The Springs Batesville
Inspection history, citations, penalties and survey trends for this long-term care facility in Batesville, Arkansas.
- Location
- 1975 White Drive, Batesville, Arkansas 72501
- CMS Provider Number
- 045203
- Inspections on file
- 36
- Latest survey
- August 28, 2025
- Citations (last 12 mo.)
- 8
Citation history
Health deficiencies cited at The Springs Batesville during CMS and state inspections, most recent first.
A resident with dementia and a history of falls was found on the floor with a head injury due to the absence of a fall mat, which was part of their care plan. The DON confirmed that the mat should have been in place, as per the facility's policy on comprehensive care plans.
A resident with paraplegia was improperly transferred using a mechanical lift, resulting in the resident sliding out of the sling onto the floor. Despite the resident's attempt to alert the CNAs, the incident was not documented or properly reported, and no in-service training was conducted afterward. The facility's policy on investigating and reporting incidents was not followed, highlighting a deficiency in ensuring a safe environment.
The facility failed to ensure proper food safety and hygiene practices, including not discarding expired food items, improper storage of food, and staff not wearing appropriate hair coverings. Additionally, staff were observed handling dishes in a manner that could lead to cross-contamination.
The facility failed to ensure that residents were free from physical restraints not required for medical treatment. A resident was observed with half side rails up, contrary to their care plan and without a physician's order. Staff interviews revealed a lack of awareness and adherence to the facility's restraint policy.
The facility failed to update the care plans for two residents after they experienced falls. One resident had multiple falls, including one with significant injuries, and the use of half side rails was not documented. Another resident's fall in the shower room was also not included in their care plan. Staff confirmed the incidents and the use of side rails but were unaware of the reasons for the omissions.
A resident with paraplegia, venous insufficiency, and type 2 diabetes did not receive necessary foot care, resulting in severely neglected toenails and feet. Observations showed thick, yellow toenails with dry skin buildup and sores. Staff interviews revealed a lack of awareness and action regarding the resident's foot care needs, despite the care plan indicating substantial assistance was required.
A resident with a left-hand contracture was observed multiple times without any interventions in place, causing pain and discomfort. Staff interviews revealed inconsistency in the use of interventions, and the facility's policy on resident mobility and range of motion was not adhered to.
The facility failed to ensure resident safety by improperly using half side rails and inadequate padding for a resident with a seizure disorder, and by locking both brakes on a wheelchair for a resident with severe involuntary movements. These actions were not in accordance with care plans and posed potential hazards for the residents.
The facility failed to perform bed rail assessments before using bed rails for a resident with a seizure disorder. Despite the resident's MDS indicating no bed rail use, both side rails were observed up on multiple occasions. The required assessment, due in March, was not completed until May, and it was not conducted at the bedside as mandated by facility policy. Interviews with staff confirmed these oversights and the lack of a completed entrapment report.
The facility failed to ensure controlled medications were stored in a permanently affixed container in the medication room. A Surveyor observed that the refrigerator used to store medications was not locked, and a narcotics box inside was not permanently affixed, contrary to facility policy.
The facility failed to provide properly prepared pureed meals to residents with a physician's order for a pureed diet. Observations and interviews revealed that the pureed food items contained unprocessed bits, were watery, and did not hold their form, contrary to the required smooth, lump-free consistency.
A resident with lactose intolerance was observed drinking whole milk during lunch, despite clear dietary orders and meal tickets indicating no milk or cheese. The CNA was unaware of the resident's dietary restrictions, and the Dietary Manager emphasized the importance of following these guidelines to prevent harm.
The facility failed to ensure timely and accurate side rail assessments for a resident, leading to discrepancies between the care plan and actual side rail usage. Staff confirmed the presence of half side rails, contrary to the care plan, and the required quarterly assessment was delayed and inaccurately completed.
The facility failed to complete an accurate MDS for a resident. The resident was observed with bilateral half side rails up, but the MDS indicated no bed rails were used. Staff confirmed the use of side rails, revealing an inaccuracy in the resident's assessment.
Failure to Follow Fall Prevention Care Plan
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure that staff followed the care plan for a resident at risk for falls. The resident, who was admitted with diagnoses including dementia with behavioral disturbances, restlessness, agitation, atrial fibrillation, hypertension, and a history of falling, was identified as having a severe impairment in daily decision-making. The care plan, initiated shortly after admission, included an intervention to place a fall mat next to the resident's bed to prevent injury due to falls. However, during an incident, it was discovered that the fall mat was not in place, resulting in the resident being found with their upper torso on the floor and a red mark on their forehead. The Director of Nursing confirmed that if a resident is care planned for a fall mat, it should be present beside the bed. Despite this, the fall mat was missing at the time of the incident, which was contrary to the facility's policy on comprehensive, person-centered care plans. The policy requires that care plans include measurable objectives and timeframes and describe the services to be furnished to maintain the resident's highest practicable well-being. The absence of the fall mat, as required by the care plan, led to the resident's fall and subsequent injury.
Failure to Properly Transfer Resident Using Mechanical Lift
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to properly transfer a resident using a mechanical lift, which led to a deficiency in ensuring a safe environment free from accident hazards. Resident #2, who has a diagnosis of paraplegia and is cognitively intact, was being transferred from a wheelchair to a bed using a mechanical lift. During the transfer, the resident began to slide out of the lift sling. Despite the resident's attempt to alert the two CNAs conducting the transfer, they continued, resulting in the resident sliding out of the sling onto the floor, with the sling under their arms holding their upper body up. The incident was not documented in the resident's electronic medical record, and no injuries were reported by the resident. Interviews with staff revealed a lack of proper reporting and investigation following the incident. CNA #1 confirmed that no in-service training or witness statements were taken after the event. LPN #2 and LPN #3 were not informed of the incident until the following day, and LPN #3 reported the incident to the treatment nurse, who then informed the DON and ADON. However, there was no formal in-service training initiated, although LPN #3 provided some education to her CNAs on proper lift transfer techniques. CNA #7, who assisted in repositioning the resident, confirmed the resident's lower body had slid out of the lift pad. The facility's policy on accidents and incidents requires all such events to be investigated and reported to the Administrator, with documentation of the investigation and actions taken. However, this protocol was not followed in this case. The DON and ADON were unaware of the incident until later, and the DON confirmed that new hires are trained on mechanical lift usage during orientation, with annual retraining. Despite this, there was no evidence of an in-service following the incident, indicating a lapse in adherence to the facility's policies and procedures for ensuring resident safety during transfers.
Food Safety and Hygiene Deficiencies
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure proper food safety and hygiene practices in the kitchen and nourishment areas. Observations revealed that food items were not discarded by their use-by dates, with expired tortillas, diced onions, cottage cheese, and marshmallows found in various storage areas. Additionally, a 50-pound bag of rice and a 50-pound bag of cake mix were left unsealed and exposed to air and contaminants. The nourishment refrigerator contained undated and unlabeled food items, including half sandwiches and a bottle of water, which were identified as belonging to staff members rather than residents. Hygiene practices were also found to be lacking, with multiple instances of staff not wearing appropriate hair coverings. Dietary Aide #5 and the Maintenance Director were observed with uncovered facial hair while in the kitchen. Dietary Aide #6 was seen walking through the kitchen without a hair covering before putting one on. Furthermore, Dietary Aide #3 was observed handling plates and bowls in a manner that could lead to cross-contamination, with fingers and thumbs placed inside the dishes. The Dietary Manager confirmed that these practices were against the facility's policies, which require hair coverings to be worn at all times in the kitchen and for food items to be properly labeled, covered, and stored.
Inappropriate Use of Physical Restraints
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure that residents were free from any physical restraints imposed for purposes of discipline or convenience and that were not required to treat the resident's medical symptoms. This was observed in the case of one resident who was found lying in bed with both half side rails up, one of which was padded with a black foam pool noodle. The resident's care plan indicated the use of quarter side rails to promote independence, but the side rail assessment did not support the use of half side rails. Additionally, there was no physician's order for the use of half side rails, and the resident's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) indicated that bed rails were not used as physical restraints. The surveyor observed the resident multiple times over several days, each time noting the presence of the half side rails. Interviews with staff, including a CNA, LPN, and the Director of Nursing (DON), revealed that the staff were either unaware of the reason for the use of the half side rails or confirmed that they were not in accordance with the resident's care plan. The CNA admitted to not being educated on the facility's restraint policy, while the LPN and DON acknowledged that the half side rails were considered restraints and were not supposed to be in use without proper assessment and documentation. The facility's policies on the use of side rails and restraints were reviewed, revealing that side rails are considered restraints when they limit a resident's freedom of movement and should only be used to treat medical symptoms or assist with mobility. The policies also emphasized the need for proper assessment, documentation, and consent for the use of restraints. Despite these guidelines, the facility failed to adhere to its own policies, resulting in the inappropriate use of half side rails as restraints for the resident in question.
Failure to Update Care Plans for Residents After Falls
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure that the individualized care plans for two residents were revised to reflect their current needs and conditions. Resident #06 experienced multiple falls, including one that resulted in significant injuries such as a maxillary sinus fracture and lip lacerations. Despite these incidents, the care plan for Resident #06 did not document the falls or the use of half side rails, which were observed in use during the survey. Additionally, the care plan did not reflect the resident's seizure disorder or epilepsy diagnosis accurately. Staff members, including a CNA, LPN, and the DON, confirmed the use of half side rails and the history of falls but were unaware of the reasons for the side rails being up or the falls not being documented in the care plan. Another resident, Resident #31, experienced a fall in the shower room with no injuries. This incident was documented in the progress notes and an incident and accident report, but it was not included in the resident's care plan. The MDS Coordinator and the DON confirmed that the fall was not documented in the care plan, despite the facility's policy requiring care plans to be revised when there is a significant change in the resident's condition or when an incident occurs. The facility's policy on comprehensive person-centered care plans states that assessments of residents are ongoing and care plans should be revised as information about the residents and their conditions change. The interdisciplinary team is responsible for reviewing and updating the care plan when there has been a significant change in the resident's condition, when the desired outcome is not met, when the resident has been readmitted from a hospital stay, and at least quarterly. However, the facility failed to adhere to this policy, resulting in care plans that did not accurately reflect the residents' current needs and conditions.
Failure to Provide Adequate Foot Care for Diabetic Resident
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure that a resident requiring assistance with foot care received the necessary care to maintain good hygiene and grooming. The resident, who has diagnoses of paraplegia, venous insufficiency, and type 2 diabetes, was observed with severely neglected toenails and feet. The resident's care plan indicated the need for substantial assistance with nail care, including regular checks, cleaning, trimming, and filing on shower days and as needed. However, observations revealed that the resident's toenails were thick, yellow, and had dry skin buildup, with some toenails curving and causing sores. The resident's feet were dry, with skin peeling off and scabbed sores present, indicating a lack of proper foot care. Interviews with staff revealed a lack of awareness and action regarding the resident's foot care needs. A CNA was unsure if the resident was diabetic and stated that the process for reporting toenail issues involved notifying the nurse to make a podiatry appointment. An LPN acknowledged the severity of the resident's condition, noting the risk of losing toes and the need for immediate interventions. Despite the resident's compliance with heel protectors, there was no evidence of nail or wound care being completed. The facility's policy on fingernail and toenail care emphasized the importance of monitoring and reporting changes, but this was not effectively implemented for the resident in question.
Failure to Prevent Worsening of Contractures
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure interventions were utilized to prevent worsening of contractures in a resident with a left-hand contracture. The resident, who has diagnoses of bipolar disorder, osteoarthritis, and a left-hand contracture, was observed multiple times without any interventions in place for the contracture. The resident expressed that the contracture caused pain and discomfort, and preferred a hand cone with a strap to help manage the condition. Despite this, no such intervention was provided, and the resident's hand was observed to be in a contracted state with fingers digging into the palm, causing pain and a foul odor due to lack of proper care. Staff interviews revealed inconsistency in the use of interventions for the resident's contracture. A CNA mentioned that the resident had a brace that was inconsistently available, and acknowledged that the lack of intervention could lead to worsening of the contracture. An LPN also confirmed that the resident sometimes had interventions and sometimes did not, and recognized that the absence of interventions could result in further contraction. The facility's policy on resident mobility and range of motion was not adhered to, as the resident did not receive the appropriate services and equipment to maintain or improve mobility.
Failure to Ensure Resident Safety with Side Rails and Wheelchair Use
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure residents were free from potential accidents related to the improper use of half side rails and inadequate padding for a resident with a seizure disorder. Resident #06 was observed multiple times with both half side rails up, with the right side rail padded with a black foam pool noodle. The resident's care plan did not document the use of half side rails or seizure precautions, despite the resident having a history of falls and a diagnosis of seizure disorder. The Director of Nursing (DON) confirmed that the use of half side rails was not in accordance with the resident's care plan and acknowledged the risks associated with their use. Additionally, the Maintenance Director confirmed that quarterly assessments for entrapment were not completed for Resident #06, and the Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON) confirmed that the bed was not adequately padded to prevent injury in the event of a seizure. The facility also failed to ensure a wheelchair was left unlocked to prevent injury for Resident #294, who had severe involuntary movements due to Huntington's disease. The resident's care plan included interventions such as anti-tippers for the wheelchair, but observations revealed that both brakes were locked while the resident was in the wheelchair, causing it to move back and forth due to the involuntary movements. Certified Nursing Assistants (CNAs) and a Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) confirmed that locking both brakes could cause the resident to go backward and that the resident needed to be reassessed for a different chair. The LPN also noted that the resident needed more padding to prevent injury from the involuntary movements. The deficiencies highlight the facility's failure to adhere to care plans and properly assess and mitigate risks associated with the use of side rails and wheelchairs. These failures resulted in potential hazards for the residents, including the risk of falls and injuries. The observations and interviews with staff members confirmed that the facility did not take appropriate measures to ensure the safety and well-being of the residents involved.
Failure to Perform Bed Rail Assessments
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure bed rail assessments were performed before the use of bed rails for one resident reviewed for accidents. Resident #06, who has an active diagnosis of seizure disorder or epilepsy, was observed multiple times with both side rails up on the bed, despite the resident's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) indicating that bed rails were not used. The facility's policy requires an assessment to determine the resident's symptoms, risk of entrapment, and reason for using side rails, but this was not completed for Resident #06. The side rail assessment, which was due on 03/11/2024, was not completed until 05/22/2024, and it was confirmed that the assessment should be conducted at the bedside for accuracy, which was not done in this case. Additionally, the Maintenance Director confirmed that he did not install the side rails and that they had been in place since his employment started two months prior, without a completed entrapment report for Resident #06. The observations and interviews with the Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA), Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN), Director of Nursing (DON), and Minimum Data Set (MDS) Coordinator revealed that the facility did not follow its own policy regarding the proper use of side rails. The DON and MDS Coordinator confirmed that the side rail assessment was not completed timely and was not conducted at the bedside as required. The Maintenance Director also confirmed that the necessary quarterly entrapment report was not completed for Resident #06. This series of inactions and oversights led to the deficiency in ensuring the safety and proper assessment of bed rail use for Resident #06.
Failure to Properly Store Controlled Medications
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure controlled medications were stored in a permanently affixed container in the medication room. During a tour of the medication room, the Surveyor observed that the refrigerator used to store medications was not locked. Inside the refrigerator, a black safe-style box with a combination lock, containing narcotics, was found sitting on a glass shelf and was not permanently affixed. The Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON) confirmed that the narcotics box should be permanently affixed to prevent it from being carried off. The Administrator also acknowledged that the box must be permanently affixed because it contains controlled substances. The facility's policy on the storage of medications specifies that Schedule II-V controlled medications must be stored in separately locked, permanently affixed compartments.
Improper Preparation of Pureed Diets
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure that five sampled residents with a physician's order for a pureed diet received food with a smooth, lump-free consistency. On 05/21/2024, observations revealed that the pureed baked ham served to residents contained bits of unprocessed ham, and water was escaping from the ham, forming puddles around other food items like cornbread and peas. The cornbread and black-eyed peas did not hold their form, and similar issues were observed with a second pureed lunch meal. The Dietary Manager (DM) was observed preparing additional servings of ham, which also contained small ham bits and lacked a smooth consistency. The DM acknowledged that the pureed food items did not meet the required consistency and that the facility lacked the appropriate equipment to produce a smooth meat mixture. Interviews with the DM and Certified Nursing Assistants (CNAs) confirmed the observations. The DM described the ham mixture as grainy and watery, and the cornbread as not holding its form. The CNAs described the ham mixture as lumpy and chunky, with unprocessed meat particles, and the cornbread as runny and floating in water. The facility's policy on therapeutic diets, provided by the Administrator, indicated that a therapeutic diet, such as a pureed diet, is ordered by the physician to support the treatment plan of care. However, the facility failed to adhere to this policy, resulting in the provision of improperly prepared pureed meals to residents with chewing or swallowing problems.
Failure to Implement Dietary Preferences and Allergies
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure a resident's dietary preferences and allergies were properly implemented. Resident #79, who has diagnoses of dementia, functional intestinal disorder, and lactose intolerance, was observed drinking whole milk during lunch. The resident's meal ticket clearly indicated lactose intolerance and specified no milk or cheese, yet the resident consumed 50% of the milk provided. Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) #11 admitted to not being aware of the resident's lactose intolerance and confirmed that the resident had received milk for lunch on several occasions. This oversight could lead to gastrointestinal issues such as diarrhea, as noted by the CNA. The Dietary Manager acknowledged the importance of adhering to dietary restrictions to prevent harm to residents. The facility's policy on food allergies and intolerances emphasizes the need to offer appropriate substitutions for foods residents cannot consume. Despite these guidelines, the facility did not follow the prescribed dietary orders for Resident #79, resulting in the resident consuming a food item they are intolerant to. This failure highlights a significant lapse in communication and adherence to dietary protocols within the facility.
Failure to Conduct Timely and Accurate Side Rail Assessments
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure a comprehensive, accurate assessment of a resident's side rail use was completed quarterly. Resident #06 was observed with both half side rails up, contrary to the care plan which indicated the use of quarter side rails to promote independence. The resident's side rail usage assessment inaccurately documented that side rails were not in use, despite observations to the contrary. Additionally, the quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment inaccurately reported that bed rails were not used, and the resident had an active diagnosis of seizure disorder or epilepsy. Staff, including a CNA, LPN, and the Director of Nursing (DON), confirmed the presence of the half side rails but were unaware of the reason for their use, indicating a lack of proper communication and documentation regarding the resident's care plan and assessments. The MDS Coordinator confirmed that the side rail assessment for Resident #06, due on 03/11/2024, was not completed until 05/22/2024, and was not conducted at the bedside as required for accuracy. The DON also confirmed the delay in the assessment and acknowledged that the resident's ability to sit up unassisted and ambulate independently was not accurately reflected in the assessment. The facility's policies on the proper use of side rails and restraints were not followed, as the necessary assessments, documentation, and consents were not properly completed or updated in a timely manner.
Inaccurate MDS Assessment for Resident
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to complete an accurate Minimum Data Set (MDS) for one resident. On multiple occasions, the surveyor observed the resident lying in bed with bilateral half side rails up, with the right side rail padded. However, the resident's Quarterly MDS, with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 03/13/2024, indicated that bed rails were not used. This discrepancy was confirmed by the Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA), Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN), and the Director of Nursing (DON), all of whom acknowledged the presence of the side rails and were familiar with the resident's care. The MDS Coordinator also confirmed that the Quarterly MDS was inaccurately coded to indicate that the resident did not use a side rail restraint, despite the consistent use of half side rails. The observations and interviews with the staff revealed that the side rails had been in use since at least early May 2024, contradicting the information recorded in the MDS. This inaccuracy in the resident's assessment constitutes a failure to ensure that each resident receives an accurate assessment.
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.
