Edgemoor Hospital
Inspection history, citations, penalties and survey trends for this long-term care facility in Santee, California.
- Location
- 655 Park Center Drive, Santee, California 92071
- CMS Provider Number
- 055008
- Inspections on file
- 27
- Latest survey
- February 27, 2026
- Citations (last 12 mo.)
- 19 (1 serious)
Citation history
Health deficiencies cited at Edgemoor Hospital during CMS and state inspections, most recent first.
A resident with quadriplegia and intact cognition asked a CNA to retrieve food, and the CNA responded angrily, yelling that the resident would not receive anything from him and charging toward the resident with aggressive body language. The resident, in a slow electric wheelchair, reported feeling scared and unsafe, and another resident witnessed the incident. Over subsequent days, the resident showed emotional distress, stayed in bed, avoided social interaction, and told staff she did not feel safe with the CNA. Although multiple staff later described the CNA’s conduct as verbal or emotional abuse, the charge nurse and CNA who first received the complaint did not report it to the administrator as abuse, the administrator did not interview the resident, and the incident was not reported to state authorities or investigated as abuse for several days. During this delay, the CNA, who had known behavioral issues and had been described as rude, resistant, and prone to shouting at residents, continued to be assigned to provide care to dozens of other residents on two units, contrary to facility abuse policies requiring immediate reporting, prompt investigation, and removal of accused staff from resident care.
A resident with quadriplegia and intact cognition reported that a CNA became verbally aggressive and physically intimidating when she requested food, yelling at her, refusing assistance unless she greeted him, and charging toward her in a threatening manner. The resident told staff she was scared and did not feel safe, and documentation showed ongoing emotional distress, withdrawal, and refusal to get out of bed or discuss the incident. Staff such as a CNA, CN, DSDs, and SW later characterized the event as verbal or emotional abuse, but the ADM, serving as abuse coordinator, did not treat it as abuse, did not interview the resident, and relied only on the CNA’s account. The SOC 341 abuse report was not completed and submitted within required time frames, the investigation was not initiated or conducted thoroughly at the time of the allegation, the CNA continued to be assigned to resident care without a documented risk assessment for other residents, and the resident’s increased fearfulness and behavioral changes were not identified as potential indicators of abuse as required by the facility’s abuse policy.
A cognitively intact resident with quadriplegia reported that a CNA became verbally aggressive and physically intimidating when asked to retrieve food from a refrigerator, yelling at the resident and charging toward her with an aggressive posture. Another resident witnessed and corroborated the account, and responding staff observed the resident to be shaking, tense, and stating she was scared and did not feel safe. Although staff on the unit understood the event as abuse, the ADM only interviewed the CNA, did not interview the resident, and did not treat the incident as an abuse allegation. A nursing supervisor reported only the CNA’s version of events to the ADM and did not convey the resident’s statements. The CNA continued to provide care to many residents on subsequent shifts, and the facility did not implement protective measures or follow its abuse policy and regulatory requirements for preventing further potential abuse and thoroughly investigating the allegation.
A resident with quadriplegia and intact cognition reported that a CNA became verbally aggressive, yelled at her, and charged toward her with threatening body language after she requested food from a refrigerator, causing her to feel scared and unsafe. Another resident witnessed the event, and staff observed the resident to be shaken, tense, and distressed, with subsequent fatigue and social withdrawal. Although the charge nurse and a CNA later acknowledged the incident as abuse, they did not immediately report it to the ADM or treat it as an abuse allegation. A nurse supervisor subsequently informed the ADM using only the CNA’s version of events and did not relay the resident’s account. The facility’s written abuse policy, which required immediate internal reporting and external reporting to law enforcement and CDPH via SOC 341 within two hours, was not followed, and the incident was not reported to CDPH until three days later, and the investigation was not initiated promptly or thoroughly at the time of the initial report.
A resident with dysphagia and a history of choking was not provided the required 1:1 supervision during meals, as outlined in their care plan. Despite previous choking incidents and the Speech Language Pathologist's recommendation for supervision, staff only performed spot checks. The Director of Nursing acknowledged the need for 1:1 supervision, but it was not implemented, violating the facility's policy on assisting residents with eating.
A resident with Alzheimer's and dementia was found with unexplained bruises, including a dark purple discoloration around the eye, which the facility failed to report as possible abuse. Despite staff acknowledging the need for reporting, the facility did not notify the California Department of Public Health, violating their abuse policy and placing residents at risk.
A resident with hemiplegia and hemiparesis was unable to reach the call light due to its improper placement, leading to inconsistent assistance from staff. The resident's care plan required the call light to be within reach, but observations and staff interviews confirmed it was not, violating facility policy.
The facility failed to ensure kitchen staff competency in the Food and Nutrition Services department. A food services worker was unable to operate the dishwashing machine correctly, and another worker could not demonstrate thermometer calibration, using a personal thermometer with a dead battery instead of the facility-provided one. The Chief of Nutrition Services acknowledged the need for staff training on equipment use.
The facility failed to maintain food safety and sanitation standards, as evidenced by black debris in the ice machine, moldy onions in the refrigerator, improper piping without air gaps, and cutting boards with deep cuts and stains. These issues were acknowledged by the Chief of Nutrition Services and the Plant Operations Director, exposing residents to potential foodborne illnesses.
The facility failed to implement CDC guidelines for Enhanced Barrier Precautions for 26 residents with medical devices and a nurse did not use appropriate PPE when administering tube feeding to a resident on Enhanced Standard Precautions. Staff misunderstood EBP criteria, and the facility's policy was not consistently followed, leading to potential infection spread.
The facility failed to maintain kitchen equipment in safe operating condition, with a dishwashing machine not reaching required sanitation temperatures and condensation build-up in a reach-in refrigerator and freezer. The dish machine's wash cycle did not meet the facility's policy temperature requirement, and the CNS acknowledged the need for repair. Condensation in the refrigerator and freezer posed a risk of food contamination, as per the FDA Food Code.
The facility failed to honor the preferences of three residents, leading to a deficiency in promoting resident self-determination. Two residents were denied the ability to store and reheat food from outside the facility due to restrictive policies, despite having intact cognition. Another resident faced issues with the facility's purchasing process, not receiving specific brands of items requested. The facility's policies and guidelines were cited as reasons for these restrictions, although staff acknowledged that resident preferences should be accommodated.
The facility did not deliver mail to residents on Saturdays, as reported by Resident Council attendees. The Social Services Aide and ADON confirmed that mail distribution occurred only on weekdays due to the absence of social services staff on weekends. The facility's policy stated that weekend mail delivery was generally unavailable, and residents could pick up their mail if desired.
A resident with long-standing schizophrenia was admitted to a facility, but their diagnosis was not accurately reflected on the initial and three consecutive MDS assessments. Despite having a physician's order for olanzapine for schizophrenia and a documented history of the condition, the MDS did not list schizophrenia as an active diagnosis. Interviews revealed that the MDS was based on the physician's diagnosis list, and the omission was not questioned by the MDS Coordinator.
The facility failed to develop and implement comprehensive care plans for two residents. One resident's activities care plan did not reflect his interest in sewing and design, as acknowledged by the Director of Activities. Another resident, with hemiplegia and hemiparesis, had a call light care plan that was not followed, leaving the call light out of reach. The ADON confirmed the oversight, which contradicts the facility's policy requiring specific and reflective care plans.
A resident, formerly a furrier and tailor, expressed a desire to engage in activities related to his past profession, but the facility failed to provide such activities. Despite mentioning his career, the activities offered did not include sewing or design, as confirmed by the Director and Assistant Director of Activities. The facility's policy emphasized comprehensive assessments and activity programs, but this was not reflected in the resident's activity offerings.
A resident experienced a 6.6% weight loss in one month due to inadequate tube feeding in a facility. Observations showed the resident's feeding equipment was not properly set up, and the facility used outdated weight standards for nutritional calculations. Interviews revealed a lack of awareness among staff about the resident's nutritional needs and recent weight loss, contributing to the deficiency.
A resident with a gastric tube was not receiving the prescribed Jevity 1.5 formula as per physician's orders. Observations showed the kangaroo pump was off and lacked formula, while interviews revealed inadequate documentation and training on the pump's use. The facility's policy required documentation of feeding volumes, which was not followed, potentially impacting the resident's health.
A licensed nurse failed to administer ferrous sulfate as ordered for a resident with iron deficiency anemia during a medication pass. The omission was acknowledged by the nurse, who recognized the potential negative impact of missing a medication dose. The facility's policy requires adherence to physician orders and pharmacy recommendations.
Failure to Protect Resident From Mental Abuse and Delay in Abuse Reporting
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to protect a cognitively intact resident with quadriplegia from mental abuse and intimidation by a CNA, and failure to recognize, report, and investigate the incident as abuse. The resident, who used a slow-moving electric wheelchair and had a BIMS score of 15/15, asked a CNA to retrieve food from a refrigerator. The CNA responded by demanding that the resident say hello to him if she wanted something, repeating this in an angry manner. When the resident replied that she did not have to say hello if she did not want to, the CNA turned, yelled that if she did not say hello she would not get anything from him and would have to call her assigned CNA, and then charged toward her with his chest out and aggressive arm movements. The resident reported feeling scared and defenseless because of her limited mobility and slow wheelchair, and believed the CNA appeared as if he wanted to physically fight her. A second resident witnessed the incident and corroborated the account. Following the incident, the resident called for help and reported to another CNA and the charge nurse that she was scared and did not feel safe with the CNA’s behavior. Staff observations and progress notes documented that the resident appeared in emotional distress at the time of the incident and remained upset and distressed over the following days, including expressing disbelief that the incident had occurred, stating she was not safe with the CNA, and planning to report to the police and Ombudsman. She stayed in bed for several days, refused to get out of bed, avoided social interaction, and declined to keep talking about the incident because she did not want to be retraumatized. Social work and psychotherapy notes documented that she did not feel safe with the CNA, feared he could lose his temper with her or other residents, and that the interaction elicited feelings of unsafety, a sense of being frozen, and led to three consecutive days in bed and avoidance of social interaction. Despite these reports and observations, the charge nurse and CNA who first received the resident’s complaint did not report the incident to the administrator as an allegation of abuse, and the administrator did not interview the resident. The administrator stated she did not consider the incident to be abuse and believed the resident had chosen to file an internal grievance rather than have the incident reported externally. Nursing supervisors did not relay the resident’s statements of fear and emotional distress to the administrator, and one supervisor reported only the CNA’s version of events, omitting the resident’s account. The facility did not complete and submit the SOC 341 abuse report form or report the allegation to the state agency until three days after the incident, and the internal investigation did not begin until that time. During this delay, the CNA, who had a documented history of behavioral concerns noted by the Directors of Staff Development and other staff (including arrogance, resistance to instruction, rudeness, shouting at residents, and unprofessional conduct), continued to be assigned to provide care to residents on two other units, exposing 63 residents to a staff member whose conduct toward the resident had been described by multiple staff as abuse and emotionally distressing. The facility’s own policy defined mental abuse as verbal or nonverbal conduct causing or having the potential to cause humiliation, intimidation, fear, or degradation, including yelling, hovering to intimidate, threatening residents, and depriving a resident of care. Staff interviews, including those of CNAs, the charge nurse, social worker, and Directors of Staff Development, characterized the CNA’s conduct toward the resident as verbal or emotional abuse and intimidation. The facility’s abuse policy required all employees to act as mandated reporters, to immediately report suspected abuse to the administrator and external agencies within specified time frames, to initiate an investigation promptly, and to ensure that staff accused of abuse generally did not have contact with residents during the investigation. These requirements were not followed in this case, leading to a failure to protect the resident from mental abuse and intimidation and a failure to protect other residents from potential abuse. Surveyors determined that this failure to identify and act on the resident’s allegation as abuse resulted in psychosocial harm to the resident, including feeling scared and unsafe, withdrawal from socialization, and ongoing worry, and posed an immediate jeopardy to the safety and well-being of the other residents on the units where the CNA was assigned during the delay in reporting and investigation.
Removal Plan
- Immediately remove any staff member identified as the subject of an allegation involving intimidation, fear, or potential abuse from direct resident care pending investigation.
- Confirm through facility leadership that no residents are currently exposed to staff under investigation.
- Observe the affected resident by nursing staff after the incident and place the resident on monitoring for emotional distress every shift.
- Have the Behavioral Health Program Coordinator attempt to see/assess the affected resident (with follow-up attempts as needed).
- Provide access to facility psychologist and social workers to the affected resident (and all residents) as needed.
- Regardless of investigation type (complaint vs. abuse), if a staff member is an alleged perpetrator, remove the staff member from direct patient care pending abuse investigation results or determination the complaint does not involve abuse.
- Require staff reporting incidents to the Abuse Coordinator to provide thorough and accurate statements based on gathered knowledge, observations, preliminary interviews, and the resident’s psychosocial disposition.
- Report allegations or suspicions of abuse promptly according to required regulatory timelines and submit Form SOC 341.
- Educate staff that they are mandated reporters with the right and obligation to report abuse or suspicion of abuse regardless of others’ opinions.
- Ensure staff are educated and have access to the SOC 341 form and abuse policies/procedures for guidance.
- Provide facility-wide in-service education on staff training for abuse, neglect, and exploitation prevention, with staff on days off/leave/PTO completing education upon return and prior to providing patient care.
- Continue a thorough investigation of the allegations, including resident interviews, staff interviews, witness interviews, employee personnel file review, resident record review, and other items as necessary.
- Submit all investigation results to CDPH within required timelines.
- Have the Administrator/Abuse Coordinator review abuse investigation protocols using the Abuse Investigation Checklist with the Assistant Administrator, DON, ADON, QA nurse, other ADON, and the Behavioral Health Program Coordinator before assuming direct patient care.
Failure to Implement Abuse Policy After Alleged Verbal and Emotional Abuse by CNA
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to implement its written abuse policy regarding identification, reporting, investigation, and prevention of abuse. A cognitively intact resident with quadriplegia, admitted after a motor vehicle accident, reported an incident in which a CNA allegedly acted in a verbally aggressive and threatening manner when she requested food from the refrigerator. The resident stated the CNA demanded that she say hello to him before he would help her, repeated this in an angry tone, then yelled that if she did not say hello she would not get anything from him and would have to call her assigned CNA. The resident reported that the CNA then charged toward her with his chest out and aggressive arm movements, in a way that appeared as if he wanted to physically fight her. She stated she was scared because her electric wheelchair moved slowly and she was worried she could not get away from him fast enough. Another resident present confirmed witnessing the incident as described. Following the incident, the resident reported the event to another CNA and a charge nurse, telling them she was scared and did not feel safe with the CNA involved. Progress notes documented that the resident appeared to be in emotional distress on the night of the incident and continued to verbalize disbelief and upset about the incident over the next several days. Notes further showed that she stayed in bed, refused to get out of bed, declined to talk to staff about the incident, and avoided social interaction. The resident later told the social worker she did not feel safe with the CNA being around her and expressed concern that the CNA could lose his temper with her or other residents. A psychotherapy note documented that the resident reported feeling unsafe and frozen during the interaction, spending three consecutive days in bed, and avoiding social interaction to prevent retraumatization. Despite these reports and observations, the facility did not identify, report, or investigate the allegation of abuse in a timely and thorough manner as required by its abuse policy. The SOC 341 abuse report was not completed and faxed to the state agency until days after the incident, and the administrator, who served as the abuse coordinator, stated she did not consider the incident to be abuse and did not interview the resident. The administrator reported that she only interviewed the CNA and relied on information from nursing supervisors, who did not relay the resident’s full account or her expressed fear and emotional distress. Staff interviews revealed that the charge nurse and other staff recognized the incident as verbal or emotional abuse and believed it should have been reported immediately, but this did not occur. Additionally, staffing records showed that the CNA continued to be assigned to provide resident care on two subsequent days after the allegation, and there was no documented assessment of risk to other residents during the investigation period, despite the facility’s policy allowing reassignment of accused staff when there is risk to residents. The facility’s abuse policy required immediate reporting of abuse allegations to law enforcement and regulatory agencies within specified time frames, completion of the SOC 341 by the employee who heard about the abuse, and implementation of effective measures to ensure that further potential abuse did not occur while an investigation was in process. The policy also required internal reporting to the administrator and allowed for moving an accused employee to another assignment if there was risk to residents, and it directed that staff be educated to identify behaviors such as increased fearfulness as potential indicators of abuse. In this case, the facility did not follow these procedures: the administrator was not fully informed of the resident’s statements and emotional condition, the resident’s increased fearfulness and withdrawal were not identified or treated as potential signs of abuse under the policy, and the CNA remained in resident care assignments without documented risk assessment. As a result, the facility failed to implement its abuse policy in the areas of timely reporting, thorough investigation, risk assessment for other residents, and recognition of behavioral indicators of possible abuse.
Failure to Recognize, Report, and Investigate Alleged Verbal Abuse and Protect Resident
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to recognize, respond to, and report an allegation of verbal and psychological abuse toward a resident, and to protect residents during the investigation. A cognitively intact resident with quadriplegia, as documented by an MDS BIMS score of 15/15 and a diagnosis of quadriplegia due to a motor vehicle accident, reported that a CNA became verbally aggressive when she asked him to retrieve food from the refrigerator. According to the resident, the CNA demanded that she say hello if she wanted something from him, repeated this in an angry manner, then yelled that if she did not say hello she would not get anything from him and would have to call her assigned CNA. The resident stated the CNA then charged toward her with his chest out and aggressive arm movements in a manner that appeared as if he wanted to physically fight her, causing her to feel scared and defenseless due to the slow speed of her electric wheelchair. Another resident witnessed the incident and corroborated the reporting resident’s account. Staff who responded immediately after the incident, including a charge nurse and another CNA, observed the reporting resident to be very shaken, visibly in distress, tense, and shaking, and the resident told them she was scared and did not feel safe with the CNA involved. The resident called for help, asked staff not to leave her alone, and reported that the CNA’s raised voice, intimidating body language, and threatening posture made her feel unsafe. One CNA later stated that the resident reported feeling fatigued, refusing to get up, and not socializing after the incident, and that she considered what happened to be abuse. Despite these observations and statements, the facility’s administrative response did not follow its abuse policy or regulatory requirements. The administrator, who was also the abuse coordinator, stated she only interviewed the CNA involved and did not interview the resident, and that she did not consider the incident to be abuse. The administrator reported that nursing supervisors did not tell her the resident was scared or that this was an abuse allegation, and she believed the resident chose to file an internal grievance instead of requesting that the incident be reported to the state agency. A nursing supervisor acknowledged that she reported only the CNA’s version of events to the administrator, did not relay the resident’s statement, and could not remember what the resident had told her. The facility’s records showed that the CNA continued to provide resident care on subsequent days, and there is no indication in the report that the facility implemented protective measures such as removing or reassigning the CNA while the incident was being investigated, contrary to the facility’s abuse policy and the State Operations Manual requirements to prevent further potential abuse and thoroughly collect evidence.
Failure to Timely Report and Investigate Alleged Verbal and Emotional Abuse
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to follow its written abuse policy and to timely report and investigate an allegation of abuse involving a cognitively intact resident with quadriplegia. The resident, who used a slow-moving electric wheelchair and had a BIMS score of 15/15, reported that during her first encounter with a CNA, she asked him to get a food item from the refrigerator. The CNA allegedly responded, “Are you gonna say hi to me if you want something from me?” and repeated this in an angry manner. When the resident replied that she did not have to say hi if she did not want to, the CNA allegedly turned around, yelled that if she did not say hi she would not get anything from him and would have to call her assigned CNA, and then charged toward her with his chest out and aggressive arm movements. The resident stated that this behavior appeared as if the CNA wanted to physically fight her, and she felt scared because her wheelchair moved slowly and she was worried she could not get away fast enough. Following the incident, the resident called for help and reported the event to a CNA and the charge nurse, stating she was scared, did not feel safe, and did not want to be left alone with the CNA involved. A second resident who witnessed the incident confirmed the described events. The charge nurse observed the resident to be very shaken, visibly in distress, and reporting fear. Another CNA reported that she heard the resident screaming her name, found the resident tense and shaking, and was told by the resident that the CNA’s raised voice and body language were intimidating and threatening. This CNA also reported that the resident later felt fatigued, refused to get up, and did not socialize after the incident. Both the charge nurse and the CNA later characterized what happened as abuse. Despite these reports and observations, the incident was not treated and reported as an abuse allegation in accordance with the facility’s abuse policy and regulatory requirements. The policy required that all employees, as mandated reporters, immediately report evidence or suspicion of abuse to the administrator or supervisory nurse, report all abuse to law enforcement by phone immediately, and fax the SOC 341 to the Ombudsman and CDPH within two hours of observation or report. Instead, the charge nurse and CNA did not report the resident’s allegation as abuse to the administrator at the time, and the facility did not initiate a thorough investigation when the incident was first reported. A nurse supervisor later reported the incident to the administrator based only on the CNA’s account and did not include the resident’s statement, and she could not recall what the resident had told her. As a result, the SOC 341 reporting the incident of psychological/mental abuse and verbal aggression was not faxed to CDPH until three days after the alleged incident, contrary to the facility’s policy and required time frames.
Failure to Supervise Resident with Dysphagia During Meals
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to provide adequate supervision for a resident with dysphagia and a history of choking during meals. The resident, who had intact cognition and was able to feed himself, was observed eating alone without the required 1:1 supervision as outlined in his care plan. Despite the resident's known tendency to eat quickly and cough, staff only performed spot checks rather than continuous supervision. This lack of supervision was confirmed by multiple staff members, including a Restorative Nursing Assistant and a Licensed Nurse, who were unaware of the care plan's requirement for 1:1 supervision. The resident had experienced previous choking incidents, including one where the Heimlich maneuver was necessary. The Speech Language Pathologist emphasized the need for 1:1 supervision due to the resident's limited upper extremity movements and non-compliance with diet orders. The Director of Nursing acknowledged the expectation for 1:1 supervision as per the care plan, highlighting a disconnect between the care plan and its implementation. The facility's policy on assisting residents with eating was not followed, as trays were placed in front of the resident without ensuring the availability of help, and there was no consistent monitoring of the resident's swallowing during meals.
Failure to Report Injury of Unknown Origin as Possible Abuse
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to identify and report an injury of unknown origin as possible abuse for a resident, which is a violation of their abuse policy and procedure. The resident, who had Alzheimer's disease, vascular dementia with behavioral disturbance, and hearing loss, was found with a dark purple discoloration around her right eye and additional bruises on her left forearm. The staff, including a CNA and a Licensed Nurse, were unsure of how the injuries occurred, with suggestions of a possible fall, but no definitive cause was determined. The resident's cognitive impairments made it difficult for her to communicate how the injuries happened. The Director of Staff Development acknowledged that the bruise should have been considered possible abuse due to its unknown origin and emphasized the importance of reporting such injuries to ensure resident safety. Despite this, the facility did not report the injury to the California Department of Public Health, as required by their policy and state law. The Director of Nursing and the Administrator were involved in the incident's review, with the Administrator noting that the hospital had reported the bruise to the state agency, but the facility itself did not. The facility's policy on injuries of unknown origin and abuse reporting mandates that all employees comply with reporting requirements. However, in this case, the facility did not adhere to these policies, as the injury was not reported, and the potential for abuse was not adequately investigated. This oversight placed the resident and potentially other residents at risk for further abuse and delayed the investigation process.
Call Light Accessibility Deficiency
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure that the call light was within reach for a resident diagnosed with hemiplegia and hemiparesis, conditions that impair movement and strength on one side of the body. This deficiency was identified during an observation and interview with the resident, who reported inconsistent assistance from staff and an inability to reach the call light to request help. The resident was observed sitting in a specialized wheelchair, unable to reach the call light, and expressed a need for assistance with basic needs such as getting a drink and personal hygiene. Further investigation revealed that the resident's care plan required the call light to be within reach and for staff to respond promptly to requests for assistance. Interviews with facility staff, including a CNA and the ADON, confirmed that the call light was not within the resident's reach, which contradicted the facility's policy. The resident's Minimum Data Set indicated a need for staff assistance with transfers, bathroom use, and personal hygiene, highlighting the importance of accessible call lights for timely assistance.
Inadequate Competency in Food and Nutrition Services
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure that the kitchen staff competently performed and carried out the functions of the Food and Nutrition Services department. During an initial kitchen tour, a food services worker was unable to correctly operate the dishwashing machine. The worker attempted to demonstrate how the kitchen staff ensures accurate temperatures but was unable to do so as the display was not a touch screen. The Chief of Nutrition Services later explained that the dish machine sanitizer is tested using a test strip, which changes color to indicate the correct temperature. However, the facility's job description for food services workers requires them to operate and maintain kitchen equipment safely and efficiently, which was not demonstrated in this instance. Additionally, another food services worker was unable to properly demonstrate how to calibrate a food thermometer. The worker used a personal thermometer, which had a dead battery, instead of the facility-provided thermometer. The Chief of Nutrition Services stated that the kitchen staff is expected to use the facility-provided thermometers, which were approved by management, and acknowledged the importance of staff being trained on their use. The facility's job description for food services workers includes knowledge of safety practices related to food preparation and the use of kitchen equipment, which was not adhered to in this case.
Deficiencies in Food Safety and Sanitation Practices
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to maintain food safety and sanitation practices in the kitchen, as observed during a survey. The ice machine was found to have black debris inside the ice-making parts, and the maintenance staff did not follow the manufacturer's cleaning instructions, which require thorough cleaning and sanitizing of all internal water contact areas. The Chief of Nutrition Services (CNS) and the Plant Operations Director (POD) acknowledged the issue, noting that the maintenance department was responsible for cleaning the ice machine quarterly but did not remove certain parts during the cleaning process. Additionally, the facility did not ensure proper food storage and handling. Two large onions in the refrigerator were found to have mold, and the CNS admitted that the staff should have removed them as they were no longer fit for consumption. Furthermore, three floor sinks had pipes without the required air gap, which could lead to contamination. The CNS acknowledged the improper setup of the pipes, which should not extend into the floor drains without an appropriate air gap, as per the facility's policy and the 2022 Federal FDA Food Code. The facility also failed to maintain clean and safe food preparation surfaces. Two cutting boards with deep cuts and food stains were stored in the clean area, and the CNS stated that the cutting boards should be replaced. The Nutrition Services Supervisor (NSS) confirmed that the cutting boards were checked daily for wear but acknowledged that the boards in question were not safe for use. These deficiencies in food safety and sanitation practices exposed residents to potential foodborne illnesses due to contaminated food and unsanitary conditions.
Failure to Implement Enhanced Barrier Precautions and PPE Use
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to implement the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) guidelines for Enhanced Barrier Precautions (EBPs) for 26 out of 29 residents with indwelling medical devices. Observations revealed that these residents were not placed on EBP, despite having medical devices such as feeding tubes and urinary catheters. Interviews with staff, including Supervisor Nurse 41 and Certified Nursing Assistant 22, indicated a misunderstanding of the EBP criteria, with some staff believing it was only applicable to residents with COVID-19. The Infection Preventionist (IP) and other staff members acknowledged that their interpretation of the CDC guidelines might be incorrect, and the facility's unique characteristics were considered in their assessment tool. Additionally, a Licensed Nurse (LN 1) failed to use appropriate Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) when administering tube feeding to Resident 88, who was on Enhanced Standard Precautions. During an observation, LN 1 was seen wearing gloves but not a gown while connecting a syringe to the resident's feeding tube. LN 1 admitted to not following the PPE requirements, which were clearly indicated on a sign outside the resident's room. The Charge Nurse and Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON) confirmed that LN 1 should have worn both gloves and a gown, as per the facility's policy and the posted instructions. The facility's policy on Enhanced Standard Precautions/Enhanced Barrier Precautions was reviewed, and it was found that the policy required the use of gowns and gloves for high-risk residents, particularly those with wounds or tubes. The policy also outlined the communication process for these precautions, including placing a sign outside the resident's door. Despite these guidelines, the facility's staff did not consistently adhere to the policy, leading to potential risks of infection spread within the facility.
Kitchen Equipment Maintenance Deficiency
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to maintain kitchen equipment in safe operating condition, as observed during a survey. The dishwashing machine was found to have temperatures below the required sanitation level. During an observation and interview, the food services worker/dishwasher (DSW) explained the process of washing and sanitizing dishes, which involves several cycles including power scraper, power wash, power rinse tank, and final rinse. However, the gauges on the dish machine indicated that the wash temperature was not reaching the appropriate level, with the power wash cycle only reaching 140 degrees Fahrenheit, below the facility's policy requirement of 150 degrees Fahrenheit. The Clinical Nutrition Specialist (CNS) acknowledged the issue, stating that the dish machine needed repair to ensure proper operation. Additionally, the survey identified issues with a reach-in refrigerator and freezer, both of which had condensation build-up. The reach-in freezer had frozen liquid on the bottom shelf and frozen condensation on the racks, while the reach-in refrigerator had ice condensation on the bottom shelf and inside the door. According to the 2022 Federal FDA Food Code, such condensation can lead to food adulteration and contamination with pathogenic organisms. The facility's policy on essential equipment emphasized the importance of maintaining equipment to prevent risks to resident health and safety.
Facility Fails to Honor Resident Preferences for Food and Personal Items
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to honor the preferences and choices of three residents, leading to a deficiency in promoting resident self-determination. Resident 119, who was admitted with diagnoses including weakness and leg amputation, expressed dissatisfaction with the facility meals and desired to store and reheat food purchased from outside. Despite having intact cognition, Resident 119 was denied access to the unit refrigerator and microwave, which were reserved for staff use only. The facility's policy restricted residents from storing frozen food and limited the storage of other foods to 48 hours, although staff were not aware of the reasons for these restrictions. Similarly, Resident 131, with a diagnosis of spine injury, preferred food from outside sources and faced similar restrictions. He was informed that only pre-packaged, sealed food could be stored in the unit refrigerator, and there was no microwave available for resident use. Despite his intact cognition, Resident 131 was not allowed to reheat food in the facility's kitchen, contrary to his experiences in other nursing homes. The facility's guidelines and policies were cited as reasons for these restrictions, although the Assistant Director of Nursing acknowledged that resident preferences should be accommodated. Resident 126, admitted with a diagnosis of weakness, faced issues with the facility's purchasing process. Despite having money and being able to express her needs, she did not receive the specific brands of items she requested, such as shampoo and pistachio nuts. The facility's checklist for purchases did not specify brands, and staff were instructed to inform residents that their requests were considered wants, not needs. The Assistant Director of Nursing mentioned that they would ask the resident's family to obtain the preferred items, indicating a lack of direct support from the facility in fulfilling resident preferences.
Failure to Deliver Mail on Saturdays
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to distribute mail to residents on Saturdays, affecting five Resident Council attendees. During a Resident Council interview, all attendees reported that mail was not delivered to them on Saturdays, and they expressed a desire to receive their mail on that day. The Social Services Aide (SSA) confirmed that mail distribution was only conducted from Monday to Friday, as social services staff did not work on weekends. The Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON) also acknowledged that social services staff were unavailable on Saturdays and stated that residents would receive their mail on Monday if expected over the weekend. The facility's policy on resident mail, dated June 13, 2023, indicated that weekend mail delivery was generally unavailable, and residents could pick up their mail if desired, despite the absence of social services staff to assist them.
Inaccurate MDS Coding for Schizophrenia Diagnosis
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure the Minimum Data Set (MDS) was accurately coded for a resident diagnosed with long-standing schizophrenia. Upon admission, the resident's diagnosis of schizophrenia was not reflected on the initial MDS assessment and three consecutive MDS assessments, despite the resident having a physician's order for olanzapine, an antipsychotic medication, specifically for schizophrenia. The resident's History and Physical (H&P) also indicated a diagnosis of schizophrenia, yet this was not marked as an active diagnosis on the MDS assessments. Interviews with the MDS Coordinators revealed that the MDS was completed based on the physician's diagnosis list, and if schizophrenia was not listed, it would not be included in the MDS. The MDS Coordinator did not recall questioning the physician about the omission of schizophrenia, despite the medication order and the resident's psychiatric history. The Medical Director acknowledged that the initial MDS should have indicated schizophrenia as an active diagnosis, and the Assistant Director of Nursing recognized the importance of accurate MDS coding to drive the resident's care plan.
Failure to Implement Comprehensive Care Plans
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to develop and implement a comprehensive activities care plan for a resident who expressed interest in activities related to his past profession as a furrier and tailor. Despite the resident's expressed desire to engage in sewing or design activities, the care plan only included general activities such as games and outdoor strolls, without addressing his specific interests. The Director of Activities acknowledged the oversight, confirming that the resident's care plan did not reflect his preferences, which is contrary to the facility's policy requiring care plans to be specific and reflective of residents' goals and preferences. Additionally, the facility did not implement a call light care plan for another resident who required assistance due to hemiplegia and hemiparesis. The resident reported inconsistent help and difficulty reaching the call light, which was observed to be placed out of reach. A CNA confirmed the call light was inaccessible, and the Assistant Director of Nursing acknowledged that the care plan, which required the call light to be within reach, was not followed. This failure to implement the care plan as documented could lead to unmet needs for the resident, as the facility's policy mandates care plans to address individual needs with specific interventions.
Failure to Provide Resident-Specific Activities
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to provide an activity program that met the preferences of a resident, identified as Resident 31, who was reviewed for activities. Resident 31, a former furrier and tailor, expressed a desire to engage in activities related to his past profession, such as sewing and design. However, the facility did not offer any activities that aligned with these interests. During an observation and interview, Resident 31 mentioned missing these activities and expressed a wish to continue them, but stated that he was unable to do so in the facility. Interviews with the Director of Activities and the Assistant Director of Activities revealed that although Resident 31 had mentioned his career, the facility had not provided any related activities. The Therapeutic Recreation Assessment for Resident 31 included recommendations for games, outdoor strolls, and social interactions but did not reference any activities related to sewing or design. The facility's policy on Therapeutic Recreation Services emphasized the importance of providing a comprehensive assessment and ongoing program of activities to promote residents' well-being, yet this was not reflected in the activities offered to Resident 31.
Inadequate Tube Feeding Leads to Resident Weight Loss
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure that Resident 18 received adequate nutrition through tube feeding, resulting in a 6.6% weight loss over one month. Observations revealed that the resident's tube feeding equipment was not properly set up, with no formula or water hanging from the kangaroo pump on multiple occasions. The resident, who was non-verbal and had several medical conditions including dysphagia, kidney failure, and malnutrition, was observed in a state that suggested inadequate nutritional support. The facility's records indicated that Resident 18 had a significant weight loss of 19.3% over 12 months, yet the facility continued to use ideal body weight (IBW) for nutritional calculations instead of actual body weight, which is the current standard of practice. Interviews with the Registered Dietitian (RD) and Medical Director (MD) revealed a lack of awareness regarding the correct standard for weight calculations and the resident's recent weight loss. The RD admitted that the total calories from the tube feed order did not meet the assessed caloric needs of Resident 18. The facility's policies and procedures were not effectively implemented, as evidenced by the RD's lack of recent physical assessment of the resident and the failure to adjust nutritional support based on current lab results and weight changes. The Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON) and Chief of Nutrition Services (CNS) also demonstrated a lack of understanding of the appropriate standards for weight assessment and nutritional care, contributing to the deficiency in providing adequate nutrition to Resident 18.
Failure to Administer Prescribed Tube Feeding Volume
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure that Resident 18 received the prescribed tube feeding volume according to the facility's policy. Observations revealed that the resident, who was non-verbal and had a gastric tube for feeding, was not receiving the required Jevity 1.5 formula as per the physician's diet orders. The kangaroo pump machine used for administering the tube feeding was found to be turned off and without formula or water hanging on it during multiple observations. Interviews with licensed nurses indicated a lack of proper documentation and understanding of the kangaroo pump machine's functionality. Nurses relied on the machine's limited data storage for tracking formula intake, which only stored data for up to 72 hours. There was no documentation of daily intake amounts, and some nurses were not trained on how to check the machine for previous formula volumes. This lack of documentation and training contributed to the failure to administer the prescribed tube feeding volume. The facility's policies required licensed staff to document enteral feeding volumes in the Intake and Output Record, but this was not being done. The Assistant Director of Nursing acknowledged the importance of tracking tube feeding formula volume and the limitations of the kangaroo pump machine. Despite the facility's policy and the resident's nutritional needs, the prescribed feeding regimen was not followed, potentially leading to adverse health outcomes for the resident.
Medication Administration Deficiency
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure that a medication was administered as ordered by the physician for one of the residents reviewed during a medication administration observation. Specifically, during a medication pass observation, a licensed nurse prepared and administered five medications for a resident diagnosed with iron deficiency anemia but failed to include ferrous sulfate, which was ordered daily for the resident's condition. The licensed nurse acknowledged the omission during a concurrent interview and record review, recognizing that missing a medication dose could negatively affect the resident. The facility's policy on medication safety emphasizes the importance of preparing, administering, and documenting medications in compliance with physician orders and pharmacy recommendations.
Latest citations in California
Two residents with dementia, schizoaffective disorder, and major depressive disorder, both with moderately impaired cognition and needing moderate ADL assistance, were found unclothed together in one resident's bed. One resident later stated she did not want sexual activity and did not consent, while the other resident could not recall the encounter. An LVN reported that both residents verbally consented at the time but acknowledged no assessment had been done to determine their capacity to consent to sexual activity. The DON identified the incident as sexual abuse and confirmed that allowing sexual activity without prior capacity assessment was inconsistent with facility policy and that the resident was not protected from sexual abuse.
Two residents with dementia, schizoaffective disorder, major depressive disorder, and moderately impaired cognition, both needing moderate assistance with ADLs, were found unclothed together in one resident’s bed. The resident later stated she did not consent to sexual contact, while the other resident did not recall any sexual activity. An LVN documented the incident and acknowledged it constituted sexual abuse that should have been reported immediately to the abuse coordinator and appropriate agencies, but did not report it. The administrator, who serves as the abuse coordinator, stated she relies on staff to notify her immediately of such allegations so they can be reported to CDPH, law enforcement, and the Ombudsman, but this did not occur, resulting in the allegation not being reported as required.
A resident with Parkinson’s disease, osteoporosis, and osteoarthritis reported being punched in the face by another resident, resulting in facial bruising. The resident’s MDS showed intact cognition, and a change in condition evaluation documented the assault; however, the MD was not notified until more than a day later. The care plan directed licensed nurses to assess the resident’s body, and staff observed a purplish bruise on the right lower eyelid/orbital area, but this was not documented in the progress notes. Required every-shift monitoring for 72 hours after the change in condition was not documented on multiple day shifts. The DON confirmed lack of awareness of the bruise and acknowledged missing documentation and monitoring, despite facility policies requiring immediate provider notification and complete, accurate charting of changes in condition.
A nurse left a medication cart unlocked and unattended in the hallway while administering insulin to a resident with diabetes, cardiac, and post-surgical conditions. The cart was out of the nurse's direct line of sight, contrary to facility policy requiring medication carts to be locked when not in use. The DON confirmed that medications should be secured to prevent unauthorized access.
A resident’s legal representative requested copies of the resident’s medical records through a faxed request from a law office’s third-party service, but the records were not provided within the required timeframe. The MRD confirmed receiving the request and stated he had forwarded the documents to the DON for review over a month earlier and had not received them back to release. Upon review of federal requirements for record access, the ADON acknowledged that the facility did not comply with the regulation requiring provision of copies within two working days of request.
Two CNAs violated privacy and confidentiality requirements when one CNA used a personal cell phone to record and photograph two residents during a perceived altercation and then sent the video to another CNA. The residents, who had significant medical conditions including paraplegia, seizures, dysphagia, and severe cognitive impairment, were dependent on staff for ADLs. The second CNA reported that a family member later took her phone without permission, accessed the contents, and transmitted the videos and photos to facility leadership. Facility staff, including an LVN, the DSD, and the administrator, stated that HIPAA rules and facility policies prohibit staff from recording residents on personal devices and allow resident photographs only with consent and for medical purposes as part of the chart, and that the facility’s "Stop and Watch" process requires observation and reporting, not filming.
A resident with a stage 4 sacrococcygeal PI, Parkinson’s disease, hypertension, moderate cognitive impairment, and high assistance needs was not provided care consistent with the facility’s pressure injury prevention policy. Although the care plan included daily wound treatment and use of a LAL mattress, it lacked an individualized repositioning schedule and did not document education or reminders about repositioning. Facility documentation showed only that the resident was assisted to roll each shift, with no evidence of q2h turning in bed or of how often incontinence briefs were checked and changed. After the resident refused Foley catheter reinsertion, the IDT did not identify incontinence as a risk factor or add new wound-protective or moisture-preventive interventions, and the subsequent care plan for non-compliance omitted such measures. The TXN and DON confirmed that repositioning and protection of the wound from incontinence were not clearly implemented or reflected in the care plan, despite policy requirements.
A resident with Parkinson’s disease, cognitive impairment, and significant assistance needs for mobility and toileting experienced two early-morning falls resulting in head injuries. After the first fall, the IDT documented potential interventions such as a bed alarm and floor mat but did not identify the cause of the fall, did not obtain a physician order for the floor mat, and did not ensure the care plan addressed supervision or bed alarm function. Before and after the falls, the care plan lacked interventions for supervision despite poor safety awareness and failure to use the call light, and the second fall occurred when the resident slid from bed while reaching for a snack bag placed on the bedside table. IDT follow-up documentation for the second fall was incomplete, and staff acknowledged that fall causes were not identified and resident-centered interventions were not fully implemented.
A resident with severe cognitive impairment and multiple neurological diagnoses was dependent on staff for hygiene and mobility. During an IDT meeting, the resident’s family member communicated specific care preferences, but facility staff did not develop or update a comprehensive person-centered care plan to include these preferences. Review of care plans over several months showed no documentation of the communicated preferences, despite facility policy requiring the IDT to create a measurable, time-framed care plan based on assessed needs and expressed preferences.
A resident with COPD and severely impaired cognition, dependent on staff for all ADLs and mobility, had a physician order for continuous supplemental O2 at a fixed rate of 2 L/min. During observations, the resident was found receiving O2 at 3 L/min. An LVN recognized the discrepancy and reported it to an RN supervisor, but there was no documentation of any clinical rationale for the increased flow, no physician notification, and no order change. The care plan directed staff to administer O2 as ordered, and facility policy required verification of the order, documentation of flow rate and rationale, and appropriate reporting, which were not followed.
Failure to Protect Cognitively Impaired Resident From Sexual Abuse
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure a resident was free from sexual abuse when two cognitively impaired residents were found unclothed together in one resident's bed without prior assessment of their capacity to consent to sexual activity. One resident had dementia, schizoaffective disorder, and major depressive disorder, with documentation of fluctuating capacity to understand and make decisions and a Minimum Data Set (MDS) indicating moderately impaired cognition and a need for moderate assistance with ADLs. During an interview at her bedside, this resident stated she did not want to engage in sexual activity and did not consent to sexual contact with the other resident. The second resident involved also had dementia, schizoaffective disorder, and major depressive disorder, with an MDS showing moderately impaired cognition and a need for moderate assistance with ADLs. In an interview, he stated he liked women and liked to socialize with women but could not recall whether he engaged in sexual activity with the first resident. An LVN reported observing both residents unclothed in the first resident's bed and stated that, at the time of the incident, both residents verbally consented to sexual activity, but she was not aware of any assessment having been performed to determine either resident's capacity to consent. The DON stated the incident was considered sexual abuse, that it was not the facility's practice to allow sexual activity without appropriate assessment, and that the facility failed to ensure the resident was protected from sexual abuse, contrary to the facility's abuse prevention policy.
Failure to Report Alleged Sexual Abuse Between Cognitively Impaired Residents
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to report an allegation of sexual abuse between two residents to the State Survey Agency, Ombudsman, and local law enforcement as required by federal regulations and the facility’s own abuse reporting policy. A nurse documented that one resident (Resident 2) and another resident (Resident 4) were found unclothed together in Resident 2’s bed, and the nurse acknowledged that this situation constituted sexual abuse and should have been reported immediately to the abuse coordinator and appropriate agencies, but she did not report the incident. The facility’s policy stated that all staff are mandated reporters and must notify appropriate authorities within two hours of becoming aware of abuse and immediately notify the Abuse Prevention Coordinator and their supervisor. Resident 2 had dementia, schizoaffective disorder, major depressive disorder, fluctuating capacity to understand and make decisions, and moderately impaired cognition, and required moderate assistance with ADLs. During an interview at her bedside, Resident 2 stated she did not consent to sexual contact with Resident 4. Resident 4 also had dementia, schizoaffective disorder, major depressive disorder, moderately impaired cognition, and required moderate assistance with ADLs, and stated he did not recall engaging in sexual activity with any residents. The Administrator, who served as the abuse coordinator, stated she was responsible for reporting all abuse allegations to CDPH, law enforcement, and the Ombudsman, and that staff were responsible for notifying her immediately of sexual abuse allegations so they could be reported and investigated. The failure of staff to notify the Administrator and report the incident resulted in the sexual abuse allegation not being reported as required, causing a delay in an onsite investigation by CDPH.
Failure to Assess, Notify, and Monitor Resident After Facial Trauma
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to follow professional standards of nursing practice in assessing and monitoring a resident after a reported change of condition related to facial trauma. The resident was admitted with Parkinson’s disease, age-related osteoporosis, and osteoarthritis, and had intact cognitive skills for daily decision-making per a recent MDS. On the evening of 3/26/2026, a Change in Condition Evaluation documented that another resident hit this resident on the nose and both cheeks. The evaluation showed that the attending physician was not notified until 10 p.m. on 3/27/2026, approximately 26.5 hours after the reported incident, and the physician’s recommendation was to monitor the resident’s nose and cheeks for any changes and pain. The resident’s care plan, initiated on 3/26/2026, documented the report that another resident hit him on the nose and both cheeks and included an intervention for licensed nurses to check and assess the resident’s body. In an interview, the resident described that the other resident came into the room, stood on the left side of the bed, and punched him in the face. A photograph taken two days after the alleged incident showed a purplish-blue bruise on the right lower orbital area, although the resident declined to provide a copy of the picture. A CNA later reported observing a purple bruise on the resident’s right lower eyelid on 3/27/2026, described as extending from the inner to the middle lower eyelid and about the size of the tip of her fifth digit. During record review and interviews, an LVN stated that on 3/27/2026 the resident’s right lower eyelid had a dime-sized purplish bruise, but there was no documentation of this bruise in the progress notes. The LVN also stated that the resident should have been monitored every shift for 72 hours after the change of condition, yet there was no documented evidence of monitoring on the 7 a.m. to 3 p.m. shifts on 3/27/2026, 3/28/2026, and 3/29/2026. The DON reported not being made aware of the right eyelid bruise, confirmed that the resident should have been monitored every shift for at least 72 hours following the change of condition, and acknowledged there was no confirmed documentation of monitoring on the identified shifts. Facility policies required immediate physician consultation for significant changes in condition and complete, accurate documentation of changes and services provided, but the facility failed to identify, document, and monitor the resident’s change of condition in accordance with these policies.
Plan Of Correction
Facility Response Submission of the Plan of Correction does not constitute admission or agreement by the Provider of the truth of the facts alleged or conclusion set forth in this statement of deficiencies. The Plan of Correction is prepared and/or executed solely because it is required by the provision of Federal and State laws. This Plan of Correction constitutes the facility's credible allegation of compliance Corrective Action On 4/7/2026 Resident 1 was reassessed by LVN 3 and no skin issue was identified. On 4/7/2026 LVN 3 received one-on-one in-service by DON regarding importance of documenting details about resident's change of condition and monitoring every shift for 72 hours. Identification of other residents and corrective action On 4/8/2026 DON and/or designee reviewed audits provided by medical records for all change of condition in month of April to ensure proper documentation and monitoring are in place. No other deficient practice noted. Measures to prevent recurrence On 4/7/2026 LVN 3 received one-on-one in-service by DON regarding importance of documenting details about resident's change of condition and monitoring every shift for 72 hours. On 4/8/2026 Licensed nurses received in-service by DON regarding importance of documenting details about resident's change of condition and monitoring every shift for 72 hours. Monitoring and incorporation into the QA system HID will audit change of conditions using Change of Condition Audit form daily Monday-Friday and will report any finding during daily stand-up meeting Monday-Friday on-going. DON or designee will review change of conditions from prior day during daily clinical meetings (Monday -Friday) on going to ensure the nurse notified the attending physician regarding resident's significant change of condition and documented. Any deficient finding will be reported to DON and/or administrator for further corrective action/recommendation. Any trend of deficient finding(s) will be documented on Change of Condition Audit Form and will be reviewed during the monthly QA meeting for further review and/or recommendation(s). Administrator who will then report to the Quality Assurance (QA) team during monthly Quality Assurance (QA)/Quality Assurance and Performance Improvement (QAPI) for further evaluation/recommendation and to provide feedback and program modification if needed x3 months or until compliant. Date Corrective action to be completed: 4/8/2026
Medication Cart Left Unlocked During Medication Pass
Penalty
Summary
During a medication pass for a resident with a history of surgical aftercare, cardiac arrest, heart failure, and type 2 diabetes mellitus, a licensed nurse prepared and administered Novolog insulin using a pen-injector. The nurse left the medication cart unlocked and unattended in the hallway, approximately two feet outside the resident's bedroom doorway, while administering the injection inside the room. The cart was out of the nurse's direct line of sight during this time. The nurse acknowledged that the cart was left unlocked and should have been secured when not in direct view. Facility policy and procedure documents reviewed indicated that medication carts must be kept closed and locked when out of sight of the medication nurse or aide, and that compartments containing drugs and biologicals are to be locked when not in use. The Director of Nursing confirmed that medications should be locked and secured to prevent unauthorized access by unlicensed staff and residents. The failure to lock the medication cart during the medication pass was observed and confirmed through interviews and record review.
Plan Of Correction
From 4/4/2025 through 4/7/2025, the DON, DSD, and ADSD completed 1:1 inservices with licensed staff regarding the facility policy and procedure titled Storage of Medications. Medication carts must be kept locked when unattended. DON, IP, MDS, ADSD, or DSD will monitor medication carts being locked when unattended 3 times a week for 2 weeks. DON, IP, MDS, ADSD, or DSD will monitor medication carts being locked when unattended 2 times a week for 2 weeks. DON, IP, MDS, ADSD, or DSD will monitor medication carts being locked when unattended 1 time a week for 2 weeks. DON, IP, MDS, ADSD, or DSD will random monitor medication carts being locked when unattended for 1 month. System effectiveness will be evaluated during the facility's monthly Quality Assurance Performance Improvement Committee meetings for three (3) months.
Failure to Timely Provide Resident Medical Records Upon Request
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to provide timely access to medical records as required under 42 CFR 483.10(g)(2) for one resident. The resident’s face sheet showed an admission date of November 18, 2025, with multiple diagnoses, but no additional clinical details were provided. A legal representative’s office faxed an initial request for the resident’s medical records on February 26, 2026. As of March 26, 2026, the legal representative’s staff reported that the office had not yet received the requested records from the facility. On April 2, 2026, the Medical Record Director (MRD) confirmed documentation that a third-party service for the law office had requested the resident’s medical records on February 26, 2026. The MRD stated he had submitted the requested documents to the Director of Nursing (DON) for review over a month prior but had not received them back to proceed with releasing the records. During a concurrent interview and record review, the Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON) reviewed the State Operations Manual Appendix PP guidance on residents’ rights to access personal and medical records, which requires that copies be provided within two working days of request. The ADON acknowledged that this regulatory requirement was not followed by the facility.
Plan Of Correction
F0573 Right to Access/Purchase Copies of Records What corrective action(s) will be accomplished for those Residents found to have been affected by the deficient practice? Medical Records Director (MRD) released medical records for Resident 1 as requested by the legal representative (Legal Staff) on April 21, 2026. How will other individuals with the potential to be affected by this deficient practice be identified and protected? No other Resident was identified to have been effected by the deficient practice. What systemic changes will be implemented to ensure that the deficient practice does not recur? The Quality Assurance Committee met on April 14, 2026 to review the Policy and Procedure which was then forwarded to the Knolls West Post Acute legal team for further evaluation. Revision of the policy will be discussed and approved by the Quality Assurance Committee to ensure the facility meets all Federal and State Regulations. F0573 Right to Access/Purchase Copies of Records (CONT.)The Administrator and the Medical Records Director (MRD) are responsible for informing the requesting party for the demand for payment for the requested medical documentation being provided and until payment is received the facility will hold the chart copies.How corrective action(s) will be monitored to ensure solutions are being achieved and sustainedThe Resident's Responsible Party will be notified upon receipt of the Medical Records Request and review in the presence of the facility representative. Records will be provided if it does not pertain to any legal matters after payment is received. The Administrator and/or Designee is responsible for reporting to the Quality Assurance Committee on a monthly basis and monitoring to ensure that corrective action is implemented and evaluated for its effectiveness. The same will be reviewed on a quarterly basis to the Quality Assurance Committee meeting x 3 quarters or until 100% compliance is achieved and sustained.Date of CompletionApril 23, 2026
Unauthorized Resident Recording and Disclosure Violating Privacy and Confidentiality
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves a failure to protect residents’ privacy and confidentiality when a CNA used a personal cell phone to record and photograph two residents without their knowledge or consent, and then shared that content with another CNA. One resident had paraplegia, depression, muscle weakness, dorsalgia, and polyneuropathy, was cognitively intact, and dependent on staff for ADLs. The other resident had diagnoses including seizures, dysphagia, acute kidney dysfunction, and muscle weakness, was able to make needs known but could not make medical decisions, had severely impaired decision-making, and was also dependent on staff for ADLs. Both residents were therefore in a position of dependence on staff for care at the time of the incident. According to CNA 2, on a specific date she recorded a video of the two residents because one resident started an altercation with the other. She stated she recorded the incident for “evidence” and to show CNA 1, acknowledging that recording residents was not part of facility policy and that she should not have recorded or taken photographs of them. CNA 1 confirmed that she received the video on her personal cell phone from CNA 2 and stated that the recording was made for “safety purposes” due to a situation that was perceived as potentially escalating to physical aggression. CNA 1 reported that she did not share or post the video on social media or distribute it to others, but that a family member took her phone without permission and accessed its contents. CNA 1 further stated that this family member sent the video and pictures of the two residents to the facility, and that she notified the facility that her phone had been taken but did not disclose that it contained videos or photographs of the residents because she was unaware that the family member had accessed or distributed them. The DSD reported receiving a text message from an unknown number containing approximately two videos and an undetermined number of photographs of the two residents, along with the names of CNA 1 and CNA 2. The DSD, LVN 2, and the Administrator each stated that staff were required to follow HIPAA regulations, that staff were not permitted to record or possess videos or photographs of residents on personal devices, and that any photographs of residents required consent and had to be for medical purposes as part of the medical record. Facility policies on confidentiality, residents’ rights, and dignity stated that unauthorized release, access, or disclosure of resident information, including video or audio, was prohibited and that staff must protect resident privacy and treat residents with dignity and respect. The videos received by the DSD did not show an altercation between the residents, and staff interviews confirmed that filming residents was not part of the facility’s “Stop and Watch” process, which instead required observation, intervention, and reporting of changes in condition or behaviors to nursing staff.
Plan Of Correction
This Plan of Correction is the facility's credible allegation of compliance. Preparation and/or execution of this plan of correction does not constitute admission or agreement by the provider of the truth or facts alleged, or conclusions set forth in the statement of deficiencies. The plan of correction is prepared and/or executed solely because it is required by the provisions of federal and state law. F0583 Personal Privacy/Confidentiality of Records How corrective action(s) will be accomplished for those residents found to have been affected by the deficient practice: Corrective actions were immediately implemented for Resident 1 and Resident 2 upon identification of the deficient practice. The facility initiated an investigation on 03/23/2026 and conducted immediate interviews with staff and residents utilizing structured interview tools to assess scope, impact, and additional potential concerns. Interviews confirmed the incident was isolated and no additional residents reported privacy violations or concerns. The staff members involved were removed from duty immediately. Following completion of the investigation, both employees were terminated in accordance with facility policy due to violation of resident rights, HIPAA, and facility confidentiality policies. Both employees completed formal Declarations and Attestations of Deletion of Unauthorized Recordings, confirming removal of all recordings and non-distribution of content. Documentation includes: Ashley Zelaya, CNA – Declaration executed 03/30/2026 at 9:21 AM, attesting deletion of all recordings and acknowledgment of policy violation Leslie Bram Reyes, CNA – Declaration executed 03/26/2026 at 10:42 AM, attesting deletion of all recordings and acknowledgment of policy violation Residents and/or responsible parties were notified. Social Services completed assessments with no identified psychosocial harm. All corrective actions were completed by 03/26/2026. How the facility identifies other residents having the potential to be affected by the same deficient practice and what corrective action will be taken. A facility-wide audit was initiated on 03/25/2026 using the Briarcrest Comprehensive Privacy, Recording, and Resident Rights Audit Tool. The audit included direct observation, staff interviews, and resident interviews to evaluate compliance with privacy practices, personal device use, and HIPAA requirements. Interviews were conducted using standardized staff and resident interview tools to ensure consistency and thoroughness in data collection. Findings from the audit confirmed that no additional residents were affected by the deficient practice and no additional incidents of unauthorized recording or disclosure were identified. Staff were immediately re-educated by Director and staff development on HIPAA Privacy Rule requirements, the facility's prohibition on personal device recordings, and the appropriate use of the Stop and Watch process for reporting changes in resident conditions. This corrective action was completed by 03/27/2026. What measures will be put into place or what systemic changes will the facility make to ensure that the deficient practice does not recur. The facility implemented systemic changes to prevent recurrence of the deficient practice by reinforcing a zero-tolerance policy for unauthorized recordings and strengthening staff accountability related to resident privacy and confidentiality. Staff completed mandatory re-training by the Director of Staff Development on Resident Rights, HIPAA, and Privacy/Confidentiality requirements. Staff were required to re-acknowledge facility policies related to confidentiality and personal device use. The facility implemented routine supervisory rounding to monitor compliance with personal device restrictions. In addition, the facility installed visible signage at the receptionist area clearly articulates that video recording is strictly prohibited inside resident rooms and in any facility areas where residents are present. The facility also posted signage throughout the entire facility, in both English and Spanish, indicating that video recording is not allowed to ensure clear communication to staff, visitors, and all individuals entering the facility. Privacy and HIPAA compliance were further integrated into new employee orientation, annual competencies, and ongoing in-service education. The Director of Staff Development completed initial re-education by 03/27/2026, and staff completed required training by 04/05/2026. How the facility plans to monitor its performance to make sure that solutions are sustained. To ensure sustained compliance, the facility incorporated privacy and confidentiality monitoring into its Quality Assurance and Performance Improvement (QAPI) program. The facility implemented an ongoing monitoring system beginning on 03/25/2026 utilizing the established audit tool, which confirmed that no additional residents were affected, and no further incidents occurred during the initial audit period. The facility will continue monitoring through weekly audits for four consecutive weeks, followed by monthly audits for three months. These audits will include direct observation of staff practices, verification of compliance with personal device policies, and evaluation of adherence to HIPAA and privacy requirements. Audit findings will be documented using standardized tools and reviewed by the Director of Nursing, with results reported to the Quality Assurance and Performance Improvement (QAPI) Committee for analysis and trending. If any issues are identified, immediate corrective action will be implemented, including re-education and progressive discipline as appropriate. If no trends or repeat deficiencies are identified after the monitoring period, the facility will discontinue routine auditing and remove the issue from active QAPI monitoring. Dates when corrective action will be completed. 4/17/2026
Failure to Implement Repositioning and Moisture Management for Stage 4 Pressure Injury
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to provide care and services to prevent deterioration of a stage 4 sacrococcygeal pressure injury in accordance with its own pressure injury prevention policy. The resident had a documented stage 4 PI of the sacral region, Parkinson’s disease, hypertension, moderate cognitive impairment, and required substantial/maximal assistance with toileting hygiene, rolling, and transfers. A Braden Scale score of 16 identified the resident as at risk for pressure injury. The Skilled Evaluation Nurse note indicated a pressure-reducing device for the bed but did not indicate that the resident was to be turned and repositioned every two hours. The resident’s care plan for the stage 4 sacrococcyx PI included cleansing with normal saline, applying Santyl ointment, and covering with dry and foam dressings daily, as well as providing pressure relief and a low air loss mattress to support body alignment and position. However, the care plan did not include an individualized repositioning schedule or education and reminders about the importance of repositioning. Documentation from the facility’s records showed that the resident was assisted to roll left and right every shift, but there was no documentation that the resident was turned and repositioned every two hours while in bed, nor was there documentation of the frequency of incontinence brief checks and changes after each episode. After the resident refused reinsertion of a Foley catheter, nursing progress notes documented the refusal but the IDT wound management conference record did not identify incontinence as a risk factor affecting healing of the stage 4 PI and did not document any new recommendations following the catheter refusal. A subsequent care plan addressing the resident’s potential for worsening condition related to non-compliance with Foley catheter reinsertion did not include wound protective measures or moisture-preventive interventions. During interviews, the treatment nurse acknowledged uncertainty about how often the resident was turned/repositioned or how frequently incontinence briefs were checked and changed, and confirmed that the care plan did not include measures to ensure turning at least every two hours or effective measures to protect the sacrococcyx PI. The DON stated that staff were supposed to ensure turning at least every two hours and protection of the wound dressing from incontinence, and that the IDT did not address this risk, so the care plan was not revised, despite facility policy requiring prompt cleaning after incontinence, use of barrier products, individualized repositioning schedules, and ongoing review of interventions for effectiveness.
Failure to Identify Fall Causes and Implement Supervision and Safety Interventions
Penalty
Summary
Surveyors identified a deficiency in the facility’s failure to keep the environment free from accident hazards and to provide adequate supervision and assistance devices to prevent accidents for a resident with significant fall risk. The resident had diagnoses including stage 4 sacral pressure ulcer, Parkinson’s disease, and hypertension, and was assessed as moderately cognitively impaired, with poor decision-making and a need for assistance with toileting, transfers, and ambulation. On one occasion, the resident was found on the floor at approximately 4:05 AM with a right forehead laceration requiring transfer to an acute care hospital for suturing. Following this first fall, the IDT Fall Management Follow-Up record listed interventions such as a medication regimen review, bed in lowest position, landing floor mat, and bed alarm, but there was no documented evidence identifying the cause of the fall. The resident’s care plan addressing strength and safety awareness deficits did not include supervision for safety despite poor safety awareness and not remembering to use the call light. The care plan for the actual fall with minor injury did not include ensuring that the bed alarm was functioning. Additionally, physician orders from 9/10/2025 to 1/29/2026 did not contain an order for a floor mat, despite this intervention being recommended in the IDT record. A second fall occurred at around 4:10 AM when the resident was again found on the floor next to the bed, holding a snack bag. The resident, described as alert but forgetful, stated that she had been trying to reach a snack bag on the bedside table and slid down from the bed, and redness was observed on the left side of the forehead after reportedly hitting the bedside table. The IDT Fall Management Follow-Up record for this second fall was incomplete, with no checked interventions. Interviews with the MDS nurse and DON confirmed that the IDT records should have identified the causes of the falls, that frequent monitoring and supervision were not care planned despite the resident’s cognitive impairment and poor safety awareness, and that the recommended floor mat was never ordered or applied, contrary to the facility’s own policies on assessing falls and developing comprehensive person-centered care plans.
Failure to Incorporate Resident Care Preferences Into Person-Centered Care Plan
Penalty
Summary
Surveyors identified a failure to develop a comprehensive person-centered care plan that incorporated a resident’s specific care preferences. The resident was readmitted on 8/31/2025 with multiple diagnoses, including metabolic encephalopathy, Alzheimer’s disease, blindness in the right eye, a history of TIA, and cerebral infarction without residual deficits. An MDS dated 10/30/2025 documented that the resident’s cognition was severely impaired and that the resident was dependent on staff for oral hygiene, toileting hygiene, personal hygiene, and movement. On 3/17/2026, the IDT met with a family member, who communicated specific care preferences for the resident. During interviews, the SSD and DSD confirmed that the family member had provided detailed care preferences at the 3/17/2026 IDT meeting, but a review of the resident’s care plans from 8/31/2025 to 3/31/2026 showed no documented care plan addressing those preferences. The DSD stated that a care plan should have been developed to reflect the resident’s care preferences, that it is the MDS nurse’s responsibility to develop the care plan, and that the absence of such a care plan could result in the preferences not being honored. The Administrator stated that the care plan is essential as it is used by staff as a guide to understand and implement the resident’s plan of care. The facility’s policy on Comprehensive Person-Centered Care Plans required the IDT to develop a comprehensive person-centered care plan with measurable objectives and time frames to meet identified needs, which was not done in this case.
Failure to Administer Oxygen Therapy as Ordered
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to administer oxygen therapy as ordered by the physician for a resident with COPD. The resident was admitted with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and had severely impaired cognition, requiring total staff assistance for all ADLs and mobility. A physician’s order dated 3/27/2026 directed that the resident receive continuous supplemental oxygen at a fixed rate of 2 L/min, with no indication that staff could adjust the flow rate. The resident’s care plan for altered respiratory status related to COPD instructed staff to administer oxygen as ordered. On 3/31/2026, during observations at the bedside at 8:45 a.m. and 9:40 a.m., the resident was noted to be receiving oxygen at 3 L/min, which did not match the physician’s order. An LVN reported that the resident was on 3 L/min when he checked vital signs that morning and stated this was not the ordered rate; he said he reported this to the previous shift’s RN supervisor but was unsure what action was taken. Another RN supervisor confirmed there was no documentation in the record to support an increased flow rate or any notification to the physician about the change from 2 L/min to 3 L/min, and reiterated that the order was for a fixed rate of 2 L/min. During a concurrent observation and interview, the prior RN supervisor acknowledged the resident was on 3 L/min and that the flow rate needed to be corrected to match the order. The facility’s oxygen administration policy required staff to verify a physician order, document the flow rate and rationale, and report information per professional standards, which was not followed in this instance.
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.



