Aviata At The Palms
Inspection history, citations, penalties and survey trends for this long-term care facility in Palm Harbor, Florida.
- Location
- 2600 Highlands Blvd N, Palm Harbor, Florida 34684
- CMS Provider Number
- 105394
- Inspections on file
- 24
- Latest survey
- February 23, 2026
- Citations (last 12 mo.)
- 6 (4 serious)
Citation history
Health deficiencies cited at Aviata At The Palms during CMS and state inspections, most recent first.
A resident with type 2 DM on sliding-scale insulin had numerous blood sugar readings above the ordered notification threshold over several months, yet there was no documentation that the physician was notified as required. The MAR showed repeated BSLs greater than 400 mg/dL, while the insulin order directed staff to notify the MD for values above this level. In interview, the DON acknowledged that nurses should have notified and documented physician contact for these out-of-parameter results, and that the existing orders still required notification despite an increase in the sliding scale range, contrary to the facility’s own notification-of-change policy.
A resident with functional quadriplegia, right-sided impairments, and a right-hand contracture was repeatedly observed in bed with the hand tightly flexed into the palm and no splint or support in place, and a positioning neck pillow not in use as intended. Records showed the resident had diagnoses including a healed right humerus fracture and Type 2 DM, and had been approved for PT/OT minutes, but staff interviews revealed that nursing, rehab, and restorative therapy each believed another discipline was responsible for managing the contracture and providing ROM. The resident was not on restorative caseload, had not been screened by rehab for the contracted hand, and was not receiving ROM from nursing, despite a facility policy requiring evaluation for contracture prevention on admission/readmission and ROM to inactive extremities as part of daily care.
The facility failed to follow physician orders for wound care and splint application for three residents. One resident's dressings were not changed as required, leading to soiled and undated dressings. Another resident did not receive the necessary dressing change for a leg wound, and a third resident's wound care orders were not implemented. Additionally, a resident's wrist splint was not applied as ordered, with inconsistent documentation of its use.
The facility failed to ensure the Dietary Manager met the minimum qualifications, as the current manager was not a Certified Dietary Manager (CDM) and lacked Servsafe certification. The Corporate Area Support Manager, who held the certification, was not a full-time employee and only visited occasionally, leaving the facility without a qualified full-time Dietary Manager.
A resident's right to self-determination was not honored as the facility failed to assist him out of bed despite his repeated requests. The resident, with intact cognition and healed wounds, remained in bed over several days due to staff's inability to coordinate the use of a Hoyer lift. The resident's care plan required assistance with transfers, which was not provided, leading to a deficiency in honoring his choices and rights.
A resident's request to change their code status to Full Code was not honored, despite discussions with the DSS and confirmation from the APRN. The resident's medical records incorrectly indicated a DNR status, and the DSS claimed no knowledge of the request. The facility's policy on Advanced Directives was not followed, leading to a deficiency.
The facility failed to maintain a clean and homelike environment in two resident rooms due to leaking air conditioning units. Despite work orders being created, the issues persisted for weeks, resulting in wet linen and musty odors. Staff interviews indicated that maintenance issues were reported electronically, but the NHA was unaware of the problems until the survey. The facility's policy for prompt maintenance action was not followed, leading to the deficiencies.
The facility failed to ensure accurate PASRR screenings for three residents with mental health diagnoses, resulting in the omission of necessary Level II evaluations. Despite having conditions like schizophrenia and dementia, the PASRR Level I Screens incorrectly indicated no need for further assessment. The Social Services Director confirmed the errors, and no Level II PASRRs were submitted, contrary to facility policy.
A resident admitted after a motor vehicle accident experienced inadequate discharge planning, with minimal assistance from the Social Service Director (SSD) and lack of coordination for necessary services. The resident had to personally manage insurance appeals and was discharged with insufficient preparation, leading to a return to the hospital. Facility documentation and policy indicated a failure to effectively execute interdisciplinary discharge planning.
The facility did not follow the pharmacist's recommendations for behavior monitoring for two residents on psychotropic medications. Despite care plans requiring monitoring for medication-related behaviors and side effects, the necessary actions were not taken. The DON acknowledged the oversight, which was contrary to the facility's policy on consultant pharmacist services.
Failure to Notify Physician of Repeated Critically High Blood Glucose Levels
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to notify the physician of blood sugar levels (BSLs) that were outside the ordered parameters for one resident with type 2 diabetes mellitus with hyperglycemia and diabetic peripheral angiopathy on long-term insulin therapy. The resident had a Novolog sliding scale insulin order specifying insulin doses for BSLs from 150 to 450 mg/dL and explicitly directing staff to notify the physician if the blood sugar was less than 70 or greater than 400. Review of the Medication Administration Records (MARs) for November 2025 through January 2026 showed multiple BSL readings above 400, including specific values such as 420, 423, 409, 440, 450, 412, 408, 413, and 436 in January alone. In December, the resident had BSLs above 400 on 19 out of 120 tests, and in November, on 32 out of 120 tests. Despite these repeated out-of-parameter BSLs, the resident’s medical record from November 2025 to January 2026 did not contain documentation that the physician was notified as required by the insulin order. During interview, the DON acknowledged that nurses should have documented notification of BSLs above 400 and stated that although the physician had increased the sliding scale to 450 because the resident’s baseline was higher, the instruction to notify the physician for BSLs greater than 400 had not been changed. The DON confirmed that, given how the current orders were written, there should have been documentation of physician notification when BSLs were above or below parameters. This practice was inconsistent with the facility’s “Notification of Change” policy, which requires prompt notification of the attending physician and resident representative when there is a need to alter treatment significantly or an exacerbation of a chronic condition, and requires documentation of such notifications in the medical record.
Failure to Provide ROM and Contracture Management for Resident With Functional Quadriplegia
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to provide appropriate care and services to maintain or improve range of motion for a resident with a right-hand contracture and functional quadriplegia. On multiple observations throughout the same day, the resident was seen lying in bed with the right hand in a contracted position, fingers touching the palm, without any splint or support in place. The resident was unable to verbally communicate but could respond by shaking his head. A neck pillow ordered for positioning was observed lying on top of the sheet over the resident’s stomach rather than being used for its intended purpose. The resident’s records showed an admission with diagnoses including an unspecified displaced fracture of the surgical neck of the right humerus with routine healing, Type 2 diabetes mellitus, right-side involvement, and functional quadriplegia. The MDS documented impairments on one side of the upper and lower extremities and no mobility devices. A therapy funding verification form showed the resident had been approved for PT and OT minutes. Interviews revealed that no discipline had assumed responsibility for managing the resident’s contracted hand or providing ROM as part of daily care. An LPN stated the resident was not receiving ROM or routine care from nursing for the contracted hand and believed therapy was responsible for contractures, explaining that therapy would screen and either continue services or refer to restorative therapy. The restorative therapy staff member confirmed the resident was not on the restorative caseload and had never been referred. The Rehab Director stated he had not screened the resident’s contracted hand and believed nursing was responsible for managing it. The DON stated the resident was admitted with a right-hand contracture and that nursing could not do anything for a contracted hand until therapy evaluated and educated nursing on splint management. The facility’s “Contractures, Prevention” policy required that each resident be evaluated for contracture prevention procedures on admission, readmission, and as needed, and specified that residents with inactive extremities should receive ROM to those extremities as part of daily care, which was not occurring for this resident.
Failure to Adhere to Physician Orders for Wound Care and Splint Application
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure proper dressing changes and adherence to physician orders for three residents. Resident #147 reported that his dressings on his hand and arm were not changed as required, leading to visibly soiled and undated dressings. The Treatment Administration Record (TAR) confirmed that several dressing changes were missed on specific dates, despite clear physician orders for daily care. Resident #47 also experienced a failure in receiving the necessary dressing change for a wound on his right lower leg, which was observed to be soiled and undated. The facility's policy required documentation of dressing changes, which was not adhered to in these cases. Resident #68's care was compromised as the facility did not implement the wound care orders provided by a Nurse Practitioner. The resident's right lower extremity, which had a venous wound, was observed without a dressing, and the prescribed treatment was not documented in the TAR. The facility's staff failed to apply the necessary dressings consistently, and the Director of Nursing acknowledged the lack of a PRN order for dressing changes, which should have been obtained. Additionally, the facility did not apply a wrist splint for Resident #37 as ordered. The splint was observed lying unused on the bedside dresser over several days, and the TAR showed inconsistent documentation of its application. The resident's care plan required the application of the splint to prevent complications from contractures, but there was a communication error regarding who was responsible for applying it. The Director of Nursing confirmed the lack of documentation on the resident's tolerance of the splint, indicating a failure to follow the prescribed care plan.
Dietary Manager Lacks Required Qualifications
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure that the Dietary Manager met the minimum qualifications for the position. During an interview, the Dietary Manager, identified as Staff B, admitted to not being a Certified Dietary Manager (CDM) and not having a Servsafe certification, although she planned to obtain it soon. Staff B had been working as the Dietary Manager since November 2023, but there was no verification of her qualifications for the role. The facility's records showed that Staff A, a Corporate Area Support Manager (CASM), held a Servsafe Certification, but he was not a full-time employee and was not listed on the facility's employee list as he worked for a contracting company and traveled between facilities. Interviews with the facility's Administrator and Human Service Director (HSD) revealed that Staff A, CASM, was not present daily and acted more as a problem solver, while Staff B was the designated Dietary Manager. The HSD could not confirm when Staff B officially became the Dietary Manager, noting that she was initially a cook when the HSD started working at the facility. This lack of clarity and failure to ensure the Dietary Manager met the necessary qualifications led to the deficiency identified by the surveyors.
Failure to Honor Resident's Right to Self-Determination
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to honor the resident's right to self-determination by not assisting Resident #81 out of bed despite repeated requests. Observations revealed that the resident remained in bed wearing a hospital gown over several days. Interviews with the resident indicated that he had asked for assistance to get out of bed daily, but staff did not comply, citing being too busy. The resident also expressed frustration over not being able to speak with the Director of Nursing as requested. The resident's cognitive status was intact, as indicated by a BIMS score of 15, and his care plan required assistance with transfers, which was not provided. Further investigation showed that the resident had been able to get out of bed with a Hoyer lift, but staff failed to coordinate this assistance. The Unit Manager confirmed that the resident was capable of getting out of bed and that his wounds had healed, yet the resident had not been assisted out of bed for the majority of the 14-day look-back period. The Regional Director of Operations acknowledged the difficulty in coordinating the Hoyer lift due to the absence of a Physical Therapy Assistant who could assist the resident alone. Despite the resident's ability to tolerate being out of bed for short periods, the facility did not facilitate this, resulting in a failure to honor the resident's choices and rights.
Failure to Honor Resident's Advance Directive Request
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to honor a resident's decision to formulate an advance directive and did not ensure a current copy of the Advance Directive was in the resident's medical record. A resident expressed a desire to be a Full Code and to change their Health Care Surrogate (HCS) after returning from the hospital. Despite discussions with the Director of Social Services (DSS) and confirmation from the Advanced Practice Registered Nurse (APRN) that the resident was a Full Code, the resident's medical records still indicated a Do Not Resuscitate (DNR) status. The resident repeatedly checked with nurses about the changes, but the DSS claimed to have no knowledge of the request to change the code status. Interviews with staff revealed that the resident had been asking to be a Full Code since returning from the hospital, and the Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) had informed the DSS of the resident's request. However, the DSS stated that the resident requested to change the HCS, which was completed, but denied knowledge of the request to change the code status. The Director of Nursing (DON) explained that the process for a code change should involve contacting the physician and ensuring all documents are in order. The facility's policy on Advanced Directives requires that such directives be honored and properly documented, but this was not adhered to in this case.
Failure to Maintain Clean and Homelike Environment Due to Leaking AC Units
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to maintain a clean and homelike environment in two resident rooms, as evidenced by observations of leaking air conditioning units. Work orders were created for these issues, but the problems persisted for several weeks. In one room, wet linen was observed under the Packaged Terminal Air Conditioner (PTAC), and the resident reported that the unit had been leaking for about a month. The room was described as muggy with a musty odor, and photographic evidence was obtained to document the conditions. Interviews with staff revealed that maintenance issues were reported through the facility's electronic building maintenance system. However, the Nursing Home Administrator (NHA) was unaware of the ongoing issues until they were brought to his attention during the survey. Despite the facility's policy requiring prompt action to address maintenance needs, the issues were not resolved in a timely manner, leading to the observed deficiencies in the residents' living environment.
Inaccurate PASRR Screenings for Residents
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure the accuracy of the Preadmission Screening and Resident Review (PASRR) and obtain a Level II screening when appropriate for three residents. Resident #44 was admitted with multiple mental health diagnoses, including paranoid schizophrenia and major depressive disorder. Despite these diagnoses, the PASRR Level I Screen indicated no suspicion of a serious mental illness or intellectual disability, and a Level II PASRR was not conducted. Observations and a psychiatry note indicated that Resident #44 was experiencing hallucinations and delusions, suggesting a need for a Level II evaluation. Resident #11 was admitted with diagnoses including dementia and paranoid schizophrenia. The PASRR Level I Screen incorrectly marked that there was no serious mental illness or intellectual disability, and a Level II PASRR was not required. Observations showed Resident #11 in bed and later eating lunch, but the PASRR documentation failed to reflect the resident's mental health needs accurately. Resident #46, diagnosed with dementia and a psychotic disorder, also had a PASRR Level I Screen that did not indicate the need for a Level II evaluation. The Social Services Director later confirmed that the PASRRs for Residents #11, #44, and #46 were marked incorrectly, and no Level II PASRRs had been submitted. The facility's policy requires that if a Level II screening is indicated after admission, Social Services must coordinate the screening, which was not done in these cases.
Failure in Discharge Planning for Resident
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to develop and implement an effective discharge plan for a resident who was admitted after a motor vehicle accident. The resident expressed that her discharge was not properly arranged, and she had to personally follow up on her insurance appeals. The Social Service Director (SSD) provided minimal assistance, and the resident was informed of her discharge with little notice and without adequate preparation. At discharge, the resident had to borrow a walker and was advised to visit the emergency room for a leg wound, as the wound care orders had changed just before discharge. Despite repeated attempts to contact the SSD and the Nursing Home Administrator (NHA) for assistance, the resident did not receive a response until after she was readmitted to the hospital. The facility's documentation revealed that the resident was given a Notice of Medicare Non-Coverage, which she appealed. The discharge plan was for the resident to return home with her spouse, but it was contingent on her ability to navigate stairs. The discharge summary indicated that the resident understood the instructions and was grateful for the care received, yet there was a lack of coordination for Durable Medical Equipment (DME) and Home Health Care (HHC) services. The SSD acknowledged the resident's multiple appeals and the request for discharge but could not provide additional documentation or details about the discharge planning process. The facility's policy required discharge planning to begin at admission and involve interdisciplinary coordination, which was not effectively executed in this case.
Failure to Implement Pharmacist Recommendations for Behavior Monitoring
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to follow the pharmacist's recommendations for behavior monitoring for two residents receiving psychotropic medications. Resident #76, diagnosed with bipolar disorder, was prescribed Trazodone 50 mg daily for depression. The resident's care plan, initiated on June 3, 2024, included monitoring for medication-related behaviors and side effects. However, the pharmacist's report dated June 7, 2024, recommended adding behavior monitoring for antidepressants, which was not implemented by August 7, 2024. Similarly, Resident #89, with diagnoses including major depressive, mood, and psychotic disorders, was prescribed multiple psychotropic medications, including Divalproex, Trazodone, and Citalopram. The care plan for this resident, initiated on August 6, 2024, also required monitoring for medication-related behaviors and side effects. Despite the pharmacist's recommendations, the facility did not initiate the necessary behavior monitoring by August 7, 2024. The Director of Nursing acknowledged that the pharmacist's recommendations for both residents were missed. The facility's policy on consultant pharmacist services, dated May 2022, outlines the requirement for regular and reliable pharmacist services, including assistance in identifying and evaluating medication-related issues.
Latest citations in Florida
Surveyors found that the facility failed to comply with 42 CFR 483.73(a) by not conducting the required annual review and update of its Emergency Preparedness (EP) plan. During record review, no documentation showed that the EP plan had been reviewed or updated within the past year, and the Administrator confirmed that the Emergency Management Plan had not been reviewed or revised as required.
Surveyors found that smoke/fire-rated enclosures were not properly maintained, with penetrations in smoke barriers in several general storage rooms across multiple smoke compartments. The Maintenance Director stated that insulation and fiberglass were used to pack and cover these holes but could not confirm that the materials were approved for fire-rated construction. Inspectors observed penetrations covered with fiberglass and noted a hole in one fiberglass panel in a storage room, resulting in a deficiency under NFPA 101 requirements for smoke barrier construction.
Surveyors found that fixed patient-care electrical equipment was not properly maintained or inspected in accordance with NFPA 99. In one room, a bedside remote had mismatched insulation and exposed wiring, and in another room, a call button receptacle had exposed low-voltage conductors. The Maintenance Director acknowledged both issues and reported that new bed remotes had been received but not yet installed.
Surveyors found that the facility failed to maintain a safe, clean, and homelike environment, with strong, persistent urine and feces odors noted throughout multiple halls and confirmed by staff. On two nursing units, hallways and resident rooms contained torn flooring, food debris, broken blinds, dirty and leaking toilets and sinks, rusted and corroded fixtures, missing outlet covers with oxygen concentrators plugged in, exposed light sockets, unmade and visibly soiled beds, and black, mold-like substances on walls and around toilet bases. Bathrooms had missing ceiling tiles, cracked door facings with brown stains, used briefs and torn toilet paper on floors, and toilets with brown or rust-like buildup. Outside, the patio and fencing area had broken and rotted railings, exposed rusted nails, fallen palm fronds, and overgrown vegetation, and the Administrator acknowledged the area was not safe for residents. Housekeeping and maintenance staff described daily cleaning and a work-order process, but the Maintenance Director reported being unaware of many of the observed issues, and the DON confirmed there was no specific environmental cleaning policy despite job descriptions and a general policy requiring a safe, sanitary, and comfortable environment.
A resident exited the building through a bedroom window, walked off the property, and was observed and redirected by staff with assistance from law enforcement, who encountered the resident down the road and helped escort the resident back. The facility’s internal documentation lacked staff or witness statements and characterized the event as the resident remaining on facility grounds without injury. Despite the resident’s account, a police report, and a maintenance staff report confirming that the resident left the premises and that law enforcement responded, the DON did not report the incident to required state and federal agencies, even though the DON acknowledged that any incident involving law enforcement response must be reported.
A resident with moderate cognitive impairment and a history of stroke was repeatedly observed over several days in visibly soiled clothing and bedding, with a strong urine odor, despite stating multiple times that he had requested assistance with changing and hygiene. Documentation indicated he was independent with toileting and personal hygiene and only occasionally incontinent, but his care plan lacked detail on the level of assistance needed, while an LPN reported he actually required staff help with bathing, grooming, toileting, and care. Laundry practices involved leaving clean, labeled clothing bagged in the linen room for nursing staff to distribute rather than returning it directly to rooms, and the DON reported that staff were expected to round every two hours and as needed to keep residents clean and dry, although there were no written ADL or resident care policies in place.
Surveyors observed four full O2 cylinders on one nursing unit stored unsecured directly on the floor under a sign labeled "FULL CYLINDERS" instead of in a secured storage rack. The ADON confirmed the cylinders were full and should not be on the ground. Reference to NFPA 99 showed that freestanding cylinders must be protected from damage and properly chained or supported in a stand or cart. The DON and Maintenance Director both acknowledged that O2 cylinders are required to be stored in a secure rack, should never be on the floor, and that unsecured cylinders on the floor present a safety risk.
A resident with multiple cardiopulmonary conditions and a documented full code status was found unresponsive without pulse or respirations during the night shift. A CNA notified the RN, who either instructed CNAs to clean and cover the resident or, per her and an LPN’s account, called a code blue and performed CPR with the LPN for about 20 minutes before stopping, without calling 911. The RN believed the resident was on hospice and did not verify code status, then notified the DON, provider, and family instead of EMS. Several hours later, after the DON called the facility and asked whether 911 had been contacted, the RN called 911 and briefly reinitiated CPR shortly before EMS arrived and pronounced the resident deceased, documenting postmortem changes. The facility’s investigation and root cause analysis found that staff failed to follow policy requiring immediate EMS activation and continuous CPR for full code residents until EMS arrival, leading to an Immediate Jeopardy finding.
A resident with full code status was found unresponsive without respirations or pulse during the night shift. An RN and an LPN initiated CPR but did not activate EMS, and they discontinued CPR after about 20 minutes. The RN, who lacked documented orientation and competency assessment and had obtained BLS certification through a fully online, non–instructor-led course, pronounced the resident deceased without authority and later stated she believed the resident was on hospice and did not verify code status. The LPN’s BLS certification was expired, and a CNA with an expired BLS certification performed several chest compressions despite facility policy that CNAs were not to perform CPR. The RN had not participated in documented code blue drills, and leadership confirmed that required clinical orientation and skills competencies had not been completed for her, leading surveyors to determine that staff were not adequately trained or competent to respond to a cardiopulmonary arrest for a full code resident, resulting in an Immediate Jeopardy finding.
Surveyors found multiple instances of improper use of relocatable power taps (RPTs) and extension cords during a facility tour with the Maintenance Director. In the social services office, an RPT was plugged into another RPT connected to a wall outlet, with the cord running across a walkway and taped to the floor. In the multipurpose room, a television was plugged into an extension cord, and in the MDS office, an RPT was plugged into another RPT with an outlet adapter in use. These conditions did not comply with NFPA 101, NFPA 99, and NFPA 70 standards governing electrical equipment, power strips, and extension cords.
Failure to Annually Review and Update Emergency Preparedness Plan
Penalty
Summary
Surveyors identified a deficiency related to the facility’s Emergency Preparedness (EP) Program under 42 CFR 483.73(a). During record review at 4:00 PM, surveyors examined the facility’s EP documentation and found no evidence that the emergency preparedness plan had been reviewed or updated on an annual basis as required. The regulation mandates that LTC facilities develop and maintain an emergency preparedness plan that is reviewed and updated at least annually to comply with applicable Federal, State, and local emergency preparedness requirements. In an interview, the Administrator acknowledged that the facility’s Emergency Management Plan had not been reviewed or updated. No documentation was provided to show that the required annual review and update of the EP plan had occurred. The deficiency is based solely on the lack of documented annual review and update of the emergency preparedness plan by facility administration; no specific resident cases or clinical events were described in the report.
Plan Of Correction
Preparation and/or execution of the Plan of Correction does not constitute admission or agreement of the provider of the truth of the 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 provision of Federal and State law. Facility EP was reviewed and signed off on by the DON, Maintenance Director and Administrator. The facility has determined that all residents have the potential to be affected. An in-service education program will be conducted by the administrator. The administrator will conduct monthly random checks to verify completed documentation.
Improper Repair of Smoke Barrier Penetrations in Multiple Smoke Compartments
Penalty
Summary
Surveyors identified a deficiency in the facility’s maintenance of smoke/fire-rated enclosures, specifically related to penetrations in smoke barriers in multiple smoke compartments. During an interview, the Maintenance Director reported that insulation was used to pack holes and then covered with fiberglass in general storage rooms in smoke compartments 1, 2, and 3, but was unable to confirm whether these materials were approved for use in fire-rated walls. Subsequent observation showed that the penetrations were indeed covered with fiberglass, and one general storage room in smoke compartment 2 had a hole in one of the fiberglass panels. The report states that this failure to properly maintain penetrations through smoke/fire-rated construction could allow smoke and flammable gases to spread to other areas and cause the smoke/fire-rated construction to fail to perform as designed.
Failure to Maintain and Inspect Patient-Care Electrical Equipment
Penalty
Summary
Surveyors identified a deficiency in the facility’s compliance with NFPA 99 requirements for testing and maintaining fixed patient-care electrical equipment. During an observation in one resident room, the bedside remote was found to have two different types of insulation and exposed wiring. In another resident room, the call button receptacle was observed with exposed low-voltage conductors. These conditions were noted during a survey of two of six smoke compartments. During an interview conducted at the time of the observations, the Maintenance Director stated that the facility had just received a new shipment of bed remotes and had not yet replaced the existing ones. The Maintenance Director also acknowledged the issue with the exposed conductors at the call button receptacle. The surveyors cited this as a failure to properly inspect and maintain fixed patient care electrical equipment in accordance with NFPA 99 (2012 Edition), sections 10.3 and 10.5.2.1.
Widespread Odors and Environmental Disrepair in Resident Care Areas
Penalty
Summary
Surveyors identified that the facility failed to provide a safe, clean, comfortable, and homelike environment as required by 42 CFR 483.10(i). Upon entrance to the building on multiple days, surveyors noted a strong, pungent odor of urine and feces throughout the facility, with the odor particularly strong on the 200, 300, and 400 halls. Staff interviews confirmed that the building "usually smells like" urine, and staff attributed the odor to residents defecating and urinating on the floor, an old building structure, and cleaning products that sanitize but do not deodorize. Housekeeping staff reported that they clean resident rooms daily but that nursing staff must first clean fecal and urine waste before housekeeping can sanitize, and delays by nursing staff in doing so postponed housekeeping’s ability to address the odors. On the 300 unit, surveyors observed multiple environmental and sanitation issues in resident rooms and bathrooms. The hallway had torn flooring, food particles, and a butter knife on the floor. Individual rooms had food debris, a straw on the floor, and broken blinds. Bathrooms contained dark brown stains on walls, rusted ceiling tile trim, toilets with brownish substances inside, and wet floors around toilets. Trim was missing around toilet bases, exposing a black, mold-like substance. Corroded and rusted sink faucet handles, leaking faucets, rusted pipes under sinks with buildup of corrosion, and rusted sprinklers were observed. Some toilets and three-in-one commodes had duct tape on them, and bathroom walls had black, mold-like substances. Doors and door facings showed rust, scrape marks, chipped and peeling paint, and exposed wood. In some rooms, electrical outlets had no covers while oxygen concentrators were plugged into them, boards covered windows, light fixtures over beds lacked covers with sockets exposed, and one fixture had only one bulb. A resident bed appeared dirty with a black substance on it, and dresser drawers were broken with drawer fronts on the floor. On the 400 unit, surveyors again noted a strong odor of urine upon entry and found additional environmental deficiencies. Bathrooms had missing ceiling tiles, broken emergency light covers with no pull strings, and toilet tank covers that did not fit properly, exposing the inside of the tank. In one bathroom, torn toilet paper and used briefs were lying in the corner of the floor, and toilets had brown, rust-like substances inside the bowls. Door facings appeared cracked with brown substances along the sides, and toilets had brownish-black buildup around the bases with broken, peeling trim. Light bases on walls had rust-like appearances, multiple rooms had broken or missing blinds, and some outlets lacked covers while oxygen concentrators were plugged into them. Some rooms had unmade beds, exposed wires at outlets, toilets with dark brown-black rings around the base and flooring, uncovered light fixtures, leaking sinks with rusted pipes, loose flooring, loose toilet seats, and dry red substances on door frames. Surveyors also observed deficiencies in the outdoor patio area adjacent to the locked unit. The gate code was broken, and a resident lock was placed on the gate. The patio and surrounding fencing had fallen palm fronds on the grass, broken and rotted wooden fence railings, unsteady railings, and multiple exposed rusted nails protruding from the railings where boards were broken or detached. Overgrown trees and bushes from the perimeter extended through the fence railings. When asked, the Administrator acknowledged that the area was not safe for residents and stated that they planned to have it redone in the future. The Maintenance Director reported that he and one other maintenance person relied on work orders and verbal reports to identify needed repairs and stated he was not aware of the specific room and equipment issues on the 300 and 400 units. Housekeeping staff stated they would report broken items via a work order book or text to maintenance, but one housekeeper, who cleaned the 400 unit daily, denied noticing stains or biohazard-like materials on walls and door frames despite the surveyors’ observations. Review of facility documents showed that the housekeeper job description required staff to maintain assigned work areas in a clean, safe, comfortable, and attractive manner and to report maintenance problems noted during cleaning. A facility policy titled "Policies and Practices - Control" stated that the facility must maintain a safe, sanitary, and comfortable environment for personnel, residents, visitors, and the public. The DON stated that blinds had been changed out and new cabinets and door handles purchased, and that staff were directed to use standard precautions when cleaning rooms, but also stated there was no policy specific to cleaning the environment. These observations and interviews demonstrated that the facility did not maintain sanitary, orderly, and comfortable interior conditions, did not adequately control offensive odors, and did not ensure that the physical environment, including resident rooms, bathrooms, and outdoor areas, was maintained in a safe, clean, and homelike condition as required by regulation.
Failure to Report Elopement Incident Involving Law Enforcement
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to report an elopement incident to required state and federal agencies as mandated by 42 CFR 483.12(c). On the referenced date, Resident #5 exited the building through his bedroom window around 12:15 PM and walked across the facility property toward the perimeter fence. A CNA observed the resident outside and called for assistance, after which staff redirected and escorted the resident back into the building and placed him on one-to-one supervision. The facility’s internal incident documentation noted the window exit and subsequent maintenance inspection of the window seals but did not include any staff or witness statements. The DON later stated that the resident never left facility grounds and was returned without injury, and therefore the incident was not considered reportable. However, interviews and external records showed that the resident did leave the facility premises and that law enforcement was involved. Resident #5 recalled being outside the facility, being brought back by staff and a “police man,” and being told by the officer not to leave again. A police report from the local police department confirmed an encounter with the resident outside the facility and that an officer assisted staff in escorting him back. Maintenance staff (Staff G) also reported that the resident climbed out the window, left the facility property, and was stopped “down the road,” then redirected back with law enforcement assistance. In interviews, the DON initially denied that law enforcement had been notified or involved, then later acknowledged that law enforcement had responded but asserted they did not come into the facility. The DON also confirmed awareness that any incident in which law enforcement investigates or responds is required to be reported, yet the elopement and law enforcement involvement were not reported to the State Survey Agency or other required officials within the required time frames.
Failure to Provide Timely ADL and Hygiene Care to a Dependent Resident
Penalty
Summary
Surveyors found that the facility failed to provide necessary ADL care, including grooming and hygiene, to a dependent resident over multiple days. The resident was repeatedly observed in visibly soiled clothing with a strong odor of urine, first standing in his doorway holding onto a wheelchair with wet navy pants saturated down to his calves, stating he had been waiting for staff to change his clothes. More than an hour later the same day, he remained in the same soiled pants and shirt while seated in a wheelchair near the nurses’ station. The following day, he was again observed wearing the same soiled clothes, smelling of urine, with his shirt stained with food and a dark liquid. His room had a strong urine odor, his bed was soiled with urine, and only two pairs of pants were seen on a chair with no other clothing available in the room. On a subsequent observation, he was seated on the edge of his bed wearing different pants and no shirt, with yellow-stained sheets beneath him and his previously soiled clothes on the floor; he reported that he had requested assistance but no staff had come, so he changed himself. Record review showed the resident had a history of stroke and repeated unspecified conditions, with a recent Quarterly MDS indicating moderate cognitive impairment (BIMS score of 10). The MDS documented him as independent for toileting, showering, personal hygiene, and related ADLs, and only occasionally incontinent, but his care plan did not specify the level of assistance he required for incontinence care and other ADLs. In contrast, an LPN familiar with the resident stated he required staff assistance with bathing, grooming, toileting, and care, and that he did not refuse such assistance and appropriately requested help. The LPN also explained that personal clothing was laundered at the facility and left bagged in the linen room for nursing staff to distribute, rather than being returned directly to resident rooms. The DON stated that staff were expected to follow best practices, including rounding every two hours and as needed to keep residents clean and dry, and acknowledged that all residents required some level of assistance with ADLs. The DON further stated the facility had no written ADL, resident care, or quality of care policies, despite these expectations.
Unsecured Storage of Full Oxygen Cylinders on Nursing Unit
Penalty
Summary
Surveyors found that the facility failed to ensure safe storage of oxygen cylinders on the West 1 unit. At 9:03 a.m., four full oxygen cylinders were observed stored unsecured directly on the ground rather than in the designated secured cylinder storage rack, under a sign labeled "FULL CYLINDERS." Photographic evidence was obtained of this condition. At 9:18 a.m., the ADON confirmed that the four cylinders were full and acknowledged they should not be stored on the ground. Review of NFPA 99 (2021) 11.6.2.3(11) indicated that cylinders must be protected from damage and that freestanding cylinders must be properly chained or supported in a proper stand or cart. Later that day, the DON stated that oxygen cylinders should be stored in a secure rack and never directly on the ground, and acknowledged that unsecured cylinders on the floor were a safety risk. The Maintenance Director also confirmed that oxygen cylinders should be in a secure rack and never stored directly on the ground, stating that cylinders stored on the floor can tip over and cause damage. These observations and interviews demonstrated noncompliance with regulatory and NFPA standards for safe storage of oxygen cylinders.
Plan Of Correction
This plan of correction constitutes a written allegation of compliance for the deficiency cited. Submission of this plan of correction is not an admission that the deficiency exists or that one was cited correctly. This plan of correction is submitted to meet the requirements established by the State and Federal law. The four unsecured [R] cylinders on the West 1 unit were secured. The Nursing Department completed a baseline audit of [R] cylinder storage within the facility to ensure all [R] cylinders were secured and stored properly. Ongoing education will be completed with current facility staff regarding the facility's [R] storage policy and procedure; and will be completed during new hire and agency orientation to the facility by ADON/designee. Audits will be completed by the Director of Nursing/designee regarding adherence to the facility's [R] storage policy and procedure twice weekly x 4 weeks, then weekly x 4 weeks, then monthly x 4 months, or until continued substantial compliance has been met. Results of audits will be reported to the QAPI Committee on a monthly basis by the Director of Nursing/designee.
Failure to Provide Required CPR and Activate EMS for Full Code Resident
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to provide immediate and appropriate basic life support, including CPR, to a resident with a documented full code status when the resident was found unresponsive. The resident had diagnoses including a slow-progressing circulatory condition involving narrowing or blockage of vessels, a condition that restricts airflow and makes breathing difficult, and other listed conditions. The physician’s order specified “Full Code,” and the care plan documented that the resident was under court-ordered guardianship with wishes honored as full code. The facility’s policy required that in the event of cardiac or respiratory arrest, staff immediately call for assistance, overhead page a code, begin CPR in the absence of a valid DNR, and continue CPR until EMS assumes responsibility or the resident responds. On the night of the incident at approximately 2:00–2:07 a.m., a CNA found the resident unresponsive in bed and notified the RN on duty. One CNA’s written statement indicated that the RN said she already knew the resident was going to die and instructed the CNA to clean and cover the resident. Another CNA’s account stated that the RN came to the room, took vital signs, and then instructed her to clean the resident. The RN’s own written statement and interview indicated that she called a code blue, that an LPN brought the crash cart, and that they performed CPR for approximately 20 minutes. The LPN’s statement corroborated that a code blue was called, that he brought the crash cart, and that CPR was performed for about 20 minutes before the RN stopped and stated that the resident was gone or words to that effect. The RN acknowledged that the resident had no vital signs but was warm and not responding, and she stated that she believed the resident was on hospice and therefore did not call 911. After CPR was discontinued, the RN did not activate EMS and instead notified the DON, the provider, and the resident’s family. The DON documented receiving a message from the RN that the resident had no pulse and no blood pressure and that the assigned nurse had initiated CPR but was unable to revive the resident. The DON later received a text from the RN that the resident had expired. The DON stated that at approximately 6:00 a.m. she called the facility and asked if 911 had been called, and upon learning it had not, she instructed the RN to call 911. The RN then reinitiated CPR at around 6:00 a.m., approximately four hours after the resident was first found without pulse or respirations, and stated that they tried to do something until EMS arrived because EMS had to see them doing CPR. EMS records showed activation at 6:18 a.m., arrival at 6:27 a.m., and pronouncement of death at 6:31 a.m., with documentation that CPR was not attempted by EMS because it was considered futile and that the resident exhibited postmortem changes. The Medical Director confirmed that the resident was full code and stated that staff should have started CPR and called 911 and that CPR should not be done four hours after a resident is pronounced dead. The facility’s investigation and a root cause analysis concluded that the RN and LPN did not follow the facility’s established policy and procedure to call 911 and administer CPR to a full code resident until EMS arrival. The root cause was identified as the nurse’s belief that the resident was on hospice and her failure to check the resident’s code status as outlined in facility policy. The surveyors determined that the failure to immediately activate EMS and to continue CPR until EMS arrival for this full code resident constituted noncompliance with the requirement to provide basic life support and resulted in an Immediate Jeopardy determination.
Plan Of Correction
This plan of correction is submitted as required under Federal and State regulations and statutes applicable to long term care providers. This plan of correction does not constitute an admission of liability on the part of the facility, and such liability is hereby specifically denied. The submission of this plan does not constitute agreement by the facility that the surveyors' findings or conclusions are accurate, that the findings constitute a deficiency, or that the scope or severity regarding any of these deficiencies cited are correctly applied. Resident #1 no longer resides in the facility as of 4.7.26. This has the potential to affect all residents in the facility. All codes to 1.1.26 were reviewed to ensure protocol was followed. No outliers were noted. All licensed nurses received education from the Director of Nursing and/or nursing management on [R] policy and procedure and Florida [R] policy. This includes where to find the code status. Education addressed what to do for full code hospice residents. Education completed with CNA's that protocol is that they do not assist with [R] or breaths during a [R] event. All education will be added to new hire orientation. Code drills will occur 3 x weekly x 4 weeks, followed by 2 x weekly x 4 weeks, followed by 1 x weekly x 4 weeks. Results will be brought to QAPI to determine need for ongoing auditing.
Removal Plan
- Educated licensed nurses on CPR policy and procedure and Florida Do Not Resuscitate (DNRO) policy, including where to find code status and what to do for full code hospice residents; emphasized initiating emergency services immediately when resident is full code, continuing CPR until EMS arrives, and that nurses cannot pronounce death or stop CPR on a full code resident unless instructed by EMS.
- Implemented emergency response “Code Blue” drills on all three shifts, including full code and full code hospice scenarios, with emphasis on calling 911 immediately.
- Educated licensed nurses and CNAs on the facility abuse and neglect policy, including resident rights.
- Required licensed nurses to complete a CPR post-test; restricted staff who have not completed education/testing from working until completion.
- Educated licensed nurses regarding change in condition.
- Placed laminated instructions on how to overhead page during a code at all nursing station phones and other designated phones.
- Held a Quality Improvement Performance Committee meeting to review root cause analysis findings and approve recommendations.
- Held a Quality Improvement Performance Committee meeting to review progress of the plan and approve recommendations.
- Completed a “like resident” audit of all expired residents and rehospitalizations for a defined period to determine whether involved staff were the same as the code event and whether proper procedure was followed.
Failure to Provide Competent CPR Response and Verify Code Status for Full Code Resident
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to ensure that nursing staff possessed and demonstrated the competencies required to respond appropriately to a cardiopulmonary emergency for a resident with full code status. Resident #1, who was designated as full code, was found unresponsive and without respirations or pulse at approximately 2:07 a.m. Clinical staff, consisting of an RN (Staff A) and an LPN (Staff B), initiated CPR but did not activate Emergency Medical Services (EMS) as required by facility policy for a full code resident. After approximately 20 minutes of CPR, the RN and LPN stopped resuscitation efforts without EMS involvement. The RN, without authority to do so, pronounced the resident deceased based on the absence of vital signs and did not verify the resident’s code status before discontinuing CPR. The RN later stated she believed the resident was on hospice and therefore did not call 911, and that she was confused about which residents were hospice and which were full code. The LPN reported that he assumed the RN had called 911 and continued CPR for about 20 minutes until the RN “called the code” and left, and he acknowledged that he knew CPR should continue until EMS arrival but did not speak up. Four hours after CPR was stopped, at approximately 6:00 a.m., the RN restarted CPR and activated EMS after receiving instructions from the DON. The investigation further identified that the RN had no documented orientation, onboarding education, or skills competency assessments since hire, despite being promoted to weekend supervisor. Her BLS certification had been obtained through a fully online course without an instructor or live feedback. The LPN’s BLS certification was expired, and a CNA who performed several chest compressions also had an expired BLS certification, even though facility policy did not permit CNAs to perform CPR. Facility records showed that monthly code blue drills had been conducted, but there was no documentation that the RN had ever participated in these drills. Leadership interviews confirmed that required clinical orientation and competency evaluations had not been completed for the RN, and that she had failed tests for a clinical manager position but was nonetheless functioning in a supervisory role. These actions and omissions led surveyors to determine that staff were not adequately trained or competent to respond to cardiopulmonary arrest for residents with full code status, resulting in an Immediate Jeopardy determination. The facility’s own root cause analysis, as reflected in meeting minutes, identified that the nurse did not check the resident’s code status and lacked knowledge about when CPR could be discontinued and when 911 should be called. The analysis documented that the nurse believed the resident was hospice and therefore did not start or continue CPR appropriately or call EMS when the resident was found without respirations and pulse. The facility assessment tool and policies referenced the need for staff training and competencies in identifying changes in condition, end-of-life care, advance care planning, and adherence to the CPR policy, but the documented events showed that these expectations were not met in practice for the staff involved in this incident. Surveyors concluded that the failure to ensure nursing staff were trained and competent to respond appropriately to cardiopulmonary arrest for a full code resident, including immediate initiation and continuation of CPR and activation of EMS, constituted noncompliance with requirements for sufficient and competent nursing staff. The failure affected Resident #1 and placed other full code residents at risk, leading to an Immediate Jeopardy finding that was later reduced in scope and severity after verification of an acceptable Immediate Jeopardy removal plan.
Plan Of Correction
This plan of correction is submitted as required under Federal and State regulations and statutes applicable to long term care providers. This plan of correction does not constitute an admission of liability on the part of the facility, and such liability is hereby specifically denied. The submission of this plan does not constitute agreement by the facility that the surveyors' findings or conclusions are accurate, that the findings constitute a deficiency, or that the scope or severity regarding any of these deficiencies cited are correctly applied Resident # 1 no longer resides in the facility as of 4.7.26. This has the potential to affect all residents in the facility. All licensed nurses were audited to ensure current [R] certification. Facility will ensure [R] certification through a [R] provider whose training includes a [R] on session either in a physical or virtual instructor-led setting in accordance with accepted national standards. Human resources, or designee, will audit monthly to ensure all licensed nurses have a current [R] certification.Education was completed with licensed nurses on initiating [R] services immediately when a resident is full code. Education included that [R] is to continue on a full code resident until [R] arrives and that the nurse cannot pronounce [R] on the full code resident and/or stop [R] until instructed by [R].Education will be added to new hire orientation.7 random licensed nurses will complete a knowledge quiz related to code events. Per week x 4 weeks, followed by 5 nurses x 4 weeks, then 3 nurses x 4 weeks. Results will be brought to QAPI to determine need for ongoing auditing.
Removal Plan
- Regional Director of Clinical Services educated the Administrator and Director of Nursing regarding the CPR policy and the need to immediately contact emergency medical services (911) in the event of a full code; Administrator and DON signed the education
- Regional Director of Clinical Services provided documented education to the Administrator and Director of Nursing regarding the CPR policy and the need to immediately contact emergency medical services (911) in the event of a full code
- Director of Nursing and/or nursing management educated all licensed nurses on the CPR policy and procedure, including where to find code status and what to do for full code hospice residents
- Reinforced through education that CPR must be initiated immediately for full code residents, continued until EMS arrives, and that nurses cannot pronounce death or stop CPR on a full code resident unless instructed by EMS
- Conducted an Ad Hoc Quality Improvement Performance Committee meeting to review root cause analysis recommendations related to the incident; recommendations approved
- Conducted a follow-up Ad Hoc Quality Improvement Performance Committee meeting to review progress on the plan; recommendations approved
Improper Use of Power Strips and Extension Cords in Multiple Facility Areas
Penalty
Summary
Surveyors identified deficiencies related to the use and maintenance of relocatable power taps (RPTs) and extension cords that did not comply with NFPA 101, NFPA 99, and NFPA 70 requirements. During a facility tour conducted between 11:00 a.m. and 3:30 p.m. with the Maintenance Director, surveyors observed in the social services office an RPT plugged into another RPT, which was then plugged into a wall outlet, with the cord running across a walkway and taped to the floor. In the multipurpose room, a television was found plugged into an extension cord, contrary to standards that prohibit using extension cords as a substitute for fixed wiring and require temporary extensions to be removed immediately after use. Further observations included the MDS office, where an RPT was plugged into another RPT and an outlet adapter was in use. These configurations did not meet the NFPA 99 provisions governing the proper use of power strips and extension cords, including requirements that power strips be appropriately rated and used only as intended, and that extension cords not be used as permanent wiring. During concurrent interviews, the Maintenance Director acknowledged these findings as they were observed by the surveyors.
Plan Of Correction
The RPT observed plugged into an RPT plugged into an outlet in the Social Services Office was removed. The extension cord used to plug in the television in the multipurpose room was removed. The RPT plugged into an RPT and outlet adapter in the MDS office was removed. Additional offices and resident care areas will be reviewed for the improper use of plug adapters, power strips and extension. The Executive Director/designee will educate the Maintenance Director on the importance of NFPA 101 Electrical Equipment- Power and Extension specific to the improper use of plug adapters, power strips, and extension and will continue to monitor in accordance with NFPA standards. Any findings will be reported to the monthly QAPI Committee for further review. The RPT observed plugged into an RPT plugged into an outlet in the Social Services Office was removed. The extension cord used to plug in the television in the multipurpose room was removed. The RPT plugged into an RPT and outlet adapter in the MDS office was removed. Additional offices and resident care areas will be reviewed for the improper use of plug adapters, power strips and extension. The Executive Director/designee will educate the Maintenance Director on the importance of NFPA 101 Electrical Equipment - Power and Extension specific to the improper use of plug adapters, power strips, and extension and will continue to monitor in accordance with NFPA standards. Any findings will be reported to the monthly QAPI Committee for further review.
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.



