Aviata At West Palm Beach
Inspection history, citations, penalties and survey trends for this long-term care facility in West Palm Beach, Florida.
- Location
- 5065 Wallis Road, West Palm Beach, Florida 33415
- CMS Provider Number
- 105558
- Inspections on file
- 22
- Latest survey
- March 13, 2026
- Citations (last 12 mo.)
- 18 (2 serious)
Citation history
Health deficiencies cited at Aviata At West Palm Beach during CMS and state inspections, most recent first.
A resident who was cognitively intact, on hospice, and documented as full code with a tracheostomy and feeding tube was found unresponsive by a CNA, who notified the assigned RN. The RN confirmed the resident had no respirations or vital signs but did not verify code status, assumed the resident was DNR because of hospice enrollment, and did not initiate CPR or call 911, instead contacting the physician and hospice. Another RN later saw on the electronic record that the deceased resident was full code, informed the first RN, but did not report the situation to administration. The facility’s abuse/neglect policy defined neglect as failure to provide necessary services and failure to report suspected neglect, and the failure to perform CPR on a full-code resident and to report the incident was determined to be neglect and Immediate Jeopardy.
A resident with documented full code status, including a care plan and physician order, was found unresponsive by a CNA, who notified the assigned RN. The RN assessed the resident, found no breathing or vital signs, but did not verify code status, did not initiate CPR, and did not call 911, instead assuming the resident was DNR because the resident was on hospice and contacting the physician and hospice. A second RN later observed on the computer that the resident was full code and informed the first RN but did not report the situation further. Facility policy required verification of advanced directives and initiation of CPR in the absence of a DNR, and leadership confirmed that these expectations were not followed, resulting in noncompliance with F678 related to basic life support and honoring advanced directives.
A resident with paraplegia and a history of recurrent UTIs did not receive prescribed monthly catheter changes or antibiotic therapy as documented in their care plan. Records showed no evidence of these interventions being provided or refused over several months. The resident later developed symptoms of infection, was evaluated by a provider, and was subsequently hospitalized for UTI and suspected urosepsis.
The facility failed to maintain sanitary conditions in the kitchen, with issues such as improper food cooling, personal items on prep surfaces, and inadequate hand hygiene. Observations included a personal cellular device on a prep table, food residue on equipment, and improper handling of food and drinks by staff.
A resident with multiple medical conditions, including end-stage renal disease and difficulty walking, did not receive timely toenail care, resulting in discomfort and the inability to wear shoes. Despite an order for podiatry care upon admission, the resident's toenails were long and painful, and staff interviews revealed a lack of clarity and follow-through regarding responsibility for nail care. The resident reported asking for assistance over two months without resolution, and a new podiatry consult was only ordered after a surveyor's interview.
A resident with Guillain-Barre Syndrome and other conditions requested ROM exercises to prevent weakness but did not receive them. Despite a physician's order for physical therapy, the resident had not received therapy or ROM exercises recently. The resident communicated her request to the MDS Coordinator, but no action was taken, and the Director of Rehabilitation was unaware of the request.
A resident with a PICC line was found to have an unchanged dressing since admission, despite facility policy requiring regular changes. The MAR inaccurately recorded dressing changes, which the DON confirmed did not occur, indicating a failure in maintaining sanitary conditions for the resident's PICC line.
A resident with ESRD and moderate cognitive impairment was not properly managed for fluid restrictions, leading to excessive fluid intake. Despite a care plan limiting fluids to 1000 ml per day, staff inconsistencies and communication gaps resulted in the resident frequently receiving more fluids than allowed. The situation was exacerbated by the resident's non-compliance and the facility's inability to effectively enforce the restrictions.
Failure to Honor Full Code Status and Initiate CPR for Hospice Resident
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to honor a resident’s full code status and to provide ordered emergency care/CPR when the resident was found unresponsive. The resident was cognitively intact, had a tracheostomy and a feeding tube, required substantial/maximal assistance with activities of daily living, and was receiving hospice services. The resident’s care plan and physician’s orders documented an advanced directive of full code. Despite this, when the resident was found without chest rise and without vital signs, no CPR or emergency services were initiated. On the night of the incident, a CNA working the 11P–7A shift found the resident unresponsive during initial rounds and immediately notified the RN assigned to the resident. The CNA then continued with her rounds. The RN assessed the resident, determined that the resident was not breathing and had no vital signs, but did not check the resident’s chart or electronic record for code status. The RN assumed the resident was a DNR because the resident was on hospice, and therefore did not initiate CPR or call 911. Instead, the RN called the physician, who instructed her to call hospice, and hospice was notified. A hospice nurse was dispatched, and post-mortem care was provided. The RN documented that the resident was found with no chest rising and no vital signs, that hospice was called, and that post-mortem care was provided, but did not document any attempt at CPR. Another RN on the same 7P–7A shift returned from break around 12:30 AM and saw a hospice chaplain at the nurses’ station and the first RN charting. When he inquired, he was told that the resident had died. He observed on the computer screen that the resident was a full code and informed the first RN of this. Despite recognizing that the resident was a full code, he did not report the situation to anyone, continued his shift, and left the facility without notifying administration. The facility’s Regional Nurse Consultant later discovered, during chart audits of discharged residents, that no CPR had been performed on a resident with full code status and notified the Administrator. The Administrator, who also served as Abuse Coordinator, confirmed with the first RN that CPR and 911 had not been initiated. The facility’s abuse and neglect policy defined neglect as failure to provide necessary goods and services to avoid physical harm, pain, mental anguish, or emotional distress, and included failure to report observed or suspected abuse or neglect as an example of neglect. The failure to perform CPR on a full-code resident and the failure of staff to report the incident to administration were identified as neglect. The Immediate Jeopardy began when the resident was found unresponsive and no CPR or emergency services were initiated, despite the resident’s documented full code status. The facility’s own review and interviews established that the RN responsible for the resident did not verify code status and acted on an assumption based solely on the resident’s hospice enrollment. Additionally, the second RN, after learning that the deceased resident was a full code, did not report the occurrence to administration or take further action. These inactions, in the context of the facility’s abuse and neglect policy and the resident’s clearly documented wishes and orders, led to the determination of neglect and Immediate Jeopardy related to failure to provide basic life support according to physician’s orders and advanced directives.
Removal Plan
- Provided individualized training to the involved registered nurse on the Florida Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation Policy, emphasizing steps to take when a resident is unresponsive.
- Suspended the involved registered nurse pending investigation.
- Terminated the involved registered nurse’s employment.
- Verified all current licensed nurses have active BLS/CPR certification cards.
- Conducted code blue drills, education, and post-testing for all licensed nurses.
- Completed an audit of Advanced Directive Discussion forms to ensure resident code status reflects and honors resident wishes.
- Held an ad hoc QAPI Committee meeting to review root cause analysis recommendations.
- Developed and initiated a Performance Improvement Plan based on the root cause analysis identifying failure to follow the Advanced Directive Policy and Procedure.
- Initiated code drills until all current nursing staff participated.
- Provided education to the second nurse who identified the code status regarding the importance of reporting the incident to facility administration.
- Initiated licensed nurse education on CPR policy and procedure, Advanced Directives policy and procedure, Abuse and Neglect, and the requirement to report neglect to administration, with post-testing and participation in code blue drills to validate competency.
- Educated all employees on the Abuse and Neglect policy and procedure, including reporting requirements.
Failure to Honor Full Code Status and Initiate CPR for Unresponsive Resident
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to provide basic life support/CPR in accordance with a resident’s documented full code status and physician orders. Facility policy required that CPR be provided to all residents in cardiac arrest unless there was a fully executed DNR order, and that in the absence of such an order, the nurse must immediately begin CPR and continue until EMS assumed responsibility. The policy also required two nurses to verify resident identification and the presence of a fully executed DNR order in the advanced directive section of the medical record. In this case, the resident had a care plan and a physician’s order specifying full code status, and there was no documentation of a DNR order. Record review showed that the resident was cognitively intact, required substantial/maximal assistance with ADLs, had a tracheostomy and a feeding tube, and was receiving hospice services. The hospice nurse reported that the resident was alert, oriented, and personally chose to be full code, and that hospice honored residents’ decisions to remain full code. Despite this, when the resident was found unresponsive, the required verification of code status and initiation of CPR did not occur. A CNA working the night shift found the resident unresponsive at the start of her shift and immediately notified the RN assigned to the resident, then continued her rounds. The assigned RN stated that upon being notified, she assessed the resident around 11:15 PM, found no breathing and no vital signs, but did not check the chart for code status and did not initiate CPR or call 911. She reported that she assumed the resident was DNR because the resident was on hospice, and instead called the physician, who told her to call hospice, and then she called hospice. A progress note later documented that the resident was found with no chest rise and no vital signs, hospice was called, a hospice nurse was dispatched, and post-mortem care was provided. Another RN on the same shift stated that when he returned from break around 12:30 AM, he saw a hospice chaplain at the nurses’ station and observed the first RN charting; when told the resident had died, he saw on the computer that the resident was full code and informed the first RN of this, but he did not report the situation to anyone and continued his shift. The facility later identified that no CPR or emergency services were initiated for a resident with a full code order, and the resident died. The facility determined that Immediate Jeopardy began when the resident was found unresponsive and no CPR was initiated, and that the noncompliance involved failure to follow the advanced directive and CPR policies and procedures. Interviews with leadership confirmed that the expectation was for licensed nurses to follow facility policy and perform CPR in the absence of DNR orders, and that in this incident, those expectations were not met. The root cause analysis identified failure to follow the Advanced Directive Policy and Procedure as the cause of the noncompliance.
Removal Plan
- Provided individualized training to the involved registered nurse on the Florida Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (CPR) Policy with emphasis on steps to take when a resident is unresponsive.
- Suspended the involved registered nurse pending investigation.
- Terminated the involved registered nurse’s employment.
- Verified that current licensed nurses have active BLS/CPR certification cards.
- Completed code blue drills, education, and post-testing for licensed nurses to validate understanding and competency.
- Completed an audit of Advanced Directive Discussion forms to ensure resident code status reflects and honors resident wishes.
- Held an ad hoc QAPI Committee meeting to review root cause analysis recommendations (including Medical Director participation) and obtained committee approval of recommendations.
- Developed and initiated a Performance Improvement Plan based on the root cause analysis, identifying failure to follow the Advanced Directive Policy and Procedure.
- Initiated code drills and continued until all current nursing staff participated.
- Provided education to the second nurse who identified the code status regarding the importance of reporting the incident to facility administration.
- Provided licensed nurse education on CPR Policy/Procedure, Advanced Directives Policy/Procedure, and Abuse/Neglect, with post-testing and required passing scores.
- Continued Code Blue Drills on each shift, with results reviewed in QAPI meetings to determine need for further drills and/or education.
- Assigned the Human Resources Generalist to monitor licensed nurses’ CPR cards to ensure active CPR certification and to verify CPR certification for all newly hired licensed nurses.
Failure to Provide Prescribed Catheter Care and Antibiotic Therapy
Penalty
Summary
Facility staff failed to provide necessary care and services for a resident with paraplegia and a history of recurrent urinary tract infections (UTIs), who required monthly catheter changes and prescribed antibiotic therapy. Clinical record review showed that the resident was dependent on staff for personal hygiene, bathing, dressing, and toileting, and had an indwelling urinary catheter. The care plan included approaches to minimize infection risk, such as administering antibiotics as ordered and performing monthly catheter changes. However, review of medication administration records and progress notes revealed no evidence that the resident received the prescribed monthly antibiotic therapy or catheter changes over several months. There was also no documentation indicating that the resident refused these interventions. The resident experienced symptoms including pain on urination, cough, and bladder spasms, and subsequently requested to be seen by a provider. The provider noted a history of recurrent UTI, cloudy urine with sediments, and ordered diagnostic tests. Later that day, the resident was transferred to the hospital, where they were diagnosed with a UTI and suspected urosepsis, and admitted for medical management. Interview with the Director of Nursing confirmed the absence of documentation for both the antibiotic therapy and catheter changes, as well as any resident refusal of care.
Sanitation and Food Safety Deficiencies in Kitchen
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to maintain sanitary conditions in the kitchen and food service areas, as observed during a survey. During an initial kitchen tour, a personal cellular device was found on a prep table, and there was an accumulation of food residue on the sharpening stones of a slicer. Additionally, containers of barbecued pork and meatballs were improperly cooled, with temperatures recorded at 49 and 51 degrees Fahrenheit, respectively, from the previous day. The wall near the handwashing sink was damaged, and there was black residue inside the ice machine. In a follow-up kitchen tour, further deficiencies were noted. A dietary aide was observed adjusting glasses, using a personal cellular device, and handling food without performing hand hygiene. Ice from an unknown source was found in the handwashing sink, and another dietary aide was wearing loose-fitting bracelets while preparing food. Additionally, a dietary aide was seen handling portioned drinks with bare hands, directly contacting the lip surface of the cups. These observations indicate a failure to adhere to professional standards for food safety and sanitation.
Failure to Provide Timely Toenail Care
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to provide timely toenail care for a resident who was admitted with multiple medical conditions, including end-stage renal disease, protein-calorie malnutrition, atrial flutter, bilateral non-pressure wounds of the lower extremities, anemia, hypertension, major depressive disorder, and difficulty walking. The resident, who was cognitively intact, required assistance with activities of daily living such as bathing, dressing, and footwear. Despite having an order for podiatry care upon admission, the resident's toenails were observed to be long and causing discomfort, with one toenail curving into the foot, leading the resident to wear sandals due to pain. Interviews with staff revealed a lack of clarity and follow-through regarding responsibility for toenail care. The MDS Coordinator indicated that the nursing staff was responsible, but there was no documentation of previous podiatry consultations. The resident reported repeatedly asking for nail care over two months without resolution. CNAs stated they would notify a nurse if they were unable to cut a resident's nails, and an LPN confirmed the ability to request a podiatry consult. However, no prior consults were documented, and a new order for podiatry was only written after the surveyor's interview with the resident.
Failure to Provide Requested ROM Exercises
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to assess and provide Range of Motion (ROM) exercises as requested by a resident diagnosed with Guillain-Barre Syndrome, Type 2 Diabetes, Osteoarthritis, and Paraplegia. The resident, who had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 15, expressed concerns about becoming weaker without ROM exercises. Despite having a physician's order for a physical therapy evaluation and treatment, the resident had not received physical therapy, occupational therapy, or ROM exercises in the last seven days, as indicated in the Minimum Data Set (MDS). The resident communicated her desire for ROM exercises to the MDS Coordinator during meetings and when her family was present, but no action was taken. Interviews with facility staff revealed a lack of communication and follow-through regarding the resident's request for ROM exercises. The Director of Rehabilitation (DOR) was unaware of the resident's request and stated that a restorative aide typically performs ROM exercises. The MDS Coordinator acknowledged the resident's refusal to get out of bed and medication refusal but did not confirm if the resident had refused a rehab screening. The MDS Coordinator did not provide additional documentation to support the resident's care plan or refusal of services by the end of the survey.
Failure to Maintain Sanitary PICC Line for Resident
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to maintain a PICC line in a sanitary manner for a resident, identified as Resident #375, who was admitted with acute osteomyelitis, a pressure ulcer, and a methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus infection. Upon observation, the PICC line dressing was found to be dated prior to the resident's admission, and the resident confirmed that the dressing had not been changed since admission, although it was flushed. The facility's policy required the dressing to be changed 24 hours after insertion and weekly thereafter, or as needed if compromised. The Medication Administration Record (MAR) indicated that the dressing was marked as changed on three separate occasions, but the Director of Nursing (DON) acknowledged that these changes did not occur. This discrepancy between the MAR and the actual care provided highlights a failure in adhering to the facility's policy and physician orders regarding PICC line maintenance, leading to a deficiency in the standard of care provided to the resident.
Failure to Adhere to Dialysis Fluid Restrictions
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to adhere to fluid restrictions for a resident who required dialysis care. The resident, who was moderately cognitively impaired, had a care plan that included a fluid restriction of 1000 ml per day due to End Stage Renal Disease (ESRD) and hemodialysis treatment. Despite these restrictions, observations revealed that the resident was frequently provided with fluids exceeding the prescribed limits. On multiple occasions, the resident was found with various beverages on the overbed table, including water, apple juice, coffee, and tea, which collectively surpassed the daily fluid allowance. Interviews with staff members highlighted a lack of consistent adherence to the fluid restriction protocol. Staff members reported that the resident often requested additional fluids and became upset when attempts were made to remove them. The Director of Nursing and other staff acknowledged the resident's non-compliance and the challenges in managing her fluid intake, noting that she would sometimes obtain fluids from the kitchen or vending machines. The Registered Dietitian emphasized the risks associated with fluid overload, including potential cardiac issues, but noted that the resident was previously more oriented and compliant with restrictions. The facility's failure to manage the resident's fluid intake effectively was compounded by communication gaps among staff. The kitchen staff, for instance, provided fluids without being aware of the resident's restrictions. This lack of coordination and oversight contributed to the resident's non-compliance with the prescribed fluid restrictions, posing a risk to her health due to potential fluid overload and related complications.
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.



