The Woods, A Nightingale Community
Inspection history, citations, penalties and survey trends for this long-term care facility in Monticello, Arkansas.
- Location
- 1194 N Chester St, Monticello, Arkansas 71655
- CMS Provider Number
- 045176
- Inspections on file
- 24
- Latest survey
- July 3, 2025
- Citations (last 12 mo.)
- 12 (1 serious)
Citation history
Health deficiencies cited at The Woods, A Nightingale Community during CMS and state inspections, most recent first.
A resident with dementia exited the facility unsupervised after being given the door code by staff, and multiple residents were found to have knowledge of exit codes, which were routinely shared by staff. Residents used these codes to leave and re-enter the building without staff awareness, and staff interviews confirmed that supervision was not consistently provided when residents accessed outdoor areas.
A resident with dementia, identified as an elopement risk and exhibiting wandering behaviors, was found outside the facility without staff knowledge. Despite this, the quarterly MDS assessment completed after the incident did not document the resident's wandering behavior, resulting in an inaccurate assessment as confirmed by the MDS Coordinator.
CNAs did not fully cleanse a resident's skin during incontinent care, as observed when fecal residue remained after care was reported complete. The resident, who required assistance due to dementia and other conditions, was not properly cleaned until prompted by surveyors. Staff and leadership confirmed that all skin areas should be cleansed, but the facility lacked a written hygiene policy.
During incontinent care, CNAs failed to change gloves and perform hand hygiene between dirty and clean tasks, handled clean supplies with contaminated gloves, and attempted to sanitize gloved hands instead of changing gloves, resulting in improper infection control practices for a resident with dementia and incontinence.
A resident with moderate cognitive impairment and incontinence was improperly cleaned by a CNA, who wiped back to front and failed to remove soiled bedding, exposing the resident to waste. The DON confirmed the improper cleaning could lead to infection.
A facility failed to ensure proper hand hygiene when a CNA touched objects in a resident's room with dirty gloved hands after providing care. The resident had moderate cognitive impairment and was incontinent of bowel and bladder. The facility's infection control policy requires hand hygiene after contact with bodily fluids or inanimate objects near the patient.
A facility failed to notify the State LTC Ombudsman of a resident's hospital transfers, as required by policy. The resident was hospitalized four times, but there was no proof of notification. The Administrator struggled to access records and indicated that notification responsibilities had shifted among staff members.
A resident with a tracheostomy and cognitive intactness required an assistive communication device, as per their care plan, to communicate effectively. However, staff failed to consistently use the device, which was kept in a medication cart and not brought into the room during interactions. This resulted in the resident's communication needs not being met, as observed during multiple instances when the call light was activated and staff entered the room without the device.
A resident with a PEG tube was not administered enteral feed and flush at the physician's ordered rate. Observations showed the feeding pump set incorrectly, and staff interviews revealed reliance on outdated MARs and inconsistent verification processes.
The facility failed to promptly remove expired food items, properly cover and seal food in storage, and maintain a clean kitchen environment. Additionally, dietary employees did not wash their hands after handling dirty objects, posing a risk of cross-contamination. These deficiencies potentially affected 69 residents.
The facility failed to remove expired drugs and biologicals from two medication storage rooms and did not secure drugs behind locked compartments in one storage room. Expired items were found in the Memory Care Unit and the East Hall Medication Storage Room, with the latter's door being ajar. The DON acknowledged the issues and stated that the storage room door should have shut automatically.
The facility failed to ensure meals were served at appropriate temperatures, affecting 24 residents who received meal trays in their rooms. Observations and resident interviews revealed that food was often lukewarm or cold by the time it was delivered, due to the use of unheated food carts.
The facility failed to ensure proper nail care for a resident with severe cognitive impairment, Type 2 diabetes, and dementia. Despite the care plan indicating a need for assistance, observations revealed the resident's nails were long, jagged, and dirty. CNA #3 confirmed the nails needed attention, and the DON provided guidelines for nail care, which were not followed.
The facility failed to prevent and properly treat pressure ulcers for a resident, leading to worsened wounds and infection. Inconsistent documentation and missed treatments were noted, and wound assessments were inaccurate. The DON confirmed the lack of proper documentation, and the treatment nurse admitted to possible lapses in care.
The facility failed to ensure a raised toilet seat and the outer toilet bowl were cleansed of a dark brown substance, identified as stool, for a resident with legal blindness and morbid obesity. Observations over three consecutive days revealed the presence of the substance, indicating a lack of proper cleaning and sanitation.
The facility failed to properly manage resident funds, resulting in misallocated social security checks and incorrect interest distribution. Seven resident trust accounts were affected, with issues persisting for at least a year.
The facility failed to maintain separate accounting for each resident's funds, resulting in negative balances in some accounts due to the misallocation of social security checks. The facility's policy mandates separate accounting and prohibits commingling of resident funds with nursing facility funds.
Failure to Prevent Resident Elopement Due to Staff Sharing Door Codes
Penalty
Summary
A deficiency occurred when a resident was able to exit the facility without staff knowledge by using a code to the entrance/exit doors that had been provided by facility staff. The resident, who had a diagnosis of non-Alzheimer's dementia and was considered cognitively intact with a BIMS score of 15, was found outside the building by a CNA after being unsupervised for approximately 5-10 minutes. The resident reported that the code to the door was given by a CNA, and further interviews revealed that multiple residents knew the codes to various exit doors, which were also provided by staff. Observations and interviews indicated that several residents, including those who smoked, routinely used the door codes to exit and re-enter the building without staff supervision. Staff members confirmed that residents had been seen using the codes to access outdoor areas, and some residents stated that all residents who smoked or wanted to go outside had the code. It was also noted that the alarm on the door used by the resident did not function, and that staff were not always aware when residents exited the building. The facility had multiple exit doors, some of which led to areas with potential hazards such as cleaning equipment and concrete surfaces. Staff interviews confirmed that residents were able to obtain the codes from aides or nurses, and that supervision was not consistently provided when residents exited. The care plan for the resident involved indicated a history of wandering and attempts to hoard smoking materials, and the resident's family had previously requested placement on a secure unit. Despite these factors, the resident was able to exit the facility unsupervised due to staff providing door codes and lack of effective monitoring.
Inaccurate MDS Assessment of Resident's Wandering Behavior
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure the accuracy of a quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment for one resident. Record review showed that the resident, who had a diagnosis of non-Alzheimer's dementia and was identified in the care plan as an elopement risk with wandering behaviors, was found outside the building without staff knowledge. Despite this incident occurring prior to the completion of the quarterly MDS, the assessment did not reflect the resident's wandering behavior. The MDS Coordinator confirmed that the MDS should have indicated wandering behaviors but did not, resulting in an inaccurate assessment. The Director of Nursing acknowledged the incident but could not confirm the accuracy of the MDS assessment as she was not responsible for its completion.
Failure to Ensure Complete Cleansing During Incontinent Care
Penalty
Summary
Certified Nursing Assistants (CNAs) failed to properly cleanse all areas of a resident's skin during incontinent care. During direct observation, after assisting the resident to bed and removing soiled clothing, the CNAs indicated they had completed incontinent care. Upon request from the surveyor, one CNA removed the resident's brief and used a clean wipe to cleanse the genital area, revealing a brown streak on the wipe, indicating that fecal matter remained. The CNA continued to cleanse the area until no further fecal residue was observed, but did not change gloves between tasks. The resident involved had diagnoses including dementia with agitation, overactive bladder, and osteoarthritis, and required assistance with personal hygiene and toileting. Interviews with the CNAs, DON, and Administrator confirmed that all areas of the skin should be cleansed during incontinent care to remove feces and urine. The facility did not have a written policy for resident bathing and hygiene at the time of the incident.
Failure to Follow Hand Hygiene and Glove Protocols During Incontinent Care
Penalty
Summary
Certified Nursing Assistants (CNAs) failed to follow proper infection prevention and control protocols during incontinent care for a resident with dementia, overactive bladder, and osteoarthritis. During the observed care, both CNAs sanitized their hands and donned gloves before beginning, but did not change gloves or perform hand hygiene at appropriate times. One CNA handled soiled clothing, touched clean supplies, and provided care to the resident without changing gloves or sanitizing hands between dirty and clean tasks. The same gloved hand that had been in contact with soiled items was used to remove clean wipes and provide care, and clean items in the room were touched with contaminated gloves. Additionally, after cleaning feces from the resident, the CNA removed gloves, sanitized hands, and put on a new pair of gloves, but then continued care without changing gloves between tasks. The other CNA did not change gloves at any point during the process. At one point, a CNA attempted to sanitize a gloved hand and then put on a clean glove over the sanitized glove, which is not an appropriate infection control practice. Both CNAs demonstrated a lack of adherence to hand hygiene and glove-changing protocols during the provision of care. Interviews with the CNAs, Director of Nursing, and Administrator confirmed that staff are expected to perform hand hygiene and change gloves between dirty and clean tasks, and not to touch clean items or surfaces with contaminated gloves. Facility policy and infection prevention guidelines require frequent glove changes and hand hygiene to prevent cross-contamination, but these procedures were not followed during the observed care event.
Improper Incontinence Care Leads to Deficiency
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to provide proper incontinence care for a resident with moderate cognitive impairment, who was incontinent of bowel and bladder. During an observation, a CNA was seen improperly cleaning the resident after an incontinence episode. The CNA wiped the resident's genital region from back to front, a method that can spread germs and potentially cause urinary tract infections. Additionally, the CNA did not thoroughly clean the resident's genital area, leaving liquid waste on the resident's brief, incontinence pad, and fitted sheet. The CNA did not remove the soiled pad or sheet before rolling the resident back onto them, exposing the resident to moisture and liquid waste. The CNA later acknowledged that the genitals were not cleaned properly and that the resident had urinated through the brief, incontinence pad, and onto the fitted sheet. The Director of Nursing confirmed that the cleaning method was improper and could lead to infection. The facility's policy on Accident Hazards Prevention emphasizes the responsibility to provide care that promotes quality of life, which was not adhered to in this instance.
Improper Hand Hygiene During Resident Care
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure proper hand hygiene was used by staff while providing care to a resident with moderate cognitive impairment and bowel and bladder incontinence. During an observation, a Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) was seen touching objects in the resident's room, such as the bedside drawer and privacy curtains, with dirty gloved hands after providing care. The CNA acknowledged touching these items with contaminated gloves. The Director of Nursing confirmed that the items were contaminated due to the improper hand hygiene practices. The resident involved had a Brief Interview of Mental Status (BIMS) score of 10, indicating moderate cognitive impairment, and was always incontinent of bowel and bladder, requiring the use of adult disposable briefs. The facility's infection control policy mandates performing hand hygiene after contact with bodily fluids, the patient's intact skin, or inanimate objects in the immediate vicinity of the patient.
Failure to Notify Ombudsman of Resident Hospitalization
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to notify the State Long-Term Care Ombudsman in writing of a resident's transfer to the hospital. The facility's policy required that a copy of the transfer notice be sent to the Ombudsman. However, a review of the resident's electronic health record showed that the resident was hospitalized four times over a period of several months, and there was no proof that the Ombudsman had been notified of these hospitalizations. The Administrator was unable to provide evidence of notification and reported difficulties accessing the necessary computer records. It was revealed that the responsibility for sending these notifications had shifted between staff members, including the Business Office Manager and the Assistant Director of Nursing, before the Administrator assumed the responsibility.
Failure to Utilize Assistive Communication Device for Resident with Tracheostomy
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure that an assistive communication device was utilized for a resident with a tracheostomy, who required the device to communicate effectively. The resident, who was cognitively intact, had a medical history of a tracheostomy and carcinoma in situ of the pharynx. The resident's care plan specified the need for a [brand name] valve to assist with communication, and staff were instructed to ensure the device was available and functioning. However, during multiple observations, the assistive communication device was not used, and the resident was unable to communicate effectively with staff. On several occasions, the resident's call light was activated, and staff entered the room without utilizing the assistive communication device. The device was kept in a medication cart and was not brought into the room when staff attended to the resident. Interviews with staff, including an LPN and the DON, revealed that the device was not consistently used as intended, and staff did not take the device into the room every time they interacted with the resident. This lack of adherence to the care plan resulted in the resident's communication needs not being met.
Failure to Administer Enteral Feed at Ordered Rate
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to administer enteral feed and flush at the physician's ordered rate for a resident receiving nutrition and water through a PEG tube. The resident, who was cognitively intact, had a diagnosis of dysphagia and gastrostomy status. The physician's order specified an enteral feed rate of 53 ml/hr and a flush rate of 40 ml every hour. However, observations revealed that the feeding pump was set to a feed rate of 43 ml/hr and a flush rate of 40 ml/hr, which did not align with the physician's orders. Interviews with nursing staff revealed a lack of clarity and consistency in verifying and updating the feeding pump settings against the physician's orders. One LPN confirmed the incorrect settings and was unable to access the electronic health record due to an internet outage, relying instead on a paper MAR that contained outdated information. Another LPN stated that she relied on the MAR to ensure the pump settings were correct, indicating a potential gap in the process of updating and verifying orders. The facility's enteral feeding procedure guideline was reviewed but did not provide specific instructions on ensuring the accuracy of pump settings.
Expired Food and Sanitation Issues in Kitchen
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure expired food items were promptly removed from stock, as observed with two 32-ounce boxes of half and half and a 46-ounce box of nectar thickened apple juice, both past their expiration dates. Additionally, food items in the refrigerator and dry storage area were not properly covered or sealed, including an open box of sausage, an open box of salt, and an open bag of breakfast cereal. These practices increase the potential for foodborne illness among residents. Furthermore, food items in the refrigerator lacked proper labeling with opened or received dates, such as a bottle of syrup, a bottle of Italian sweet creamer, a plastic storage bag containing tuna salad, and another containing fried fish, which could lead to improper food rotation and usage. The facility also failed to maintain a clean and sanitary kitchen environment. The deep fryer had a layer of yellow grease covered with crumbs, and various air vents and ceiling tiles in the kitchen and dishwashing areas were observed to be dirty, rusty, or covered with lint. Additionally, dietary employees were observed not washing their hands after handling dirty objects and before handling clean equipment or food items, which poses a risk of cross-contamination. These deficiencies were observed to potentially affect 69 residents who received meals from the kitchen, out of a total census of 72 residents.
Expired and Unsecured Medications Found in Storage Rooms
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure expired drugs and biologicals were removed from two of four medication storage rooms and failed to secure drugs and biologicals behind locked compartments in one of four storage rooms. During an interview, the Director of Nursing (DON) stated that each nursing station had a bin for nurses to place medications that were no longer needed or expired, which she checks weekly. However, during an observation of the Medication Storage Room on the Memory Care Unit, expired items such as Ipratropium Bromide and Albuterol Sulfate with an expiration date of 01/05/2024 and two 1-liter bottles of enteral feeding dated use before 1MAR2024 were found. The Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) present stated that the expired medications should have been placed in a locked cabinet, but she did not have the key to access it. Additionally, the surveyor observed the Medication Storage Room on the East Hall with its door ajar, and upon inspection, found a bottle of Iron Supplement Liquid with an expiration date of 02/24. The LPN confirmed the expiration date and acknowledged that the door should have been closed. The DON was informed of these concerns and stated that the medication storage room door on the East Hall should have shut automatically. The facility's policy on the storage of medications requires that all drugs and biologicals be stored in a safe, secure, and orderly manner, and that discontinued, outdated, or deteriorated drugs be returned to the dispensing pharmacy or destroyed. Compartments containing drugs and biologicals are to be locked when not in use, which was not adhered to in these instances.
Failure to Maintain Appropriate Food Temperatures
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure meals were served at appropriate temperatures and in a manner that maintained the appearance and palatability of the food. This deficiency was observed during meal deliveries to residents' rooms on multiple halls. Specifically, food items were found to be lukewarm or cold by the time they reached the residents, which was confirmed through temperature readings taken by the Dietary Supervisor. For instance, milk was recorded at 55 degrees Fahrenheit, scrambled eggs at 110 degrees Fahrenheit, and hash browns at 101.4 degrees Fahrenheit during one observation. Similar temperature issues were noted during another observation, with milk at 52 degrees Fahrenheit and meat loaf at 102 degrees Fahrenheit. Interviews with residents corroborated these findings, with one resident specifically mentioning that food was lukewarm when delivered to their room but hot when eaten in the dining room. The use of unheated food carts for meal delivery was identified as a contributing factor to the temperature discrepancies. These practices affected a total of 24 residents who received meal trays in their rooms across different halls, potentially impacting their nutritional intake and overall satisfaction with the meals provided.
Failure to Maintain Proper Nail Care for Resident
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure proper nail care for a resident with severe cognitive impairment, Type 2 diabetes, dementia, and presbyopia. The resident's care plan indicated a need for limited assistance with personal hygiene, including nail care. Despite this, observations on multiple occasions revealed that the resident's fingernails were over 0.25 inches long, jagged, and had a dark brown substance underneath them. Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) #3 confirmed that the resident's nails needed to be clipped and cleaned, and acknowledged that nail care should be performed during showers. However, the resident's nails were not properly maintained, posing a risk of infection and germ transmission. The Director of Nursing (DON) provided documentation stating that nail care should be performed on shower days and as needed, with CNAs responsible for trimming nails unless the resident is diabetic, in which case a licensed nurse must perform the task. Despite these guidelines, the resident's nails were not adequately cared for, indicating a lapse in adherence to the facility's nail care standards. This deficiency highlights a failure in the facility's duty to maintain the personal hygiene and grooming of residents who require assistance.
Failure to Prevent and Properly Treat Pressure Ulcers
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure proper care and services to prevent new pressure ulcer development for a resident with existing pressure ulcers. Resident #30 had a right heel wound that worsened over time, with dimensions indicating deterioration. The Treatment Administration Record (TAR) showed inconsistent documentation and treatment orders, with missed treatments on specific dates. The Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON) provided wound pictures that did not accurately depict the full extent of the wounds, leading to incorrect assessments of healing progress. During an observation, fresh blood was noted on the dressing, indicating improper wound care. The Director of Nursing (DON) confirmed that treatments were not documented on certain dates, and the treatment nurse, LPN #1, admitted to possibly forgetting to document the treatments. The urgency of following physician orders to prevent infection and promote healing was acknowledged but not adhered to. Additionally, the facility's Wound Care Policy emphasized the importance of proper documentation and care, which was not followed, leading to a wound infection requiring antibiotic treatment. The facility's failure to provide consistent and accurate wound care documentation and treatment resulted in avoidable pressure ulcers and infection for Resident #30.
Failure to Maintain Sanitary Bathroom Environment
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure a raised toilet seat and the outer toilet bowl were cleansed of a dark brown substance, identified as stool, to promote a clean and sanitary environment for a resident with legal blindness and morbid obesity. The resident required assistance with toileting hygiene and had a moderately impaired cognitive status. Observations over three consecutive days revealed the presence of the dark brown substance on the toilet seat and bowl, indicating a lack of proper cleaning and sanitation. Housekeeper #1 confirmed the presence of stool on the toilet seat and bowl and acknowledged that housekeeping was responsible for cleaning the residents' bathrooms daily. The facility's housekeeping policy emphasized the importance of cleaning restrooms to prevent the spread of germs and bacteria, but this policy was not followed in the case of Resident #173, leading to an unsanitary bathroom environment.
Failure to Properly Manage Resident Funds
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to act as a responsible fiduciary of the resident's funds, failing to hold, safeguard, manage, and account for the personal funds of the residents deposited with the facility. During a record review, it was found that the facility's fund management system showed two accounts with negative balances and one account with a significantly high balance due to the misallocation of social security checks. The Business Office Manager (BOM) and Administrator confirmed that these negative balances were due to three resident social security checks being deposited into one resident's account, which had a balance of $16,026.18. Further investigation revealed that the interest was not being allocated to the residents with negative balances, and the account with the misallocated funds was earning interest on monies that did not belong to that resident. The BOM was unable to explain how these discrepancies affected the interest earnings of other residents. The issue affected seven resident trust accounts, with records showing the problem persisted for at least a year. The facility's policy on managing resident funds was not adhered to, as it mandates a full, complete, and separate accounting of funds entrusted to the facility on the residents' behalf.
Failure to Maintain Separate Accounting for Resident Funds
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to maintain separate accounting for each resident's funds. A review of the Patient Trust Fund account revealed two accounts with negative balances of -$1,104.00 and -$1,283.75, and one account with a balance of $16,026.18. During an interview, the Business Office Manager (BOM) and Administrator explained that the negative balances were due to three residents' social security checks being deposited into one resident's account, which had a balance of $16,026.18. Additionally, the facility's policy on the management of resident and elder trust accounts, which aligns with 42 C.F.R. 483.10(f)(10), mandates a full, complete, and separate accounting of funds entrusted to the nursing facility on the resident's behalf, and prohibits the commingling of resident funds with nursing facility funds. The policy also requires notification to Medicaid residents when their account balance reaches $200 less than the SSI resource limit for one person.
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.
