PICC Line, Wound, and Catheter Care
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to follow physician orders for PICC line dressing changes, wound care, and indwelling catheter care for two residents. One resident was admitted with osteomyelitis of the vertebra, sacral and sacrococcygeal region, type 2 diabetes mellitus, and a pressure ulcer, and had a BIMS score indicating moderate cognitive impairment. Physician orders included a PICC line dressing change every three days, daily dressing changes to an unstageable right heel pressure ulcer, daily cleansing and dressing of an unstageable coccyx pressure ulcer, and catheter care every shift and PRN with soap and water or wipes for wound healing. Review of the Treatment Administration Record (TAR) for June showed multiple dates where there were no initials or check marks to indicate that the PICC line dressing changes, right heel dressing changes, coccyx pressure ulcer treatments, and catheter care had been completed as ordered. The TAR for this resident showed no documentation of PICC line dressing changes on several specified dates, despite an active order for changes every three days. Similarly, the TAR lacked initials or check marks for the ordered daily dressing changes to the right heel pressure ulcer on multiple dates. For the coccyx pressure ulcer, there were two separate orders—one to cleanse and apply wet-to-dry dressings with a specific brand dressing and island dressing every day shift, and a later order to cleanse and apply wet-to-dry dressings with a specific brand dressing and foam dressing every day shift. On several dates, the TAR contained open blocks with no initials or check marks, indicating that these treatments were not completed. Additionally, the TAR showed that catheter care ordered every shift and PRN was not documented as completed on multiple day shifts over a series of days. The DON confirmed that open blocks on the TAR indicated treatments were not completed. For the second resident, who was admitted with infection and inflammatory reaction due to an internal left hip prosthesis, MRSA, and pain related to orthopedic prosthetic devices, there was an order for a PICC line dressing change to the left upper arm every Wednesday on the day shift. The March TAR reflected this order and showed documented dressing changes on two Wednesdays, with check marks and initials indicating the treatment had been administered. During a medication pass observation, an LPN examined the PICC line dressing and was unsure of the last dressing change date, noting that the handwritten date on the dressing was unclear and that PICC line dressings could only be changed by an RN. Later observation showed the treatment nurse at the bedside with the PICC line site uncovered after the dressing had been removed, while the LPN administered oral medications and hung an antibiotic through the PICC line, leaving the site uncovered for several minutes. The treatment nurse stated the dressing change had been due the previous day but was not completed because the dressing was not available, and also stated she signed the TAR after completing the dressing change. Further interviews revealed documentation discrepancies for this second resident. The DON’s nursing incident/accident note documented that the PICC line dressing change was not completed on the scheduled day and was instead changed the following day. The LPN later acknowledged that the initials on the TAR for the scheduled dressing change date were hers, and admitted she had not changed the dressing but had only looked at it after being told by the treatment nurse that the dressing was within a seven-day time frame. She stated she placed her initials in the TAR block to indicate she had looked at the dressing, even though the TAR coding indicated that initials in the block meant the treatment was given. The treatment nurse reported changing the dressing on one earlier date and, when changing it later, observed a written date on the removed dressing that did not match any documented TAR entry and could not identify whose initials were on that dressing. The treatment nurse and APN both confirmed that the physician’s order required the dressing to be changed every Wednesday and that, even if changed on another day, it still needed to be changed on Wednesday per the order. The DON confirmed that staff initials in a TAR block indicated the treatment was given, an X indicated the treatment was not ordered for that day, and an open block indicated the treatment was not completed.
Improper Hand Hygiene and PICC Line Management During MRSA-Positive Resident Care
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to ensure proper infection prevention and control practices during the care of a resident with a PICC line and MRSA colonization. The resident was admitted with diagnoses including infection and inflammatory reaction due to an internal left hip prosthesis, MRSA, and pain related to orthopedic prosthetic devices. The resident had a PICC line in the left arm for IV antibiotic therapy to treat the hip infection, and the care plan included contact isolation, use of gowns and gloves during physical contact, handwashing before leaving the room, and standard precautions for infection control. Orders and the TAR showed that PICC line dressings were to be changed weekly, and the MAR showed daily IV antibiotic administration. Surveyor observations on one morning showed that an LPN performed hand hygiene and donned two pairs of gloves along with other PPE before entering the resident’s room to obtain blood pressure and administer medications. The LPN entered the room multiple times, repeatedly double-gloving, and handled the blood pressure cuff, trash can lid, medication cart, and medication cards without performing hand hygiene between glove removal and donning new gloves. At one point, the LPN removed gloves, closed the trashcan lid with a gloved hand, then removed gloves and immediately donned a clean pair without hand hygiene before preparing and administering the resident’s oral medications. Later, when preparing to administer IV antibiotic through the PICC line, the LPN again donned PPE, placed supplies on paper towels on the overbed table, removed the cap from the PICC access port, and wiped the port with an alcohol pad for less than three seconds before flushing with normal saline. During this process, IV tubing touched the resident’s bedding, the access port fell back onto the resident’s arm, and the LPN discarded the contaminated tubing, obtained new tubing, and again wiped the access port for less than three seconds before attaching the tubing and starting the IV medication, without performing hand hygiene or changing gloves during the sequence. A subsequent observation the same day showed the treatment nurse at the bedside with the resident’s PICC line dressing removed, leaving the site uncovered while the resident looked at the open site and was not wearing a mask. The LPN entered without performing hand hygiene before donning PPE, administered oral medication, disconnected the IV tubing from the PICC line, wiped the access port for three seconds, and flushed with normal saline. The treatment nurse stated responsibility for PICC dressing changes and believed the last dressing change had occurred the prior week, but also reported that the dressing removed that day was marked with a date indicating it was due for change the previous day and that the dressing had not been changed because supplies had to be ordered. Facility records showed that the TAR had been signed for a PICC dressing change on a scheduled day, while later nursing documentation described that a dressing change ordered for a specific day had not been performed as ordered. Facility policies and CDC-based documents required hand hygiene before and after glove use, hand hygiene after glove removal, and disinfection of needleless access devices for at least 15 seconds, and the DON stated that the PICC port should be cleaned for 15 seconds and that the dressing should be in place before starting medication, which contrasted with the observed practices. Interviews with the LPN revealed that double gloving was used so gloves would not have to be changed as often, and the LPN acknowledged that hand hygiene should have been performed after removing gloves and before donning new ones. The LPN initially could not state the required length of time for scrubbing the PICC access port and later stated it should have been cleaned for at least 15 seconds, which differed from the observed practice of wiping for less than three seconds. The treatment nurse described limited availability of PICC dressing kits and that no specific person was responsible for ordering them, and reported having changed the resident’s PICC dressing two to three times since admission. The APN and DON both stated expectations that PICC sites and access ports be kept sterile or clean during medication administration and flushing, that staff use only one set of gloves at a time with handwashing between glove changes, and that the PICC port be cleaned for 15 seconds with alcohol swabs even when medicated caps are used. These expectations and policies contrasted with the observed failures in hand hygiene, glove use, PICC port disinfection, and maintaining an intact dressing prior to accessing the PICC line.
Inconsistent Documentation of DNR Status in Medical Record
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure that one resident’s medical record accurately and consistently reflected the resident’s advance directive specifying no Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (CPR). The resident had non-Alzheimer’s dementia, anxiety, depression, moderate impairment in decision-making, and was receiving hospice services. Documentation in the record included a Durable Power of Attorney for Health Care, a Living Will Declaration, and a Resuscitate/Do Not Resuscitate order, all indicating that CPR and chest compressions were to be withheld and that the resident was a Do Not Resuscitate (DNR). The resident’s face sheet also indicated an advance directive for no CPR. Despite these documents, multiple parts of the electronic health record and physician documentation identified the resident as a full code. Physician’s orders from admission onward, including after the resident was admitted to hospice, contained orders indicating full code status. A MD progress note also documented the resident as a full code, and the Medication Administration Record (MAR) for the reviewed period listed the resident as full code. These entries conflicted with the existing DNR orders and advance directive documents in the record. Interviews with nursing staff and leadership confirmed awareness of the discrepancy between the resident’s documented advance directives and the active physician orders and MAR entries. A RN, an LPN, the ADON, the DON, and the Administrator each acknowledged that the resident’s advance directives and resuscitate/do not resuscitate order indicated DNR status, while the current physician orders and MAR showed full code. Staff stated that code status is typically verified using the medical record, MAR, and face sheet, and they recognized that the inconsistency meant staff could rely on incorrect information about whether to initiate CPR. Facility policy required that advanced directives be respected, that the plan of care be consistent with documented treatment preferences, and that the physician be notified so appropriate orders could be documented in the medical record and care plan, which did not occur in this case.
Failure to Revise Sexual Expression Care Plan After Cognitive Decline
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to revise a resident’s comprehensive care plan after a significant decline in cognitive status and changes documented on the quarterly MDS. One resident with active diagnoses of depression, insomnia, and non-Alzheimer’s dementia had a BIMS score of 09 on the 07/30/2025 quarterly MDS, indicating moderate cognitive impairment, which later declined to a BIMS score of 03 on the 01/05/2026 quarterly MDS, indicating severe cognitive impairment. Despite this documented decline, the resident’s care plan continued to include an active problem of “Sexual Expression,” initiated on 08/15/2025 after an incident in which the resident was found in another resident’s bed with both residents partially undressed and engaging in intimate behavior. The care plan goal was to allow the resident to engage in sexual behavior with other consenting residents, with interventions focused on ensuring appropriate consent, providing privacy, and observing for changes in mood or cognition. Interviews and record reviews showed that the care plan was not updated to reflect the resident’s current cognitive status or capacity for consent. The resident’s responsible party stated that the resident was not capable of consenting to sexual relationships or activity and had not been capable for a long time, and identified themselves as the decision maker. An LPN familiar with the resident reported that the resident could not express needs or wants and did not believe the resident was ever capable of making decisions about a sexual relationship, despite what was documented on the care plan. Another LPN stated that the current care plan was not accurate due to the resident’s steady decline. The Social Services Director reported completing sexual consent questionnaires for both involved residents at the time of the original incident and determining they could consent, but acknowledged the form was not set to repeat on subsequent assessments. The Medical Director stated that a care plan for sexual activity for a resident with a BIMS score of 03 was not appropriate because sexual knowledge would be low, and the Administrator confirmed that care plans were expected to be updated quickly when the MDS reflected a change, underscoring that this did not occur for this resident’s sexual expression care plan.
Failure to Update Care Plan for New Exit-Seeking Behaviors Leading to Elopement
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to develop and implement an effective, updated comprehensive care plan with individualized interventions in response to new onset wandering, exit‑seeking, and elopement‑related behaviors for a resident on a secured unit. The resident had a history of traumatic brain injury, cerebral infarction (stroke), altered mental status, and was admitted to the secured unit due to traumatic brain injury and elopement risk. A quarterly MDS showed the resident was cognitively intact with a BIMS score of 12 and independent with ambulation, but a later BIMS showed a score of 2, indicating moderately impaired cognition. Despite these changes and the resident’s known elopement risk, the care plan initiated months earlier contained only general interventions such as therapeutic activities and medication monitoring, and no additional or revised interventions were added after 08/25/2025 to address later‑emerging behaviors or elopement attempts. On 01/13/2026, multiple progress notes documented significant behavioral changes and explicit exit‑seeking behavior. Early that morning, staff recorded that the resident was up all night walking the halls, refusing to go to bed, entering other residents’ rooms, and voicing that they did not live in the facility. The resident stated an intent to get out of the window. Later that day, another note documented that the resident had been seeking elopement since returning from a home visit, admitted a desire to leave, had been looking for ways to get out, and followed staff out locked doors, showing force when staff tried to return the resident to the unit. A further note that evening described the resident talking loudly, being aggressive toward staff, and again stating a desire to get out of the facility. Although an elopement assessment was completed at that time, there were no new care plan interventions put in place to guide staff in preventing exit‑seeking or managing the aggressive behaviors. In the weeks that followed, staff interviews and documentation showed that the resident continued to exhibit wandering and exit‑seeking behaviors without corresponding care plan revisions. Staff reported that after a family home visit, the resident began trying to leave the unit, walked door to door asking how to get out, watched staff to see if they were paying attention, and talked about leaving. On the night of the elopement, camera footage showed the resident repeatedly moving between the room, day room, and bathroom before entering the room and not re‑emerging. A CNA on duty stated that the resident had been going in and out of the room earlier in the shift, then went back to the room and was not checked on again; the CNA also reported dozing off during the shift and not hearing the window break. In the early morning hours, staff discovered the resident’s window busted and the resident missing, and a progress note documented that the resident had eloped by throwing an end table through the window. A police report and interviews confirmed that the resident was found off‑site after nearly being struck by a vehicle, having left the facility to find family. Throughout this period, the facility did not update the resident’s care plan with individualized, effective interventions to address the clearly documented new onset wandering, exit‑seeking, and elopement behaviors.
Removal Plan
- Revise Resident #1's care plan to include individualized elopement prevention interventions updated to include all interventions per the Plan of Removal.
- Complete new elopement risk assessments for residents residing on the secured unit.
- For any resident scoring moderate or high risk, review care plans to ensure individualized elopement interventions are present.
- Complete environment exit safety checks.
- Revise and update all secured unit residents' care plans based on the Plan of Removal.
- Provide in-service education to nursing and direct care staff on the elopement policy and missing resident procedures.
- Provide in-service education to nursing and direct care staff on the definition and examples of elopement and exit-seeking behaviors, early warning signs requiring interventions, and requirements to notify the nurse, administrator, or DON of new or increased behaviors.
- Provide in-service education to nurse management responsible for updating care plans on mandatory care plan revision following behavior changes with individualized interventions.
- Order shatter-resistant film for front-facing secured unit windows and install it.
- Implement monitoring for the DON or designee to review the 24-hour report to identify new or increasing exit-seeking behaviors.
- Implement monitoring for the DON or designee to complete audits to verify elopement risk assessments are completed, individualized interventions are present, and documentation reflects staff implementation, then transition to routine QAPI monitoring.
Elopement from locked unit due to inadequate supervision and response to exit-seeking behaviors
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to provide adequate supervision and maintain an environment free from accident hazards for a resident with known wandering and elopement risk, resulting in an elopement through a broken bedroom window. The resident had a history of traumatic brain injury, cerebral infarction, altered mental status, and wandering, and had been admitted to a secured unit due to elopement risk. An MDS assessment earlier in the year showed the resident as cognitively intact and independently ambulatory, but a later BIMS assessment showed moderately impaired cognition. The resident’s care plan identified the need for placement on a secured unit related to traumatic brain injury and elopement risk, with interventions focused on therapeutic activities and monitoring of psychotropic medications, but did not include enhanced supervision measures in response to escalating exit-seeking behaviors. In the weeks prior to the elopement, multiple progress notes and staff interviews documented increased exit-seeking and behavioral changes after the resident returned from a home visit. On one day, progress notes recorded that the resident was up all night walking the halls, going in and out of other residents’ rooms, voicing that they did not live in the facility, and stating an intention to get out through a window. Staff documented that the resident had been seeking elopement since returning from a home visit, had been looking for ways to get out, followed staff out locked doors, and showed force when staff tried to return the resident to the unit. Another note from the same day described the resident talking loudly, being aggressive toward staff, and repeatedly expressing a desire to leave the facility. An elopement assessment documented that the resident ambulated independently, had a history of following staff and others, and had been wandering halls and standing by locked exit doors after returning from home. On the night of the elopement, camera footage showed the resident repeatedly moving between the resident’s room, the day room, and the bathroom until entering the room at approximately 3:12 a.m. and not re-emerging. Staff interviews revealed that the CNA assigned to the unit acknowledged that the resident had been trying to start a fight with another resident for two days, that the resident typically went in and out of the room throughout the night, and that staff did not normally go back to check on the resident once the resident returned to the room. The CNA reported that she did not check on the resident after the last interaction around 9:30–10:00 p.m., that she sometimes could not take breaks due to staffing, and that she dozed off for about 30 minutes during the shift. The DON later stated that the CNA reported falling asleep and not hearing the window break. Staff discovered the broken window only when an LPN returned from break around 4:25 a.m., at which point the resident was found to be missing. Law enforcement records and interviews confirmed that the facility reported the resident missing in the early morning hours and that the resident was located off-site by police after a citizen reported almost striking the resident with a vehicle. The police officer stated that the resident was found near a school approximately 1.9 miles from the facility, requiring travel across an intersection and along areas without sidewalks. The resident told police they were walking to find family. Interviews with multiple CNAs and nurses indicated that the resident had been going door to door asking how to get out, watching staff to see if they were paying attention, and walking back and forth to doors after returning from a family visit. The DON and Administrator both stated they were not aware of prior elopement attempts beyond wandering and walking back and forth, and the MDS Coordinator reported she had not been informed of the January incident in which the resident voiced a plan to escape through a window. Facility policies required staff to know the location of residents under their care and to implement care plan strategies for residents at risk of wandering or elopement, but staff interviews showed that routine checks were not performed on the resident during the night of the incident and that the resident’s escalating exit-seeking behaviors were not effectively communicated or translated into increased supervision. A police incident report and witness statements further detailed that the resident exited the building by throwing an end table through the bedroom window. The facility’s own missing resident and wandering/elopement policies stated that staff are responsible for knowing residents’ whereabouts and that care plans for at-risk residents must include safety strategies and interventions. Despite documented behaviors such as wandering, standing at locked doors, following staff out locked exits, verbalizing intent to leave, and specifically stating a plan to get out through a window, there was no evidence in the record that supervision was increased or that staff adjusted monitoring practices during periods of heightened exit-seeking. Staff interviews also revealed that for several weeks there had often been only one CNA on the locked unit at night, and that the CNA on duty the night of the elopement positioned herself in a doorway with hall lights off and later admitted to dozing off. These actions and inactions resulted in the resident being able to break the window, leave the secured unit and facility, and travel a significant distance off-site before being located and returned by police.
Failure to Follow Care-Planned Assistance and Supervision Leading to Resident Falls
Penalty
Summary
Facility staff failed to follow care-planned interventions for assistance and supervision for two residents, resulting in falls. Resident #2, admitted with Alzheimer's disease, spastic hemiplegic cerebral palsy, and neuromuscular bladder dysfunction, had a care plan requiring assistance of two staff for bathing/showering, bed mobility, personal hygiene, toilet use, and transferring. On 06/04/2025, the DON and an LPN responded to Resident #2's room and found the resident on their back on the floor after CNA #1 attempted to perform incontinent care alone, contrary to the care plan specifying a two-person assist for bed mobility, transfers, and personal hygiene. CNA #1 later stated that, upon hiring, it was not made clear how to access the electronic care plan system and that initial training on the system was brief and difficult to see. Resident #3 was admitted with spinal stenosis of the cervical region, cervical disc disorder with radiculopathy, generalized muscle weakness, and was receiving surgical aftercare following nervous system surgery. The care plan required assistance of one staff member for toileting, bathing/showering, dressing, and bed mobility, and assistance of two staff members for transferring, including use of a sliding board with two-person assist. A progress note documented that on 01/15/2026, an LPN was called to Resident #3's room and found the resident lying face down on the floor wearing a cervical collar, after the resident reported being told to dress themself. The resident later recounted that a CNA had helped them to a seated position at the edge of the bed, then left the room with another staff member while the resident attempted to dress themself, during which time the fall occurred. Interviews with multiple CNAs and facility leadership confirmed that CNAs were expected to obtain resident care instructions from the electronic care plan/Kardex system and that Resident #3 required staff assistance for all tasks except meals. CNA #2 acknowledged leaving Resident #3 unattended while assisting another staff member, despite the electronic care plan indicating the resident did not perform tasks alone. Another CNA reported sometimes being the only staff member in the room when transferring Resident #3 with a slide board, even though the care plan required two staff. The DON and Administrator stated that aides were trained one-on-one on the electronic care plans after morning huddles and that CNAs were expected to verify care requirements in the electronic care plan before providing care. The Medical Director stated it was his expectation that orders were followed as written in the care plan. Standard of practice cited requires that residents receive treatment and care in accordance with professional standards, the comprehensive person-centered care plan, and residents' choices.
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.
