Laurel Creek Health Center
Inspection history, citations, penalties and survey trends for this long-term care facility in Fairfield, California.
- Location
- 2800 Estates Drive, Fairfield, California 94533
- CMS Provider Number
- 555727
- Inspections on file
- 17
- Latest survey
- February 20, 2025
- Citations (last 12 mo.)
- 0
Citation history
Health deficiencies cited at Laurel Creek Health Center during CMS and state inspections, most recent first.
A LTC facility was found to have a 10.34% medication error rate during a medication pass, exceeding the acceptable threshold. Errors included administering medication orally instead of via G-tube for a resident, giving two tablets of Acetaminophen instead of one, and administering Insulin Lispro without a meal. The errors were confirmed by the LN involved, and both the DON and Pharmacy Consultant stressed the importance of following physician orders.
The facility was found to have expired and improperly stored medications and supplies, including hydrogel dressings, Anasept gel, and COVID-19 test kits. Opened single-use vials were not discarded, and some medications lacked proper labeling. Ice buildup in a medication refrigerator was also noted, potentially affecting medication efficacy. These issues were confirmed by nursing staff and the DON.
The facility did not follow the prescribed menu for residents on a pureed diet, serving 1/4 cup of pureed chicken instead of the required 1/2 cup. This was confirmed by the Dietary Manager, who noted the use of an incorrect scoop size. The facility's policy mandates adherence to the menu to ensure proper nutrition.
The facility failed to maintain food safety standards, with an unclean ice machine, improperly labeled refrigerated food, and inadequate sanitizer concentration. These deficiencies were confirmed by dietary staff and posed a risk of food contamination.
The facility failed to maintain effective infection control, with issues such as unlabeled distilled water for CPAP machines, a coffee mug on a commode seat, and improper disinfection of blood pressure cuffs. Dust and stagnant water were found in the laundry area, and a resident with a pressure ulcer was not on Enhanced Barrier Precautions. These deficiencies highlight lapses in following infection control protocols.
A resident with multiple diagnoses, including Parkinson's and dementia, did not receive sufficient fluids to meet the RD's assessed needs. Despite being at risk for dehydration, the resident's fluid intake was consistently below the required amount, and water was often not within reach. Staff interviews revealed a lack of consistent monitoring and assistance, leading to the resident's increased risk of dehydration.
A resident's routine dose of Trazodone was not discontinued after being changed to a PRN order without a specified end date, leading to potential duplicate dosing. The resident had refused the routine dose and requested the medication later during the night shift. The facility's policy on PRN orders was not followed, increasing the risk of unnecessary medication and side effects.
A resident with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus did not receive Insulin Lispro with meals as ordered by the physician, leading to a significant medication error. The insulin was administered by a licensed nurse without the presence of a meal, despite the facility's policies and the physician's specific instructions. The DON and Pharmacy Consultant confirmed the expectation to follow orders precisely.
A resident with difficulty swallowing and a history of pneumonia was served thin liquids instead of the prescribed nectar thickened liquids by a CNA, leading to coughing during a meal. The DON confirmed the expectation for adherence to diet orders, acknowledging the risk of aspiration. The facility's policy on therapeutic diets emphasizes the importance of following physician-ordered diets.
A resident developed a stage 2 pressure ulcer due to the facility's failure to follow its policy for pressure injury prevention, including daily skin inspections, regular Braden Scale assessments, and consistent turning and repositioning every two hours.
The facility failed to ensure nursing staff were competent and adhered to policies, resulting in missing narcotic tablets and unauthorized application of Baza Cream without a physician's order. These actions posed significant safety risks, including unauthorized access to the med cart and potential medication errors.
Medication Administration Errors in LTC Facility
Penalty
Summary
The facility was found to have a medication error rate of 10.34% during a medication pass, exceeding the acceptable threshold of 5%. This was observed when three medication errors occurred out of 29 opportunities for two residents. For Resident 4, a medication intended to be administered via G-tube was given orally, contrary to the physician's order. This error was confirmed by the Licensed Nurse (LN) involved, who acknowledged the importance of following the prescribed method of administration to ensure proper medication efficacy. For Resident 34, two separate medication errors were identified. The first involved administering two tablets of Acetaminophen instead of the prescribed one tablet. The second error occurred when Insulin Lispro was administered without a meal, despite the physician's order specifying it should be given with meals. The LN confirmed these discrepancies during interviews and record reviews. The Director of Nursing and the Pharmacy Consultant both emphasized the necessity of adhering to physician orders and the facility's policy, which mandates that medications be administered as prescribed and within the required time frame.
Expired Medications and Improper Storage Found in Facility
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure that expired and discontinued medications and medical supplies were not available for resident use. During inspections of various medication storage areas, numerous expired items were found, including hydrogel absorbent sheet wound dressings, Anasept gel, enteral feeding bags, bleach germicidal wipes, Bisacodyl suppositories, Debrox earwax removal aid, Miralax, and arginaid arginine powder. These items were confirmed by nursing staff to be expired and should have been removed from the facility's stock. Additionally, expired COVID-19 test kits were found in the facility. A box of BinaxNOW test kits had a handwritten expiration date that did not match the extended expiration dates provided by the Infection Preventionist. The Director of Nursing and other staff confirmed that expired test kits should not be kept as they risk providing incorrect results. The facility's policy indicated that expired medications and supplies should be immediately removed from inventory and destroyed. The facility also failed to ensure that opened single-use vials were discarded after use and that medications were appropriately labeled. An undated open single-dose sterile water vial was found in the medication refrigerator, and several medication boxes had peeled labels, making it impossible to identify the intended resident. Furthermore, the medication refrigerator was not maintained in proper working condition, as ice buildup was observed, which could affect the temperature and efficacy of stored medications. These deficiencies were confirmed by the Director of Nursing and other staff members.
Failure to Follow Prescribed Pureed Diet Portions
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to adhere to the prescribed menu for residents on a therapeutic pureed diet during a lunch meal service. On the specified date, four residents who required a pureed diet due to difficulties with chewing or swallowing received only 1/4 cup of pureed chicken instead of the 1/2 cup portion indicated on the menu. This discrepancy was observed during the lunch service and confirmed by the Dietary Manager, who acknowledged that the blue scoop used was equivalent to 1/4 cup. The facility's policy on food preparation emphasizes the importance of following the menu to ensure adequate nutrient provision, which was not adhered to in this instance.
Food Safety and Sanitation Deficiencies
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to adhere to professional standards for food service safety, as evidenced by several deficiencies observed during a survey. An ice machine was found to be unclean, with dark stains resembling rust, white matter on its exterior, and debris in the ice scoop container. The Director of Dietary Services and the Dietary Manager confirmed these observations, acknowledging that the facility staff were responsible for weekly cleaning of the ice machine, while an outside vendor serviced it every six months. The facility's policy indicated that the ice scoop should be protected from contamination, yet this was not adhered to. Additionally, the facility did not properly label refrigerated food items, including an open tray of pasteurized eggs, dessert plates, and a nutritional shake, with received, opened, or use-by dates. This lack of labeling was confirmed by the Dietary Supervisor, Licensed Nurse 3, and Licensed Nurse 1, who acknowledged the risk of serving expired food to residents. Furthermore, the concentration of the sanitizer solution in a sanitation bucket was found to be below the required 200 ppm, as confirmed by the Dietary Manager and a cook. The facility's policy required the sanitizer to be at a high concentration, but this was not maintained, posing a risk for food contamination.
Infection Control Deficiencies in LTC Facility
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to maintain an effective infection prevention and control program, as evidenced by multiple observations and interviews. In one instance, an unlabeled and undated jug of distilled water used for a CPAP machine was found on the floor at a resident's bedside. The resident, who had a history of sepsis and obstructive sleep apnea, could not recall the last time the CPAP was used. Staff confirmed that distilled water jugs should be labeled with the resident's name and the date of opening to ensure proper usage and prevent contamination. Another deficiency was observed when a coffee mug was left on a commode seat in a resident's bathroom. The CNA responsible admitted to placing it there and forgetting to remove it, acknowledging the hygiene risk. The Infection Preventionist confirmed that such practices are unacceptable and pose a contamination hazard. Additionally, blood pressure cuffs were not disinfected between uses on different residents, increasing the risk of cross-contamination. Staff interviews revealed that proper disinfection protocols were not followed, and the use of incorrect disinfectant wipes was noted. Further issues included dust accumulation on the exhaust in the clean linen room and stagnant water in the laundry area, both of which were confirmed by staff as needing attention. A resident with a chronic pressure ulcer was not placed on Enhanced Barrier Precautions, which are necessary to prevent infection spread. The facility's policies and procedures were not adhered to, leading to these deficiencies in infection control practices.
Failure to Ensure Adequate Hydration for Resident
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure that a resident received sufficient fluids to maintain adequate hydration as per the resident's care plan and the Registered Dietitian's (RD) assessment. The resident, who was admitted with multiple diagnoses including Parkinson's disease, dementia, and constipation, was at risk for dehydration. The care plan indicated that the resident required assistance with eating and was at risk for dehydration related to constipation. The RD assessed the resident's fluid needs to be 1300 milliliters per day, but the resident's intake records showed an average daily intake significantly below this requirement. Observations and interviews revealed that the resident often did not have water within reach and was not consistently offered fluids between meals. The resident, who had moderate cognitive impairment and significant hand tremors, required assistance to drink and often called for help when thirsty. However, staff did not consistently respond to these calls, and the resident's fluid intake was not adequately monitored or documented to ensure it met the RD's recommendations. Interviews with staff, including a CNA and the Director of Nursing (DON), confirmed that the resident's fluid needs were not being met and that the facility lacked a system to monitor and address these needs effectively. The DON acknowledged that the resident's fluid intake was below the RD's recommendations and that this was not addressed in interdisciplinary meetings. The facility's policy on hydration was not followed, leading to the resident being at risk for dehydration and related health issues.
Failure to Discontinue Routine Dose After PRN Change for Antidepressant
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure a resident was free from unnecessary psychotropic medications. The resident, who was admitted with diagnoses of insomnia and depression, had a routine order for Trazodone, an antidepressant, which was changed to a PRN order without a specified end date. Despite the change to PRN, the routine dose was not discontinued immediately, leading to the potential for duplicate dosing. The resident had refused the routine dose multiple times and requested the medication later during the night shift, prompting a request to change the order to PRN. The Director of Nursing confirmed that the routine order was only discontinued after the PRN order was initiated, and the Pharmacy Consultant acknowledged the oversight in not discontinuing the routine dose immediately. The facility's policy requires that PRN orders for psychotropic medications be limited to 14 days unless extended with documented rationale, which was not adhered to in this case. This oversight had the potential to result in unnecessary medication for the resident, increasing the risk of side effects associated with psychotropic medications.
Insulin Administration Error Due to Non-Compliance with Physician Orders
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure that a resident was free from significant medication errors when Insulin Lispro was not administered with meals as ordered by the physician. The resident, who was admitted with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus, had a physician's order to receive Insulin Lispro subcutaneously with meals three times a day. However, during a medication administration observation, a licensed nurse administered the insulin without the presence of a meal, contrary to the physician's order. The licensed nurse confirmed that the insulin was given without a meal and acknowledged the physician's order to administer it with meals. The Director of Nursing and the Pharmacy Consultant both emphasized the importance of following physician orders precisely. The facility's policies on medication administration and insulin administration also highlighted the need for medications to be given as prescribed, including any required time frames. Despite these guidelines, the insulin was administered incorrectly, leading to a significant medication error.
Failure to Provide Nectar Thickened Liquids as Ordered
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure that a resident received nectar thickened liquids as ordered by the physician. This deficiency was observed when a Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA 2) served the resident thin liquids instead of the prescribed nectar thickened liquids. The resident, who had difficulty swallowing and was on a mechanically altered diet, was seen drinking regular water and coughing between sips during lunch in the main dining hall. The tray ticket indicated that the resident was on a pureed diet with nectar thickened liquids, but CNA 2 admitted to forgetting to remove the regular water after placing it at each station. The resident, identified as having been admitted with multiple diagnoses including pneumonia, was at nutritional risk according to their care plan. The Director of Nursing (DON) confirmed that the expectation was for all diet orders, including therapeutic and textured diets, to be followed. The facility's policy on therapeutic diets, revised in October 2017, stated that such diets are ordered by a physician as part of treatment for a disease or clinical condition, including altered consistency diets. The DON acknowledged the risk of aspiration if textured diet orders were not adhered to.
Failure to Prevent Pressure Ulcer Development
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure that a resident did not develop a pressure ulcer by not following their policy and procedure for the prevention of pressure injuries. The facility did not inspect the resident's skin daily when performing or assisting with personal care or activities of daily living, did not continually evaluate the resident's potential for skin breakdown per the physician's order, and did not request a preventative treatment prescribed by the physician once the resident became incontinent of both bladder and bowel function. These failures resulted in the resident acquiring a stage 2 pressure ulcer on the left buttock. The resident was admitted with diagnoses of essential hypertension, hyperlipidemia, and type 2 diabetes mellitus. The resident's Minimum Data Sheet Assessment indicated short-term and long-term memory impairment and constant incontinence of both bladder and bowel. Upon admission, the resident's skin was intact, but a stage 2 pressure ulcer was noted on the left buttock within a few weeks. The facility's records showed that the Braden Scale Skin Assessment was only completed once, despite the physician's order to complete it weekly for four weeks. Additionally, there was no documentation indicating that the resident was being turned and repositioned every two hours or offered toileting or incontinence care every two hours. Interviews with various staff members, including unlicensed staff, licensed staff, the MDS coordinator, and the Director of Nursing, confirmed that the facility's policy required turning and repositioning residents every two hours, providing incontinence care every two hours, and using barrier cream for incontinent residents. However, these practices were not consistently followed for the resident in question. The Director of Nursing acknowledged that the resident's pressure ulcer developed while at the facility and that the Braden Scale Skin Assessments were not completed as required, potentially leading to missed risk factors and skin issues.
Nursing Staff Competency and Policy Adherence Issues
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure nursing staff were competent and had the necessary skills to provide nursing and related services to assure resident safety. Specifically, nurses did not follow the facility's policy and procedure on narcotic count reconciliation, left the medicine cart keys unattended on top of the med cart, and were unaware that Baza Cream requires a physician's order before application on a resident's skin. These failures resulted in missing and unaccounted narcotic tablets for one resident and posed significant safety risks, including unauthorized access to the med cart and potential medication errors. Resident 2, who was admitted with diagnoses of Parkinson's Disease, Dysphagia, and Hyperlipidemia, had a physician's order for Percocet for pain management. However, an investigation revealed that three tablets of Percocet were missing and unaccounted for. Interviews with various staff members, including the Director of Nursing (DON), Licensed Staff B, C, E, F, and G, and the MDS Coordinator, confirmed that the facility's policy for narcotic count reconciliation was not followed. Staff admitted to not completing the narcotic count reconciliation with incoming and outgoing nurses and leaving the med cart keys unattended on top of the med cart. Additionally, the facility's staff were found to be applying Baza Cream on residents without a physician's order, which is beyond their scope of practice. Interviews with the DON, Licensed Staff E, F, and the MDS Coordinator revealed that the facility did not have a specific policy for Baza Cream usage, and staff were unaware that it required a physician's order. This lack of knowledge and adherence to policy posed risks of allergies, worsening skin issues, and development of skin rashes for the residents.
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.



