Prosper Health And Rehabilitation Center
Inspection history, citations, penalties and survey trends for this long-term care facility in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida.
- Location
- 11375 Prosperity Farms Road, Palm Beach Gardens, Florida 33410
- CMS Provider Number
- 105762
- Inspections on file
- 23
- Latest survey
- August 1, 2025
- Citations (last 12 mo.)
- 8
Citation history
Health deficiencies cited at Prosper Health And Rehabilitation Center during CMS and state inspections, most recent first.
The facility failed to follow its abuse prevention and reporting policies, as staff did not consistently communicate, document, or notify management, physicians, or families about multiple incidents of alleged abuse and resident-to-resident altercations. Several events were not recorded in the EMR, and required notifications were not made, with staff interviews revealing confusion about reporting procedures and incomplete abuse training.
A resident alleged being physically abused by an aide and contacted 911, prompting police and EMS involvement. Although law enforcement found no evidence of abuse, the facility administrator did not report the allegation to the regulatory agency as required, believing it did not meet abuse criteria. The deficiency was identified when a state agency investigated the incident and found the required reporting had not been completed.
A resident's transfer or discharge was not conducted in a manner that met their needs and preferences, and the facility did not ensure the resident was adequately prepared for a safe transition.
The facility failed to ensure proper catheter care and anchoring for two residents, leading to deficiencies in catheter care and increased risk of complications. One resident had improper catheter cleansing and an unsecured catheter, while another had an unadhered catheter anchor, causing the catheter to be pulled during care.
The facility failed to provide mechanical lift slings for several residents, leading to issues with transferring. One resident's family reported that the resident had not been out of bed for 21 days due to the unavailability of a lift sling. Additionally, the facility did not provide a wheelchair for one resident and failed to ensure proper beds or mattresses for two residents.
The facility failed to provide enteral tube feeding as ordered for four residents, leading to inadequate nutritional intake. Observations and staff interviews revealed inconsistencies and deviations from prescribed orders, with no proper documentation to justify the actions.
The facility failed to ensure competent nursing staff for two residents, leading to improper oxygen administration, wound care, and medication administration through a PEG tube. Staff did not follow proper procedures, lacked necessary competencies, and failed to replace an empty water bottle for humidified oxygen.
The facility failed to follow the shower schedule for a resident with bilateral below-the-knee amputation and did not communicate another resident's desire for outdoor activities to the Activity Director. The first resident did not receive scheduled showers due to staff shortages and a missing Hoyer lift pad, while the second resident was unable to go outside because CNAs did not inform the Activity Director of her request.
The facility failed to provide appropriate beneficiary notices for three residents. Two residents received the Notice of Medicare Non-Coverage (NOMNC) on the last day of Part A services instead of two days prior, and neither received the required Skilled Nursing Facility Advanced Beneficiary Notice of Non-coverage (SNF ABN). Another resident's expedited appeal was rejected due to insufficient documentation.
The facility failed to provide timely ADL care for three residents, including incontinence care, nail trimming, and mouth care. One resident was found with a soiled brief and long fingernail, another was left in a wheelchair for nearly eight hours, and a third had unmet mouth care needs despite multiple observations by staff.
A resident who was totally dependent on staff and had three pressure injuries did not receive a specialty air mattress and protective boots as documented in their care plan and physician's orders. Observations revealed the resident lying on a regular mattress without protective boots, and staff confirmed the oversight.
The facility failed to ensure documented provision of dialysis and ongoing communication with the dialysis facility for a resident. Missing Dialysis Communication Forms and lack of progress notes on specific dates in March 2024 were identified during a review with the DON.
The facility failed to ensure complete and accurate medical records for several residents, leading to multiple deficiencies. This included missing documentation for treatments, inconsistent height measurements, absence of required pre-admission screening, inaccurate meal consumption records, and contradictory orders related to dialysis and catheter care.
A resident diagnosed with pneumonia experienced a delay in receiving physician-ordered IV antibiotics due to miscommunication and unawareness among staff. Despite the midline being inserted and the medication being available in-house, the antibiotic was not administered until the following morning, resulting in missed doses.
Failure to Implement Abuse Prevention and Reporting Policies
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to implement and follow its written policies and procedures to prevent abuse, neglect, and theft, as evidenced by multiple incidents involving several residents. In several cases, staff did not communicate allegations of abuse or resident-to-resident altercations to management, did not document the events in the electronic medical record (EMR), and did not notify physicians or families as required. For example, one resident reported being punched by another resident, but there was no immediate documentation, assessment, or notification to the physician or family, and the incident was not investigated until surveyors brought it to the attention of the Administrator and DON. Staff involved in the incident admitted to not reporting or documenting the event, with some stating they did not believe the incident could have occurred due to the alleged perpetrator's physical limitations or the reporting resident's history of similar allegations. In another incident, a resident found a male resident in her bed and reported it to staff, who removed the resident and relocated him. However, there was no documentation of the incident in the involved residents' records, nor evidence of timely notification to families or physicians. Staff interviews revealed inconsistent understanding of reporting and documentation requirements, with some staff unaware of the need to inform management, families, or physicians, and others believing that reporting was unnecessary if they doubted the allegation. The facility's abuse training was found to be inconsistently applied, with some staff only receiving education after being directly involved in an incident, and others not completing required training modules. Additional incidents included a resident entering another resident's room and exposing himself, with no documentation or notification to management, families, or physicians. Interviews with staff and administration confirmed a lack of awareness of these events until prompted by surveyors, and acknowledged the absence of required documentation. The facility's own policies required immediate reporting, thorough investigation, and documentation of all allegations of abuse, neglect, or mistreatment, but these procedures were not followed in multiple cases, resulting in a failure to protect residents and ensure proper communication and documentation.
Failure to Report Alleged Abuse to Regulatory Agency
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to report an allegation of abuse involving a resident who was admitted for rehabilitation services and assessed as independent with daily decision-making skills and no behaviors. The resident called 911, alleging that an aide had hit him over the head. Police and EMS responded, and the police reviewed a video provided by the resident, determining that no abuse had occurred. The resident was transported to the hospital for evaluation and returned to the facility the same day. The resident subsequently filed a grievance stating that the aide had harassed him multiple times. Documentation showed that the resident did not initially report the alleged abuse to nursing staff but instead contacted emergency services directly. The facility administrator stated that she contacted another state agency regarding the incident but did not complete the required reporting to the regulatory agency, as she did not believe the incident met the criteria for abuse. The administrator also indicated that she was unaware of the abuse allegation until after the fact, upon reviewing hospital records and learning of an open case involving alleged neglect by a family member. An investigator from the state agency confirmed that an investigation was conducted into the allegation of physical abuse, and it was determined that the facility failed to report the allegation to the appropriate regulatory agency as required by policy and federal regulations.
Failure to Ensure Resident-Centered and Safe Transfer/Discharge
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure that the transfer or discharge process met the resident's needs and preferences, and did not adequately prepare the resident for a safe transfer or discharge. The report identifies that the necessary steps to assess and address the resident's individual requirements and preferences during the transfer or discharge process were not followed, resulting in a deficiency related to resident-centered care and safe transition planning.
Deficient Catheter Care and Anchoring
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure proper care and services for indwelling urinary catheters for two residents, leading to deficiencies in catheter care and anchoring. For Resident #1, the CNA did not properly secure the catheter tubing in the anchor, resulting in the tubing being pulled taut during care. Additionally, the CNA did not cleanse the catheter tubing correctly, leaving visible brown debris at the insertion site. The LPN was unaware of the cloudy urine and the lack of an attached catheter anchor, which was later confirmed by the Director of Nursing (DON) during an observation and interview. For Resident #67, the catheter anchor was not adhered to the resident's skin, causing the catheter to be pulled during perineal and wound care. Despite the CNA's intention to inform the attending nurse to apply a new anchor, a subsequent observation revealed that the anchor had not been replaced. Resident #67 had a history of UTIs and an indwelling catheter due to a Stage 3 wound, making proper catheter care crucial. The failure to secure the catheter anchor and properly cleanse the catheter tubing contributed to the risk of further complications for both residents.
Failure to Provide Mechanical Lift Slings and Proper Equipment
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure the provision of mechanical lift slings for 7 of 12 sampled residents who require a mechanical lift for transferring. Additionally, three residents had lift slings without names on them, and 11 of 13 random non-sampled residents either did not have a lift sling, had one with no name on it, or had one belonging to another resident. This deficiency was highlighted by the case of Resident #89, whose family reported that the resident had not been out of bed for 21 days due to the unavailability of a lift sling. The facility also failed to provide a wheelchair for Resident #89 and did not ensure proper bed or mattress for Residents #98 and #260. Resident #89's family brought in their own lift sling, which was subsequently lost, and the resident's daughter reported that staff often had trouble finding lift slings. The surveyor found Resident #19's lift sling in Resident #89's room, and the Nursing Home Administrator confirmed that each resident should have their own lift sling with their name on it. The Central Supply staff indicated that there was only one sling available at the time and had ordered more the previous week. Resident #260 reported that her bed was not inflating properly on one side, and this issue had been ongoing since her admission. Staff interviews revealed that maintenance was not available on weekends to address the bed issue. Resident #98, who is 6 feet 5 inches tall, was observed to be uncomfortable in a standard bed that was too small for him. The Director of Environmental Services confirmed that the resident was on a standard air mattress and needed a larger bed.
Failure to Administer Enteral Feeding as Ordered
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to provide nutrition via enteral tube feeding as ordered for four residents. Resident #100, who had severe cognitive impairment and multiple diagnoses including dysphagia, was observed not receiving the prescribed amount of enteral feeding on multiple occasions. Staff interviews revealed inconsistencies in the administration of the feeding, with no documentation justifying the deviations from the prescribed orders. The resident's care plan required strict adherence to physician orders, which was not followed, leading to inadequate nutritional intake. Resident #29, with moderate cognitive impairment and a history of dysphagia, was also not receiving the prescribed amount of enteral feeding. Observations showed discrepancies between the amount of supplement administered and the amount ordered. Staff interviews indicated that the feeding was stopped and restarted multiple times without proper documentation, resulting in the resident not receiving the full prescribed amount of nutrition. Resident #67, who was moderately cognitively impaired and required tube feeding due to malnutrition, was observed receiving the wrong feeding formula. The resident reported spitting up and a bitter taste in her mouth, which was not communicated to the registered dietitian or addressed appropriately. Similarly, Resident #1, who was entirely fed via a tube, had issues with the feeding pump settings and the administration of the correct amount of formula. Staff were observed struggling with the pump and not following the updated orders, leading to the resident not receiving the full prescribed amount of nutrition.
Failure to Ensure Competent Nursing Staff
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure competent nursing staff during care for two of eight sampled residents. For Resident #1, staff did not have an order for oxygen administration and failed to replace an empty water bottle for the humidified oxygen. Additionally, the staff did not follow proper procedures for wound care and tube feeding, including not changing gloves and gowns appropriately and needing assistance to set up the tube feeding pump. The resident was observed wearing humidified oxygen without a current order, and the water bottle for the oxygen was found empty on multiple occasions. For Resident #23, the staff failed to properly administer medications through the PEG tube. The RN did not follow the facility's policy for administering medications by gravity flow and instead pushed air through the tube, causing medication and water to leak out of the PEG tube. The RN did not notice the leakage and had to repeat the procedure, again pushing air through the tube and causing further leakage. The RN's actions were inconsistent with the facility's policy and demonstrated a lack of competency in administering medications through an enteral tube. These deficiencies were identified through observations, record reviews, interviews, and policy reviews. The staff's actions and inactions, including not following proper procedures and lacking necessary competencies, led to the deficiencies in care for the residents. The facility's failure to ensure competent nursing staff compromised the well-being of the residents involved.
Failure to Follow Shower Schedule and Communicate Resident's Outdoor Activity Requests
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to follow the shower schedule for Resident #19, who was admitted with diagnoses including anxiety disorder and depression, and had a BIMS score of 15, indicating cognitive intactness. Despite being dependent on staff for activities of daily living due to bilateral below-the-knee amputation, Resident #19 did not receive the scheduled showers twice a week. The resident reported not receiving the required care, including showers, due to staff shortages. The Director of Nursing confirmed the lack of documented evidence for showers in March and April 2024 and acknowledged the issue with the missing Hoyer lift pad, which prevented the resident from getting out of bed for three days during the survey process. Additionally, the facility failed to ensure that a certified nursing assistant communicated Resident #92's desire for outside activities to the Activity Director. Resident #92, who had a BIMS score of 15, expressed a strong desire to go outside but was told by CNAs that they were not permitted or too busy to take her outside. The Activity Director confirmed that if they had been informed, they would have facilitated the resident's request. This lack of communication resulted in the resident being unable to go outside as desired.
Failure to Provide Appropriate Beneficiary Notices
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to provide appropriate beneficiary notices for three residents reviewed for Beneficiary Protection Notification. For Resident #58, the facility provided the Notice of Medicare Non-Coverage (NOMNC) on the same day that Part A services ended, instead of at least two days prior. Additionally, the resident did not receive the required Skilled Nursing Facility Advanced Beneficiary Notice of Non-coverage (SNF ABN) despite choosing to remain in the facility. Similarly, Resident #110 received the NOMNC on the last day of Part A services and was not given the SNF ABN. For Resident #89, no documentation of the NOMNC was provided, and an expedited appeal was rejected due to insufficient medical records being submitted within the required timeframe. The Administrator acknowledged the deficiencies and attributed them to a lack of awareness about the requirement for a second beneficiary notice (SNF ABN) when residents are discharged from Part A services with benefit days remaining and choose to stay in the facility. The new Social Services Director, who was recently hired, was not present when the notices for the three residents were provided and therefore could not offer additional information. The failure to provide timely and appropriate beneficiary notices led to non-compliance with regulatory requirements.
Failure to Provide Timely ADL Care
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure timely Activities of Daily Living (ADL) care for three residents. Resident #23, who was severely cognitively impaired and dependent on staff for all ADL care, was found with a soiled adult brief and draw pad, emitting a strong urine odor. The resident also had an excessively long fingernail that needed trimming. Staff admitted they did not perform walking rounds with the previous shift and were unaware the resident needed to be changed. The Director of Nursing confirmed the resident's need for incontinence care and nail trimming during subsequent observations. Resident #89, who was totally dependent on staff for all ADL care and frequently incontinent, was left in a wheelchair for nearly eight hours without being returned to bed, resulting in the resident being saturated with urine. The resident's family members reported having to beg staff to get her back into bed and noted that the mechanical lift sling was also wet with urine. The resident's daughter expressed frustration with the staff's reluctance to move her mother between the bed and wheelchair. Resident #1, who was totally dependent on staff for all ADL care and received nutrition via a feeding tube, was observed to have a white coating over her teeth and an accumulation of secretions on her bottom lip. Despite multiple observations and interactions with staff, including a CNA and a wound care nurse, the resident's mouth care needs were not adequately addressed. The wound care nurse eventually removed some of the accumulated secretions but acknowledged the need for additional mouth care.
Failure to Provide Specialty Air Mattress and Protective Boots
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to provide a specialty air mattress and protective boots for a resident who was totally dependent on staff for all Activities of Daily Living and had three current pressure injuries. The resident was admitted to the facility and moved to a new room after a short hospitalization. Despite the care plan documenting the need for a pressure-relieving mattress and protective boots, these interventions were not provided upon the resident's return to the facility. Observations over several days revealed the resident lying on a regular mattress without protective boots, contrary to the physician's wound care progress notes that documented the need for these interventions. The wound care nurse confirmed that the resident had a specialty air mattress in her previous room before hospitalization but had not noticed its absence since the resident's return. The Unit Manager also confirmed the presence of the specialty air mattress in the resident's previous room but did not provide an explanation for its absence in the current room. This oversight led to the resident not receiving the necessary pressure ulcer care as documented in their care plan and physician's orders.
Failure to Document Dialysis Care and Communication
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure documented provision of dialysis and ongoing communication with the dialysis facility for a resident who required such services. The policy on Dialysis Care, revised in August 2023, mandates that facility personnel provide necessary information to the dialysis center and record correspondence in the plan of care. However, a review of the records for a resident admitted on an unspecified date revealed missing Dialysis Communication Forms for multiple dates in March 2024. Additionally, progress notes lacked evidence of the resident's attendance or refusal of dialysis services on specific dates, and there was no documentation related to the resident's return from dialysis on one occasion. These lapses were identified during a side-by-side review with the Director of Nursing on April 4, 2024.
Inaccurate and Incomplete Medical Records
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure complete and accurate medical records for several residents, leading to multiple deficiencies. For Resident #20, the March 2024 electronic medication and treatment administration record (eMAR/eTAR) lacked staff initials signifying the completion of various treatments and monitoring tasks for the day shift on 03/29/24. This included treatments for bilateral buttocks, mid-back wound care, sacrum rash, daily body audits, and behavior monitoring. The Director of Nursing (DON) and Administrator were informed of these missing initials and documentation on 04/04/24. Resident #5's electronic health record revealed the absence of a Pre-Admission Screen and Resident Review (PASARR) upon admission. Despite efforts by the Medical Records Clerk, DON, and Administrator to locate the documentation, it was only provided later by the Administrator after reaching out to the previous facility. This delay in documentation could have impacted the resident's care plan and treatment. Resident #98's medical records contained inconsistent height measurements, with the Admission Nursing Evaluation and Nutrition Evaluation documenting the resident as 68 inches tall, while the resident and hospital transfer form indicated a height of 6 feet 5 inches. This discrepancy was acknowledged by the Director of Rehabilitation and the Registered Dietitian, who agreed to reassess the resident's nutritional needs based on the correct height. Additionally, Resident #53's meal consumption documentation was inconsistent and inaccurate, with staff reporting incorrect percentages of food intake, which was crucial for the Registered Dietitian to make necessary dietary adjustments. Lastly, Resident #55's records contained contradictory and inappropriate orders related to dialysis transportation, fistula care, and urinary catheter management, leading to confusion and potential mismanagement of the resident's care. The DON acknowledged that previous orders were not being discontinued upon receipt of new orders, resulting in multiple active and conflicting orders in the electronic Medication Administration Record (MAR).
Delay in Administering IV Antibiotics
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure the timely provision of physician-ordered antibiotics for a resident who was admitted with a complaint of a cough and later diagnosed with pneumonia. The physician ordered the IV antibiotic Zosyn to be administered every six hours for seven days. However, despite the midline being inserted on the same day, the antibiotic was not administered until the following morning, resulting in missed doses at 6:00 PM and midnight. The resident, who was cognitively intact, confirmed that the IV antibiotics were started the morning after the order was given, indicating a delay in treatment. Interviews with staff revealed confusion and miscommunication regarding the availability and administration of the IV antibiotic. The LPN thought the physician had instructed to continue oral antibiotics until the IV antibiotics were delivered from the pharmacy, despite the medication being available in the in-house stock. The Unit Manager was unaware of the delay, and the physician was under the impression that there was an issue with starting the IV line. This miscommunication and lack of awareness among staff led to the delay in administering the necessary IV antibiotics to the resident.
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.



