Diamondback Healthcare Center
Inspection history, citations, penalties and survey trends for this long-term care facility in Phoenix, Arizona.
- Location
- 3000 N 91st Avenue, Phoenix, Arizona 85037
- CMS Provider Number
- 035302
- Inspections on file
- 13
- Latest survey
- February 6, 2026
- Citations (last 12 mo.)
- 6
Citation history
Health deficiencies cited at Diamondback Healthcare Center during CMS and state inspections, most recent first.
Surveyors identified a failure to follow food safety standards when multiple opened food items in the kitchen, including liquid eggs, frozen chicken tenders, frozen tilapia, and hot dog buns, were found without labels indicating when they were opened. The facility’s policy required all foods to be labeled and dated, and both the Dietary Manager and the RD confirmed that all products should be labeled upon delivery, storage, and opening so that staff know when items were received, stored, and opened.
A resident with C. difficile was on ordered single-room contact precautions with clear care plan interventions and posted signage requiring PPE use. Despite an isolation cart stocked with gowns, gloves, masks, and wipes, a CNA was observed exiting the resident’s contact isolation room after delivering a meal tray without performing hand hygiene, then handling another meal tray on the shared food cart, which continued to be used for meal service. In interviews, the CNA, an LPN, the Administrator, and the IP all acknowledged that PPE, hand hygiene, and other contact precaution measures are required for such residents, including during meal delivery. The facility’s IPCP policy required appropriate hand hygiene and PPE use, and the facility also failed to document community infection control surveillance mapping as part of its infection control program.
An unattended computer workstation was observed with a resident’s personal dietary information actively displayed on the monitor while no staff were present. A non-employee walked past the exposed screen without any staff attempt to shield or secure the information. The DON later returned to the workstation, logged off, and acknowledged that leaving PHI visible on an unattended workstation could violate HIPAA and did not meet facility expectations, despite existing policies and staff training on confidentiality and protection of resident records.
Two residents were transferred to the hospital for acute changes in condition, including unresponsiveness and hypotension, with documentation in nursing notes, physician visit notes, transfer forms, and discharge MDS assessments indicating hospital transfers with return anticipated, but no written transfer/discharge notices containing required elements were found in their records. One resident had multiple serious conditions including acute respiratory failure, heart failure, and pneumonia; the other had ventilator-associated pneumonia, sepsis, respiratory failure with hypercapnia, and severe cognitive impairment. Staff interviews revealed that Social Services was not involved in notifications, the Medical Records Director only began tracking notifications months after the events and was unsure how mailed notices were tracked, and the liaison who visited residents in the hospital did not provide any transfer/discharge forms. The Medical Records Director confirmed no transfer/discharge notices existed for the two residents and that the form in use contained incorrect appeal and ombudsman contact information, while the Administrator stated she was unaware that this version of the form was being used. Review of the facility’s discharge/transfer policy showed it addressed bed-hold review after emergent transfers but did not address providing written transfer/discharge notices or the required content.
A resident admitted on an antipsychotic (olanzapine 2.5 mg daily) with moderate cognitive impairment and no documented behavioral symptoms had the medication discontinued, as reflected on the MAR, but the discontinuation and rationale were not accurately documented in provider progress notes. A PA’s psychiatric note stated no medication changes were made and did not mention stopping olanzapine, while a telephone discontinue order was entered by an LPN and no further doses were given. Behavioral monitoring tied to the antipsychotic remained active with no recorded behaviors, and subsequent NP notes incorrectly documented that the resident would continue olanzapine, even though it was no longer administered and was not included on discharge prescriptions, resulting in inconsistent and inaccurate clinical documentation.
A resident with severe cognitive impairment and a history of bradycardia was repeatedly administered antihypertensive medications despite physician orders to hold these medications if the heart rate was below 60 bpm. Nursing staff and the DON confirmed awareness of the medication parameters, but the MAR showed multiple instances where medications were given outside of these parameters, contrary to facility policy and provider instructions.
A resident with severe cognitive loss and multiple diagnoses was found to have a bruise on the left foot, later confirmed as a fracture. Despite the spouse's request for an X-ray and hospital evaluation, the facility did not report the injury as required by their Abuse Policy. Staff interviews revealed that the facility did not consider the incident reportable, leading to a deficiency in reporting and investigating the injury.
A resident with multiple diagnoses, including anoxic brain damage, was found to have a bruise on the left foot, later revealed to be a fracture. The facility failed to report this injury of unknown origin within the required timeframe, as they did not consider it reportable. Interviews with staff indicated that unusual marks are typically reported and assessed, but the facility's policy on reporting was not followed in this case. The absence of a list of reportables and 5-day reports was noted by the new administrator.
A resident with multiple diagnoses, including Alzheimer's and dysphagia, experienced a worsening pressure wound due to repeated loose stools. Despite physician orders for Imodium, it was only administered once, and the facility failed to manage the resident's condition effectively. Inadequate communication between CNAs and nursing staff contributed to the deficiency, as the facility did not adhere to its policies on resident condition changes and incontinence care.
The facility failed to ensure adequate staffing for residents requiring ventilator and tracheostomy care, leaving LPNs to manage care beyond their scope. The absence of a scheduled RT for the night shift resulted in residents not receiving necessary trach care, vent checks, or suctioning. Interviews revealed that LPNs were not comfortable or trained to handle ventilator settings or emergent situations, posing a significant risk to resident safety.
Failure to Label and Date Opened Food Items in Kitchen Storage
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to ensure that opened food items were labeled and dated in accordance with professional food safety standards and the facility’s own policy. During a kitchen observation conducted with the Dietary Manager, surveyors found two liquid egg cartons in the refrigerator without an opened date label, as well as one bag of chicken tenders and one bag of tilapia in the freezer without opened date labels. In addition, one bag of hot dog buns was found without an opened date label. The facility’s written policy, titled “Food Safety Requirements,” stated that all foods will be labeled, dated, and monitored, including refrigerated foods and leftovers, so that they are used by their use‑by date. In interviews, the Dietary Manager stated that food should be labeled with the date it is opened and the expiration date, and that if food has no opened date or expiration date label, kitchen staff should dispose of it immediately because eating from open, undated food could pose a risk to residents. The registered dietitian stated that the expectation was that all food products are properly labeled and dated upon delivery and storage, and again once items are opened, noting that the risk included not knowing when the food was received, stored, or opened. These observations and statements show that staff did not consistently follow the facility’s established food safety requirements for labeling and dating opened food items.
Failure to Follow Contact Precautions and Document Infection Surveillance
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to implement proper infection prevention and control practices for a resident on contact precautions and to document community infection control surveillance mapping. A resident admitted with diagnoses including C. difficile enterocolitis, urinary tract infection, and psychoactive substance abuse had a comprehensive care plan and physician order requiring single-room contact precautions, including use of gowns and gloves for high-contact care, gowns and masks when changing contaminated linens, and conducting all care, therapies, and activities in the room. Signage outside the resident’s room indicated contact precautions and the need for PPE, and an isolation cart with gowns, gloves, masks, and sanitizing wipes was present. Surveyors observed a CNA exiting this contact isolation room after delivering a meal tray without performing hand hygiene. After exiting, the CNA handled another meal tray on the food cart and pushed it back into the cart, and there was no evidence that this tray was discarded while staff continued to pass meal trays from the same cart. In interviews, the CNA acknowledged exiting the room without hand hygiene and stated that staff are required to don gowns and gloves when entering, doff them before exiting, use disposable meal trays, perform hand hygiene, and disinfect reusable items for residents on contact precautions. An LPN and the Administrator, along with the Infection Preventionist, confirmed that proper PPE use and adherence to contact precautions are required, including when delivering meal trays. The facility’s IPCP policy required hand hygiene per facility procedures and use of PPE according to policy, but these practices were not followed in this instance, and the facility also failed to document community infection control surveillance mapping as part of its infection prevention and control program.
Unattended Computer Screen Exposes Resident PHI
Penalty
Summary
Surveyors identified a deficiency related to failure to maintain confidentiality of resident-identifiable information when an unattended computer workstation displayed personal records for Resident #29. On January 29, 2026, at 10:45 a.m., the workstation was observed with resident records actively visible on the monitor and no staff present or monitoring the area. The information on the screen included personal and identifiable dietary information for Resident #29. At 10:46 a.m., a non-employee walked down the hallway and passed directly by the monitor with the resident’s information visible, and no staff intervened to shield or secure the information. At 10:47 a.m., the DON (Staff #85) approached the unattended workstation and immediately logged off the computer. In an interview at that time, the DON confirmed that the computer contained private resident information and acknowledged that leaving resident information visible on an unattended workstation could constitute a HIPAA violation and did not meet facility expectations for confidentiality. Review of facility documentation showed staff training on PHI, closing screens, not leaving information exposed, confidentiality, HIPAA, and resident and family notification, with 31 staff members having signed acknowledgment. A review of the facility’s Resident Rights policy, revised January 1, 2025, stated that residents have the right to secure and confidential personal and medical records and that the facility is responsible for safeguarding resident information from unauthorized access or disclosure.
Failure to Provide Required Written Transfer/Discharge Notices and Accurate Information
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to provide required written transfer/discharge notifications to residents and/or their representatives when residents were transferred to the hospital. For one resident with acute respiratory failure with hypoxia, a left femur fracture, pulmonary hypertension, heart failure, and pneumonia, the record showed admission on a specified date and a subsequent transfer to the hospital on a later date due to unresponsiveness and rapid decline in mental status. The face sheet identified the husband as responsible party and the daughter as emergency contact, with phone numbers listed, and documented that the resident was discharged to the hospital. A physician visit note confirmed the emergent transfer, and a discharge MDS coded as a discharge-return anticipated indicated the resident was sent to the hospital. However, there was no order in the Order Summary Report for the hospital transfer and no documentation in the clinical record of a written transfer notice containing the required elements being provided to the resident or resident representative. For another resident originally admitted with ventilator-associated pneumonia, sepsis, respiratory failure with hypercapnia, type II neurofibromatosis, respirator dependence, visual loss, and pleural effusion, the face sheet listed the resident’s mother as emergency contact with a phone number. An eINTERACT transfer form documented a hospital transfer for hypotension, and a nursing note recorded a blood pressure of 84/65, that the POA was at bedside, the provider was notified, and 911 was called for transport per physician’s orders. The Order Summary Report contained a physician’s order to transfer the resident to the ER for hypotension, and a discharge MDS coded as discharge-return anticipated documented that the resident, who had severe cognitive impairment, was sent to the hospital. Despite this, the clinical record contained no documentation that a written transfer notice with the required information was provided to the resident or resident representative. Interviews and policy review further described gaps in the facility’s process for transfer/discharge notifications. The social worker reported that Social Services/Case Management was not involved in transfer/discharge notifications and identified Medical Records as responsible. The Medical Records Director stated she began tracking transfer/discharge notifications around October 2025, that a transfer/discharge form was created at that time, and that completed forms were to be scanned into the clinical record if provided to her, but she was unsure how mailed notifications were tracked. She confirmed there were no transfer/discharge notifications in the records of the two residents and acknowledged that the form in use contained incorrect appeal and ombudsman contact information. The Admissions Coordinator/Clinical Liaison stated he visited residents in the hospital but did not provide any transfer/discharge form or packet and was unfamiliar with the form. The Administrator stated that transfer notices are provided three days prior to discharge and that there is a notification for each level with a checklist, but when shown the facility’s transfer/discharge notification form, she said it did not look like the one she approved and she was unaware her team was using it. Review of the facility’s Discharge/Transfer policy showed it addressed reviewing the bed-hold policy with the POA within 24 hours of an unplanned emergent transfer but did not address providing transfer/discharge notifications to residents or representatives or specify the required information, despite State Operations Manual requirements for written notice including reasons, effective date, destination, appeal rights, and advocacy contact information.
Failure to Accurately Document Discontinuation of Antipsychotic Medication
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to accurately document the discontinuation of an antipsychotic medication and the rationale for that change in a resident’s clinical record. The resident was admitted from the hospital with an order for olanzapine 2.5 mg daily and had moderate cognitive impairment with no documented behavioral symptoms during the MDS assessment period. Facility physician orders showed olanzapine was started with an indefinite end date, and the MAR reflected administration for several days, with the medication discontinued on November 11, 2025, at 11:41 a.m. A behavioral monitoring order related to olanzapine, initiated the day before, remained active through the resident’s discharge, and no behavioral symptoms were documented during that time. On the same day olanzapine was discontinued, a psychiatry progress note by a PA documented that this was the initial psychiatric visit and stated that no medication changes were recommended, without noting the discontinuation of olanzapine and directing staff to refer to the MAR for non-pharmacologic interventions. A telephone discontinue order for olanzapine was entered by an LPN as a telephone order from the same PA, and the MAR confirmed no further doses were given after that date. Subsequent nurse practitioner notes on two later dates documented that the resident would continue olanzapine and benztropine for psychosis, despite the medication having been discontinued and not provided, and the resident was ultimately discharged without a prescription for olanzapine. Interviews with nursing and pharmacy staff, as well as the PA, confirmed that the discontinuation was not documented in the progress note and that behavioral monitoring and alert charting were not updated, contrary to facility policies requiring accurate documentation of physician-ordered services and nursing documentation of treatment and order changes.
Failure to Follow Medication Administration Parameters for Resident with Bradycardia
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure that medications were administered within the physician-ordered parameters for a resident with multiple diagnoses, including acute and chronic respiratory failure, hypotension, dependence on a ventilator, and bradycardia. The resident had severely impaired cognition and was prescribed several antihypertensive medications, all with specific instructions to hold administration if the systolic blood pressure was less than 110 mmHg or if the heart rate was less than 60 beats per minute. Despite these clear parameters, the medical records and Medication Administration Records (MAR) showed that nursing staff repeatedly administered Amlodipine, Carvedilol, Clonidine, Doxazosin, and Hydralazine on multiple occasions when the resident's heart rate was below 60 bpm. Interviews with staff confirmed that they were aware of the medication parameters and the risks associated with administering these medications outside of those parameters. A CNA stated that staff are instructed to notify a nurse if a resident's pulse falls below 60 bpm, and an LPN confirmed that medication orders with parameters are to be followed as written. The LPN also reviewed the MAR and acknowledged that medications were given when the resident's pulse was below the required threshold, stating that they should have been held on those days. The Director of Nursing (DON) stated that the facility's expectation is for nursing staff to follow provider orders when administering medications and recognized that bradycardia can be dangerous. The DON also noted that episodes of bradycardia should be reported to the provider and that such events qualify as a change of condition. The facility's Medication Administration policy directs staff to review medication records and adhere to the five rights of medication administration, but this was not followed in the case of this resident.
Failure to Report and Investigate Injury of Unknown Origin
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to report an injury of unknown origin and complete a 5-day written investigation as required by their Abuse Policy for a resident. The resident, who had severe cognitive loss due to anoxic brain damage, was found to have a bruise on the left dorsal foot below the second toe, which was later confirmed to be a fracture. The incident was not reported as the facility did not consider it a reportable incident, despite the resident's spouse requesting an X-ray and subsequent hospital evaluation. The resident was admitted with multiple diagnoses, including anoxic brain damage, respiratory failure, and epilepsy, and was always incontinent of bladder and bowel. The care plan indicated the resident had communication problems and potential skin integrity issues. On a specific date, the resident's spouse noticed a bruise and requested an X-ray, which led to the discovery of a fracture. The facility's staff, including a CNA and LPN, followed procedures to notify relevant parties and document the incident, but the facility did not report the injury as required. Interviews with staff revealed that the facility's Director of Nursing and Administrator did not believe the incident was reportable, citing the resident's condition and lack of an open wound. The facility's policy on abuse prevention and reporting was reviewed, which mandates reporting all alleged violations within specified timeframes. However, the facility did not adhere to these requirements, resulting in a deficiency in reporting and investigating the injury of unknown origin.
Failure to Report Injury of Unknown Origin
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to report an injury of unknown origin within the required timeframe for a resident, which may result in residents being abused or receiving untimely treatment and care. The resident, who was admitted with multiple diagnoses including anoxic brain damage and respiratory failure, was found to have a bruise on the left dorsal foot below the second toe. The resident's spouse informed the nurse of the bruise, and an X-ray was ordered, revealing a fracture. The resident was then transported to the hospital for evaluation and treatment. Interviews with staff revealed that unusual marks are typically reported to the nurse, who then observes the mark, notifies the DON, ADON, the doctor, and family members, and performs any orders received. However, in this case, the facility did not report the incident as they did not consider it reportable, understanding the patient's condition. The DON later acknowledged that in hindsight, the incident should have been reported. The facility's policy on abuse prevention and reporting was reviewed, which requires reporting of all alleged violations within specified timeframes. The report highlights that the facility did not have a list of reportables or 5-day reports available, as shared files were wiped from the system. The new administrator, who started on January 1, noted the absence of these files. The facility's failure to report the injury of unknown origin within the required timeframe constitutes a deficiency, as it may result in residents being abused or receiving untimely treatment and care.
Failure to Manage Resident's Loose Stools and Pressure Wound
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to provide care and services according to professional standards for a resident who was admitted with multiple diagnoses, including a traumatic hemorrhage of the cerebrum, Alzheimer's disease, dysphagia, and protein-calorie malnutrition. Upon admission, the resident was noted to have an unstageable pressure wound and moisture-associated skin damage (MASD) to the sacrum. Despite a physician's order for wound care, there was no evidence of proper wound measurements or consistent assessments for the risk of developing pressure ulcers. The resident experienced repeated episodes of loose stools, which were documented by CNAs but not effectively communicated to nursing staff, leading to inadequate management of the resident's condition. The resident's condition deteriorated as the pressure wound increased in size, attributed to the ongoing loose stools. Although Imodium was ordered to manage the loose stools, it was only administered once, despite the resident experiencing multiple episodes of diarrhea. The lack of communication between CNAs and nursing staff resulted in a failure to address the resident's loose stools promptly, contributing to the worsening of the pressure wound. The facility's policies on change in resident condition and incontinence care were not followed, as there was insufficient documentation and monitoring of the resident's medical status and interventions. Interviews with staff revealed inconsistencies in the awareness and management of the resident's condition. Some staff members were unaware of the resident's ongoing diarrhea, while others noted the need for frequent changes due to loose stools. The Director of Nursing acknowledged the importance of effective communication and the need for daily assessments of residents with loose stools. However, the facility's failure to adhere to its policies and ensure proper communication and intervention led to the deficiency in care for the resident.
Inadequate Respiratory Care Staffing
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure that staff had the necessary competencies or skills to provide care for eight residents who required ventilator and tracheostomy care. The facility's census was 75, and the deficiency was identified through personnel record reviews, facility documentation, staff interviews, and policy review. The absence of a scheduled Respiratory Therapist (RT) for the night shift on the ventilator/tracheostomy unit led to Licensed Practical Nurses (LPNs) being responsible for care beyond their scope of practice. This situation resulted in residents not receiving the required tracheostomy care, ventilator checks, or suctioning. The staff schedule revealed that no RT was scheduled for the night shift, leaving LPNs to manage the care of residents on ventilators and tracheostomies. Interviews with staff indicated that LPNs were not comfortable or adequately trained to handle ventilator settings, alarms, or emergent situations. The Director of Nursing acknowledged that LPNs were not able to assess trach or vent residents independently and were only able to assist RTs or RNs. The facility's policy stated that respiratory care should be provided consistent with professional standards, but the lack of trained personnel on the night shift contradicted this policy. Interviews with RTs and LPNs highlighted concerns about the risks associated with LPNs providing care without proper supervision or training. The RTs expressed that airway management is a high-risk task that should not be left to LPNs alone. The facility's failure to staff RTs or RNs for the night shift on the ventilator/tracheostomy unit resulted in inadequate care for residents, as evidenced by the state of the trach and vent patients when the daytime RT arrived. The deficiency posed a significant risk to the health and safety of the residents requiring specialized respiratory care.
Latest citations in Arizona
A resident with dementia, communication deficits, and significant physical impairment, who required extensive 2-person assist and used a walker and wheelchair, was physically assaulted by a cognitively intact roommate after refusing care from a CNA. When staff returned with a male CNA, the roommate stated he had "taken care of it," and the resident was found with a forehead hematoma, lip lacerations, and blood on the floor and bed linens. The roommate, who had alcohol abuse and a behavioral care plan noting potential for physical behaviors and poor impulse control, had no prior aggressive behaviors documented in the MDS or progress notes. Despite an abuse policy stating residents’ rights to be free from abuse, the incident demonstrated a failure to protect the resident from physical abuse by another resident.
Two residents identified as being at risk for malnutrition had physician orders and care plan interventions for weekly weights over a four-week period, but staff did not consistently obtain or document these weights as required. For one cognitively intact resident with multiple comorbidities, only two weights were recorded during the ordered period, with no documentation of a weight or refusal on one of the scheduled weeks, despite staff acknowledging poor intake and the existence of weekly weight orders. For another resident with severe cognitive impairment and multiple diagnoses, only two weights were documented, with additional dates showing no recorded weight values and only references to nursing notes, and missing entries on other ordered dates. Staff interviews and facility policies confirmed that newly admitted and nutritionally at-risk residents were to receive weekly weights, that weights and refusals were to be documented in the EHR, and that these physician orders were not accurately implemented or recorded.
Multiple residents with significant cognitive, neurological, and psychiatric conditions were not adequately protected from abuse and neglect. One resident, fully dependent for ADLs and assessed as needing a 2‑person assist for bathing, was showered by a single CNA and fell from a gurney, sustaining head injuries and requiring hospital care, after the care plan failed to reflect the 2‑person assist documented on the MDS. Two other behaviorally complex residents engaged in a verbal altercation that escalated to one striking the other, despite known histories of aggressive behaviors. In a separate case, a dependent, nonverbal resident who required a 2‑person Hoyer assist reported that a tall male staff member hurt her during care, was found with right wrist pain and swelling and blood on her lip, and was sent to the ER, while staff confirmed that all residents on that hall were supposed to receive 2‑person assistance for transfers and linen changes.
The facility failed to follow its abuse, neglect, and investigation policies for multiple residents. One resident with severe cognitive impairment and total dependence for bathing was assessed on the MDS as needing a 2‑person assist, but the care plan did not specify this, and a CNA provided a shower alone, during which the resident fell from a gurney and sustained head injuries. Another resident with impaired mobility and skin integrity needs was the subject of a complaint about lack of repositioning and rectal blisters, yet the 5‑day investigation contained no interviews with staff, the resident, or the complainant. A dependent, neurologically impaired resident alleged injury by a male CNA and was sent to the ER with wrist pain and lip bleeding, but the facility’s investigation, despite suspending and later terminating the CNA, did not include interviews with family or other residents cared for by that CNA. In a separate case, a non‑verbal resident with penile edema prompted an abuse allegation from family, but the DON conducted no staff or resident interviews, relying solely on her own assessment. Additionally, an altercation between two behaviorally complex residents was documented, but the excerpted records do not show a comprehensive abuse investigation consistent with policy, despite leadership acknowledging that such investigations must include thorough interviews and alignment of care plans with MDS findings.
The facility failed to conduct thorough investigations into multiple allegations of abuse, neglect, intimidation, and misappropriation. In several cases, residents with significant medical conditions reported or were the subject of concerns such as lack of repositioning leading to skin issues, pain and injury allegedly caused during transfers, penile swelling alleged as abuse, intimidating staff interactions, and missing money. For these events, the facility’s 5‑day investigations frequently lacked required interviews with the resident, family, staff on all relevant shifts, roommates, other residents cared for by the accused staff, and the original complainants, and in one case the investigation file could not be located. These omissions occurred despite facility policy and leadership statements that investigations must be timely, thorough, and include comprehensive interviews and written witness reports.
Surveyors found that the facility did not consistently complete and provide baseline care plans to residents or their representatives within 48 hours of admission. In three cases, residents with complex conditions such as anemia with mobility issues, acute kidney failure with MASD and Foley catheter, and ventilator-dependent respiratory failure with PEG and trach had baseline care plans initiated on admission, but resident/representative signature sections were left blank, completion dates were recorded months after admission and marked as “system completed,” and there was no clear evidence that copies were provided to the residents or, in one case, to a public fiduciary. Facility policy required timely, person-centered care plans with documented resident participation or documented reasons when participation was not practicable, but the records for these residents did not meet those requirements.
The facility failed to follow its infection control program by not posting Enhanced Barrier Precaution (EBP) signage for three residents who were documented as requiring EBP due to conditions such as MRSA infection, open lower-leg wounds, PICC use, and a urostomy. Observations showed that none of these residents had EBP signs or PPE instructions on their room doors, despite facility policy requiring door signage to alert staff and visitors to contact precautions. In interviews, a wound nurse, RT, RN, LPN, and the DON all confirmed that EBP signs are the established method to communicate when gowns, masks, and hand hygiene are needed for direct care and that the absence of such signage poses a risk for infection spread.
Surveyors found that a secured unit and its dining/communal area were not maintained in a safe, homelike condition, including missing and bent baseboards in the hallway and a wall hole near the nurse’s station partially covered by a broken outlet plate with jagged edges. A cognitively intact resident with multiple medical conditions reported that the damaged baseboards in the hall made the environment feel less homey. Staff, including CNAs and LPNs, acknowledged that damaged walls and baseboards affect the homelike environment and can pose safety concerns, and the Maintenance Director and Administrator confirmed awareness of the issues, noting that the hole and broken plate had been verbally reported but not repaired and that written work orders were not submitted. Review of work orders showed no entries for the baseboards or the wall hole, despite facility policy requiring a safe, clean, comfortable homelike environment.
A resident with severe cognitive impairment and total dependence for ADLs had MDS assessments and monthly summaries indicating a need for a two-person assist with bathing, but the comprehensive care plan was not updated to specify this requirement. As a result, a CNA provided a shower with only one staff member present, during which the resident became restless, pushed the gurney rail, fell, and sustained head injuries and oral bleeding, requiring hospital evaluation. Interviews with the MDS nurse and DON confirmed that the assessments showed a two-person bathing assist was needed, but this was not reflected in the care plan the CNA was following.
A resident with severe cognitive impairment, persistent vegetative state, chronic respiratory failure, prior brain hemorrhage, and a history of falls was documented in MDS assessments as totally dependent for bathing and requiring two-person assist. However, the care plan was not updated to clearly reflect this two-person assist requirement for bathing, and staff relied on room indicators that did not show the need for two-person help. A CNA, believing the resident to be a one-person assist, took the resident alone to the shower on a gurney; during or after the shower, the resident jerked, crossed his legs over the rail, and fell from the gurney, sustaining head injuries and oral bleeding that required hospital treatment. The DON and Administrator acknowledged that the resident should have had two-person support for bathing based on prior MDS data, and multiple staff stated that providing only one-person assist to a resident assessed as needing two-person assist, leading to a fall, constituted neglect.
Failure to Protect a Resident From Physical Abuse by a Roommate
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to protect a resident from physical abuse by another resident. One resident, identified as the alleged victim, had multiple diagnoses including cognitive communication deficit, dementia without behavioral disturbance, psychotic disturbance, mood disturbance, alcohol use, dizziness, giddiness, and anxiety. Despite these conditions, a recent MDS documented a BIMS score of 15, indicating intact cognition, and noted that the resident required extensive two-person assistance with care due to upper and lower extremity impairment and used a walker and wheelchair. The resident had an active cognition care plan addressing risk for impaired cognitive function and a communication care plan addressing hearing deficit, with interventions to provide a safe environment and anticipate needs. On the date of the incident, nursing documentation recorded a change of condition related to an altercation with the resident’s roommate. According to the nursing note and the facility-reported incident (FRI), the victim had refused care from a CNA, who left the room to obtain a male CNA. When staff returned, the roommate stated that he had “taken care of it” for staff, and blood was observed on the floor and on the victim’s bed sheet. The victim was found with a raised bump (hematoma) on the forehead and small cuts to the upper and lower lips, confirmed by a skin assessment that documented small lacerations to the lips and a bump on the forehead. A psychosocial care plan was later initiated for the victim related to an assault, identifying a potential psychosocial well-being problem. The alleged perpetrator, the victim’s roommate, had diagnoses including alcohol abuse and a need for assistance with personal care. A cognition care plan identified risk for impaired cognitive function or impaired thought processes, and a behavioral care plan initiated on the date of the incident documented potential for physical behaviors toward others related to a history of harm to others and poor impulse control. However, the admission MDS for this resident also showed a BIMS score of 15, with no psychosis or behavioral symptoms documented during the assessment period, and progress notes from admission up to the incident did not indicate prior aggressive behavior. The facility’s abuse policy, last reviewed in October 2022, stated that each resident has the right to be free from abuse, including physical abuse, but the occurrence of a resident-to-resident physical assault resulting in injury to the victim demonstrated that the facility failed to protect the victim’s right to be free from physical abuse by another resident. Interviews with other residents indicated that they felt safe and would report incidents to staff, and interviews with the Administrator and DON described general procedures and expectations for preventing and responding to abuse and resident-to-resident altercations. The Administrator initially could not verify the current abuse policy until directed to the DON, who confirmed the October 2022 policy was in effect. The FRI documented that the roommate physically assaulted the victim after the victim refused care, resulting in visible injuries and blood in the room. The FRI did not indicate whether the allegation of abuse was verified or not verified, but it did document that the roommate was sent to the hospital and would not be accepted back into the facility. These documented events and injuries form the basis of the deficiency that the facility failed to ensure the resident’s right to be free from physical abuse by another resident.
Failure to Follow Physician Orders for Weekly Weights for Residents at Nutritional Risk
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to follow physician orders for weekly weights and to document refusals or reasons weights were not obtained for two residents who were identified as being at risk for malnutrition. Facility policies required accurate implementation of physician orders and documentation of weights as ordered, including reasons when residents could not be weighed. The policy on vital signs specified that if a resident was unable to be weighed, the reason should be recorded and other provisions taken to monitor the resident’s size. Interviews with staff confirmed that newly admitted residents and those at nutritional risk were to receive weekly weights for four weeks, and that refusals or missed weights were expected to be documented in the electronic health record. For one resident with multiple diagnoses including a displaced trimalleolar fracture, type 2 diabetes, schizophrenia, chronic kidney disease, and a history of transient ischemic attack and cerebral infarction, a physician ordered weekly weights for four weeks starting in early February. An admission nutrition evaluation and progress note documented that this resident was at risk for malnutrition with a Mini Nutritional Assessment (MNA) score of 8.0. The care plan included an intervention to complete weekly weights for four weeks and then monthly if stable. Weight records showed a weight on February 6 and another on February 22, both 219.6 lbs on a mechanical lift scale, and the eMAR/eTAR showed weights on February 6 and 13, with a documented refusal on February 27. There was no evidence in the eMAR/eTAR that a weight was taken or refused on February 20, leaving a gap in the ordered weekly weights. Staff interviews revealed that the CNA recalled weighing this resident only once and noted poor oral intake, and the LPN and DON both acknowledged that the weekly weight order for four weeks was not followed, with only two weights documented during the resident’s stay and a “hole” in the eMAR documentation. For another resident with diagnoses including metabolic encephalopathy, muscle weakness, cognitive communication deficit, asthma, and hypothyroidism, a physician ordered weekly weights for four weeks beginning in early March. The care plan identified a nutritional problem or potential problem and noted that the resident was at risk on the MNA, with interventions to monitor and report signs of decreased appetite or unexpected weight loss. A progress note documented an MNA score of 9.0, indicating risk for malnutrition. Weight records showed a weight on March 5 of 156.6 lbs on a wheelchair scale and a weight on March 20 of 156 lbs on a standing scale. Progress notes on March 10 and March 17 indicated that staff were unable to obtain a weight and that the RNA was scheduled to obtain the weight the next day. However, the eMAR/eTAR contained no evidence that weights were taken on March 3 or March 24, and on March 10 and 17, no weight values were entered, only directions to see nursing notes. Staff interviews confirmed that weekly weights were expected for residents with such orders and that weights and refusals were to be documented in the EHR. The surveyors found that for both residents, physician orders for weekly weights were not consistently implemented or documented in accordance with facility policy and professional standards.
Failure to Prevent Abuse and Neglect and to Align Care Plans With Assessed Needs
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to protect multiple residents from abuse and neglect by staff and other residents, and to ensure that care plans and assistance levels matched residents’ assessed needs. One resident with a persistent vegetative state, chronic respiratory failure, prior subarachnoid hemorrhage, severe cognitive impairment, and a history of falls was assessed on multiple MDSs as totally dependent for bathing and requiring a 2‑person physical assist. Despite this, the comprehensive care plan did not specify a 2‑person assist for bathing prior to mid‑December, and monthly summaries inconsistently documented the resident as needing only a 1‑person assist for bathing. On the day of the incident, a CNA provided shower care alone, believing the resident to be a 1‑person assist, and reported that the resident jerked and crossed his legs over the gurney rail, resulting in a fall from the gurney, head abrasions, a hematoma, and subsequent hospital transfer for a brain bleed. Staff interviews, including the MDS coordinator and DON, confirmed that the MDS showed a 2‑person assist for bathing months before the fall and that the care plan had not been updated to reflect this, leading to care that did not match the assessed level of assistance. Another deficiency involved two residents with significant psychiatric and cognitive diagnoses who had a verbal altercation that escalated into physical abuse. One resident, with metabolic encephalopathy and schizoaffective/bipolar disorder, and another resident, with hemiplegia, anoxic brain damage, schizoaffective disorder, bipolar disorder, and generalized anxiety disorder, were reported via a complaint to have engaged in a verbal altercation during which one struck the other. The facility’s 5‑day investigation documented that one resident struck the other on the arm after a verbal dispute, and that the altercation was witnessed by an LPN, who reported that the aggressor had hit the other resident before staff separated them. Staff statements described both residents as having behavioral issues, including threats to hit others and attempts to hit staff, and the aggressor as someone who would hit people when upset. Although the LPN later stated she did not document a skin check, she confirmed her original statement that a strike occurred, and the DON acknowledged that both residents had an altercation, with no injuries documented. A further deficiency concerned a resident with dysphagia, hemiplegia, aphasia, diabetic neuropathy, and cerebrovascular disease, who was dependent for all ADLs and required a 2‑person Hoyer lift assist. A CNA reported that this resident needed a splint for her right hand and wrist and was crying in pain when the wrist was moved, with blood noted on her lower lip. The resident was sent to the ER, where swelling and tenderness of the right wrist were documented, and EMS reported the injury was from staff moving her; the resident also indicated leg pain. The facility’s initial report to the State Agency stated that the resident said she was hurt by a tall man and had right‑hand pain, and the 5‑day report documented that she complained a tall guy hurt her, leading to hospital transfer for right arm swelling. Staff interviews indicated that the resident identified a male staff member as the person who caused the injury, that there was only one male CNA working with her that day, and that all residents on that hall were 2‑person assist, with linen changes and transfers expected to be done with two staff. The implicated CNA reported using a gait belt to transfer the resident back to bed after changing bedding, and the facility suspended and then terminated him for failure to follow safety rules and unsatisfactory job performance, while concluding the investigation as inconclusive based on imaging results. Another incident involved a resident with acute and chronic respiratory failure, schizoaffective disorder bipolar type, and PTSD, who was care planned for placement on a secured unit due to psych diagnoses, poor safety awareness, and behaviors that could place self or others at risk, including verbally abusive behaviors. This resident approached another resident with schizoaffective disorder and personality disorder from behind while both were in wheelchairs near double doors. According to nursing documentation, the second resident turned and struck the first resident in the left upper chest, and the first resident then struck back with a closed fist before a CNA separated them. Slight redness was noted on the first resident’s left upper chest. The second resident’s care plans and behavior notes documented a history of yelling profanities, threatening gestures, disruptive behaviors, and the need for redirection and environmental modification, yet the altercation still occurred when the residents were in close proximity in the hallway.
Failure to Implement Abuse/Neglect Policies and Conduct Thorough Investigations
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to implement and follow its abuse, neglect, and investigation policies for multiple residents, resulting in incomplete care planning, inadequate supervision, and insufficient investigations of alleged abuse or neglect. For one resident with a persistent vegetative state and severe cognitive impairment, MDS assessments in June and September documented total dependence for bathing with a required 2‑person assist, but the care plan did not specify a 2‑person assist for bathing until mid‑December. Staff reported that they relied on room indicators and the care plan to determine assist levels, and a CNA stated she provided a shower alone because the resident was considered a 1‑person assist at that time. During that shower, the resident jerked his legs, went over the gurney rail, and fell, sustaining head injuries and oral bleeding, and was sent to the ER. The DON and Administrator acknowledged that the care plan did not match the MDS and that providing 1‑person assist when 2‑person assist was required would constitute neglect. The facility also failed to conduct thorough investigations into allegations of neglect and possible abuse for other residents. For a resident with multiple comorbidities and impaired mobility who required frequent turning and repositioning and comprehensive skin care, a complaint alleged the resident had not been repositioned and developed blisters in the rectal area. The 5‑day investigation report documented that the allegation was received via voicemail on a weekend and retrieved the following Monday, but there was no evidence that staff, the resident, or the complainant were interviewed. The Nurse Manager and DON both stated that policy required thorough investigations with interviews, and the DON admitted she did not interview anyone in this case, relying instead on her own observations of the unit process. For another resident with significant neurologic deficits and dependence for all ADLs, including a 2‑person Hoyer lift, an allegation was made that a “tall man” hurt her, and she was found crying in pain with right wrist pain and blood on her lip. She was sent to the ER, where EMS reported the injury was from staff moving her, and imaging was performed. The facility’s 5‑day report noted that a male CNA was suspended and later terminated, but the investigation was deemed inconclusive based on imaging results and new diagnoses of decreased bone mineralization and osteoarthritis. The investigation lacked interviews with the resident’s family, other residents cared for by the alleged CNA, or the roommate’s family/guardian, despite the resident’s guardian later confirming a prior wrist fracture during a transfer and limited information from the facility. Another resident, non‑verbal with a trach, ventilator, and G‑tube, was completely incontinent and dependent for all ADLs. Nursing notes documented penile edema, with a physician assessment and topical nystatin ordered. The resident’s family later alleged abuse due to the swollen penis, prompting a 5‑day investigation. However, the investigation contained no evidence of interviews with witnesses, staff who provided care, the staff member identified as responsible, other residents cared for by that staff member, or any review of events leading up to the swelling. The DON stated she did not interview staff or residents because she believed she knew the cause of the swelling from her own assessment, despite acknowledging that the abuse policy required interviews during investigations. The facility also failed to fully investigate an altercation between two residents with significant psychiatric and behavioral histories. One resident had schizoaffective disorder, PTSD, a history of physical and verbal aggression, and was on a secured unit with interventions for redirection and behavior management. The other resident had schizoaffective and personality disorders, anxiety, major depressive disorder, and a history of yelling, self‑hitting, delusions, hallucinations, and was on 2:1 for cares due to false accusations and safety concerns. Nursing documentation described an incident where one resident, seated in a wheelchair at a doorway, turned and struck the other resident in the chest with his forearm, and the other resident struck back with a closed fist, with a CNA present who separated them. Although the event was self‑reported as an altercation, the report excerpt does not show that a comprehensive abuse investigation with required interviews and analysis of antecedent behaviors was completed in accordance with facility policy. Across these cases, staff interviews, including those with the DON, MDS/Care Plan Coordinator, Nurse Manager, and Administrator, confirmed that facility policy required thorough abuse/neglect investigations with interviews of involved staff, residents, and others, and that care plans should accurately reflect MDS findings. Nonetheless, the documented investigations for the cited residents lacked required interviews and failed to reconcile assessment data with care plans and actual care practices, leading to the cited deficiency for failure to implement and follow policies and procedures to prevent abuse, neglect, and to conduct complete abuse investigations.
Failure to Thoroughly Investigate Multiple Abuse and Misappropriation Allegations
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to conduct timely and thorough investigations into multiple allegations of abuse, neglect, and misappropriation, as required by its own abuse policy. For one resident with acute and chronic respiratory failure, Parkinson’s disease, morbid obesity, chronic kidney disease, and other serious comorbidities, a complaint alleged that the resident had not been repositioned and developed blisters in the rectal area. The 5‑day investigation report documented that the allegation was received via voicemail on a weekend and retrieved the following Monday, but did not identify whose voicemail it was. The investigative report contained no evidence that staff, the resident, or the complainant were interviewed about the allegation, despite the DON’s acknowledgment that interviews are always required for a thorough investigation and that the facility policy mandates interviews with involved parties. Another deficiency occurred when a resident with dysphagia, hemiplegia, aphasia, diabetes with neuropathy, and cerebrovascular disease reported right wrist pain and had blood on her lower lip, leading to transfer to the ER for imaging. EMS reported that the injury was from staff moving her, and the resident stated that a “tall guy” hurt her. The facility’s 5‑day report noted that a CNA matching the description was suspended and interviewed, and that imaging results were inconclusive for fracture. However, the investigation did not include interviews with the resident’s family, other residents cared for by the alleged CNA, or the family/guardian of the non‑interviewable roommate, even though the facility’s policy requires interviewing witnesses, roommates, and other residents to whom the accused employee provides care. A further deficiency involved a resident with anoxic brain damage, contractures, dysphagia, and total incontinence who required maximum assistance and frequent turning and repositioning. Nursing notes documented ongoing incontinence and total dependence for ADLs, and later noted penile edema for which a provider ordered topical nystatin. The DON received an allegation from the family that the resident had been abused because his penis was swollen. The 5‑day investigation showed no evidence of interviews with witnesses, staff who cared for the resident, the staff member identified as responsible, other residents cared for by that staff member, or any review of events leading up to the swelling. The DON stated she did not interview staff or residents because she believed she knew the cause after seeing the resident, despite acknowledging that the abuse policy requires interviews during investigations. The facility also failed to thoroughly investigate an allegation of intimidation and inappropriate staff interaction for a resident with sepsis, delirium, and anxiety who required 2:1 care and sometimes yelled out instead of using the call light. The resident reported feeling intimidated by the way staff spoke to him in a loud tone regarding his numerous complaints and stated that two CNAs could no longer care for him as a result. The facility’s investigation included interviews with the RN and two CNAs who denied speaking to the resident about staff being removed from his care or raising their voices. However, there was no evidence that other residents to whom the RN provided care or services were interviewed, contrary to the facility’s policy requiring interviews with other residents cared for by the accused employee. In another case, a resident with stage 4 CKD, dependence on dialysis, anxiety, and diabetic neuropathy reported missing money after multiple hospital transfers. Nursing notes documented that the resident returned from the hospital and reported that $70–$75 and four quarters were missing from a Ross bag left in her room when she went back to the hospital. The initial self‑report described the missing money and the 5‑day investigation concluded that the money may have been misplaced or thrown away with the bag, and documented that the money was replaced. The investigation included interviews with three CNAs, two who worked the day the resident returned and one who worked the day of discharge, but there were no interviews with staff who were on shift or cared for the resident on the earlier dates when she left and returned to the hospital, and no evidence that other residents were interviewed. The administrator later stated that they were unable to locate the investigation or any documents pertaining to the missing money, despite the facility’s abuse policy requiring timely and thorough investigations, written witness reports, and interviews with reporters, witnesses, the resident, roommates, and other residents to whom the accused employee provides care or services.
Failure to Complete and Provide Timely Baseline Care Plans to Residents/Representatives
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to ensure that baseline care plans were properly completed and provided to residents or their representatives within 48 hours of admission, as required by facility policy. For one resident admitted with acute posthemorrhagic anemia, unsteadiness of feet, difficulty walking, seizures, and COPD, nursing documentation showed the resident was alert, oriented, able to make needs known, and had signed all consents. A baseline care plan was dated the day of admission and listed social services and nutrition as attendees, but did not indicate that the resident or a representative participated in creating the plan. The section for initial goals based on admission orders was not fully marked, and the resident/resident representative signature and date section was left blank. The baseline care plan showed a completion date approximately seven months after admission and was marked as “system completed” without a specific staff member identified, and there was no evidence that a baseline care plan summary was provided to the resident or representative before the resident was later transferred to the hospital. For another resident admitted with acute kidney failure, a left knee contusion, and type 2 diabetes mellitus, admission nursing notes documented that the resident was alert and oriented, arrived via stretcher, had edema of the left upper extremities, a swollen and bruised left knee from a prior fall, MASD with redness to the gluteal cleft, and a Foley catheter in place after a failed voiding trial. The baseline care plan was initiated on the admission date and included significant diagnoses such as fall with left knee contusion, rhabdomyolysis, and dehydration, with a discharge plan to home and initial goals to use a walker and return home. The care plan listed the resident/resident representative, social services, DON, nutrition, and activities as participants and stated that a copy of the initial care plan was provided to the resident/representative that evening. However, the resident/resident representative signature and date section was not signed or dated, the completion date was recorded about six months after admission, and the plan was again documented as “system completed” without a specific staff member identified. A third resident was admitted with acute and chronic respiratory failure with hypoxia, pneumonia due to Pseudomonas, dysphagia, tracheostomy and PEG tube dependence, ventilator dependence, paraplegia, hypothyroidism, seizure disorder, paroxysmal atrial fibrillation, generalized anxiety disorder, polyneuropathy, GERD, delayed physiological development, schizophrenia, and a history of COVID-19. The baseline care plan was initiated on the admission date and listed significant diagnoses including respiratory failure, PEG and trach with ventilator use, developmental delay, schizophrenia, seizure disorder, and quadriplegia. Care plan participants were documented as the resident/resident representative, social services, and an RN, and the record stated that the facility spoke with the public fiduciary and faxed consents, with a discharge plan to remain in the facility and possible future discharge to a group home. The resident’s initial goals included PT/OT and transition to self-independence, and documentation noted the resident was alert and oriented x1, had a pressure call light, and that a copy of the initial care plan was provided to the resident/representative. However, the resident/resident representative signature and date section was not signed, there was no evidence that a copy of the baseline care plan was provided to the public fiduciary, and the baseline care plan completion date was recorded about six months after admission and marked as “system completed.” Interviews with nursing leadership and an LPN described the intended process for admission assessments and baseline care planning, including that baseline care plans should be completed within 48 hours and that residents or representatives should be offered copies, but the DON later confirmed that there was no documentation that the residents or their representatives for these three cases received copies of the baseline care plans. Review of the facility’s care plan policy showed that an individualized, comprehensive, person-centered care plan with measurable objectives and timetables is to be developed for each resident, that residents are to be informed of their rights to participate in treatment and given advance notice of care planning conferences, and that if resident or representative participation is not practicable, an explanation of the steps taken to include them must be documented in the medical record. In the three sampled cases, the records did not document resident or representative signatures on the baseline care plans, did not show timely completion dates consistent with the 48-hour requirement, and did not contain explanations when participation or provision of copies to representatives (such as the public fiduciary) did not occur. These documented omissions and inconsistencies in the baseline care plan process formed the basis of the cited deficiency.
Failure to Post Enhanced Barrier Precaution Signage for Residents Requiring EBP
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to implement its infection prevention and control program related to Enhanced Barrier Precautions (EBP) for multiple residents who required such precautions. For one resident with MRSA infection, rash, zoster, a breast wound, and a PICC line, the clinical record and facesheet indicated the resident was on EBP due to PICC, wounds, and recent MDRO infections. However, surveyor observations on two separate days showed there was no EBP sign posted outside the resident’s room and no instructions regarding what PPE to wear when providing care. Another resident with open wounds to both lower legs and a diagnosis of MRSA infection was documented as being on EBP for open wounds. The admission MDS showed the resident was cognitively intact and had an infection of the foot, and skilled observation notes confirmed open wounds and MRSA as the cause of disease. Despite this, an observation found no EBP signage outside the room and no posted PPE instructions. A third resident, admitted with type 2 diabetes with neuropathy, cystectomy, neurogenic bladder, obstructive uropathy, and an ostomy, was documented as being on EBP for a urostomy, yet an observation also revealed no EBP sign or PPE instructions posted outside that resident’s room. Multiple staff interviews confirmed that EBP signs are the facility’s method to alert staff and visitors when enhanced barrier precautions are required for residents with open wounds, catheters, IVs, MDROs, and similar conditions. The wound nurse, RT, RN, LPN, and DON each stated that EBP status is communicated via signage on the resident’s door and that such signs inform staff and visitors about when to wear PPE and how to prevent infection spread. The facility’s written policy on isolation and transmission-based precautions states that signs are used to alert staff of contact precautions and that the facility will implement a system to alert staff to the type of precautions required, specifically including a sign posted on the resident’s room/door instructing to see the nurse before entering. Despite these policies and staff expectations, the required EBP signage was not posted for the three residents identified as being on EBP.
Failure to Maintain Safe, Homelike Environment on Secured Unit
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to maintain a safe, clean, comfortable, and homelike environment, particularly on the 200‑hall secured unit and its dining/communal area. One cognitively intact resident, admitted with anemia, hypertension, diabetes mellitus, and depression, reported that while minor chipping baseboard in her own room was not an issue, she disliked the appearance of the baseboards in the hall and felt it did not make the environment feel homey. Surveyors observed missing and damaged baseboards immediately past the entrance doors of the 200‑hall, with approximately 2.5 feet of 4‑inch baseboard missing on the right side and 1.5 feet missing on the left side, and a section of baseboard bent forward about an inch into the hallway. A review of work orders from January through March 26, 2026, showed only 16 work orders for the facility and no work orders addressing the missing or damaged baseboards or the hole in the wall on the 200‑hall. Further observations in the 200‑hall dining/communal area revealed a visible hole in the wall near the nurse’s station, measuring about 3 inches by 2.5 inches, partially covered by a plain beige outlet plate that was broken in half, leaving jagged edges at the bottom. No visible wiring was present, but the broken plate and exposed hole remained unrepaired. Staff interviews confirmed awareness of the importance of a homelike environment, including the condition of walls, floors, ceilings, and furnishings. One LPN stated that cracks in walls and floors could be safety issues requiring immediate repair and that peeling baseboards might involve chemical adhesives that could be toxic. A CNA and another LPN both stated that missing or peeling baseboards did not look good and could make residents feel the building was not being taken care of, and the LPN acknowledged that staff could report issues to maintenance but was unaware of any current work on the 200‑hall until the hole was pointed out, at which time she described the broken, jagged plate and hole. The Maintenance Director reported that the department generally receives more than 20 work orders daily and prioritizes those with potential resident safety concerns, stating that renovations on the 200‑hall had begun about six months earlier and were still in progress. He acknowledged awareness of the missing baseboards and the partial plate cover over the hole by the nurse’s station, stated that the hole issue had been verbally reported to him on March 15, 2026, and agreed it should have been fixed by the time of the survey. He characterized the broken plate and hole as a high‑priority issue, especially because the 200‑hall is a lock‑down unit, and stated that the current condition of the 200‑hall did not constitute a homelike environment. The Administrator stated that a homelike environment includes residents feeling comfortable, having their belongings and privacy, and that holes in walls are supposed to be fixed as soon as maintenance is made aware, but noted challenges with staff not submitting written work orders. The facility’s policy on “Quality of Life‑Homelike Environment” emphasized providing residents with a safe, clean, comfortable homelike environment, which was not met in this instance.
Failure to Update Care Plan for Two-Person Bathing Assist Leading to Resident Injury
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to ensure that a resident’s care plan was revised to reflect an assessed need for a two-person assist with bathing. The resident was admitted with significant medical conditions, including persistent vegetative state, chronic respiratory failure with hypoxia, traumatic subarachnoid hemorrhage, and Crohn’s disease. An admission MDS documented total dependence for bathing with a one-person physical assist, and the initial care plan indicated total assistance for all ADLs, including bathing, but did not specify the number of staff required for bathing assistance. Subsequent MDS assessments dated in June and September 2023 documented that the resident remained totally dependent for bathing and now required a two-person physical assist. Monthly Summary forms showed inconsistent documentation, with one form indicating a one-person assist and later forms indicating two or more persons for bathing assistance. Despite these assessments and summaries identifying the need for increased assistance, there was no corresponding update in the comprehensive care plan to specify a two-person assist for bathing during this period. On a date in late November 2023, a CNA provided bathing care to the resident alone, consistent with the existing care plan that did not specify a two-person assist. During this shower, the resident became restless, pushed the rail on the gurney when the CNA turned away, and fell from the gurney, sustaining an abrasion to the left side of the head, a hematoma on the right side of the head, and bleeding in the mouth of undetermined origin. The resident was sent to the emergency room for evaluation. Interviews with the MDS/Care Plan Coordinator and the DON confirmed that the MDS assessments had identified the need for a two-person assist with bathing, but the care plan had not been revised to reflect this need prior to the incident, and that the CNA involved was following the existing care plan at the time of the fall.
Failure to Provide Required Two-Person Assist During Shower Resulting in Resident Fall and Head Injury
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to ensure a resident was free from avoidable accidents by not providing the level of assistance with bathing that had been identified in assessments, and by not maintaining adequate supervision during a shower. The resident had significant medical conditions including persistent vegetative state, chronic respiratory failure with hypoxia, traumatic subarachnoid hemorrhage, Crohn’s disease, encephalopathy, schizoaffective disorder, and a history of subdural hemorrhage. Multiple assessments and summaries documented that the resident was totally dependent for bathing and, over time, required increasing levels of physical assistance. Early documentation showed a need for total assistance with bathing with one-person physical assist, but subsequent MDS assessments indicated the resident required two-person physical assist for bathing and had a history of falls, including falls with injury. The resident’s care plan documented total assistance needs for all ADLs, including bathing, and identified the resident as at risk for falls related to weakness, with interventions such as frequent checks while in bed and supervision when out of bed. Later, the care plan also identified a behavioral symptom of placing self on the floor, with interventions to assess whether the behavior endangered the resident, maintain a calm environment, redirect as necessary, and notify the provider if behaviors interfered with care. Despite MDS assessments dated in June and September indicating that the resident was totally dependent and required two-person assist for bathing, the care plan was not updated to reflect a two-person assist requirement for bathing prior to December. Monthly summaries in August, October, and November continued to document total dependence for bathing, with the level of assist noted as one-person in August and two or more persons in October and November, but this did not translate into a clearly updated care plan directive for two-person assist with bathing before the incident. On the date of the incident, a CNA took the resident to the shower room on a gurney and provided bathing assistance alone, believing the resident to be a one-person assist based on the absence of a green sticker indicating two-person assist. During or immediately after the shower, the resident became restless, jerked, and crossed his legs over the gurney rail, resulting in a fall from the gurney. The resident sustained an abrasion to the left side of the head, a hematoma on the right side of the head, and bleeding in the mouth of undetermined origin, and was transferred to the hospital where surgery for a brain bleed was later documented. Interviews with the DON and Administrator confirmed that MDS assessments had identified the resident as requiring two-person support for bathing at the time of the incident, that the care plan did not reflect this requirement prior to December, and that only one CNA was assisting the resident in the shower when the fall occurred. Staff interviews, including CNAs and an LPN, characterized providing one-person assist to a resident assessed as needing two-person assist, resulting in a fall, as neglect and acknowledged that failure to update and follow the care plan could lead to resident injury.
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.
