Hazelhurst Court Care And Rehabilitation Center
Inspection history, citations, penalties and survey trends for this long-term care facility in Hazlehurst, Georgia.
- Location
- 180 Burkett Ferry Road, Hazlehurst, Georgia 31539
- CMS Provider Number
- 115626
- Inspections on file
- 19
- Latest survey
- September 26, 2025
- Citations (last 12 mo.)
- 3 (3 serious)
Citation history
Health deficiencies cited at Hazelhurst Court Care And Rehabilitation Center during CMS and state inspections, most recent first.
A resident with multiple medical conditions and a documented Full Code status was not provided CPR when found unresponsive, despite clear physician orders and care plan directives. Nursing staff did not attempt resuscitation, mistakenly believing that hospice admission changed the code status to DNR, even though the POLST and care plan specified Full Code. This deficiency was confirmed during staff interviews and record review.
A resident with full code status and clear physician orders to attempt CPR was found unresponsive and not breathing. Despite facility policy and documentation specifying to initiate CPR, staff did not attempt resuscitation, mistakenly believing that hospice enrollment implied DNR status. Multiple staff, including LPNs and CNAs, failed to verify the resident's code status or provide life-sustaining measures, resulting in the deficiency.
Nursing administration did not ensure that staff followed a resident's Full Code advance directive, resulting in no CPR being attempted when the resident was found unresponsive. Despite clear documentation and confirmation from the responsible party that the resident was to remain Full Code, staff incorrectly assumed hospice status meant DNR, leading to the deficiency.
The facility failed to provide residents with appealing meal options, offering only sandwiches or soup as alternatives if residents disliked the meal served. During a Resident Council meeting, residents expressed dissatisfaction with the lack of alternate meal choices. The facility's menu did not include alternate meal options, and staff interviews confirmed the absence of hot entrees as alternatives. A resident reported never having a choice of meals, and observations confirmed the lack of alternate meals during service. The Administrator acknowledged the issue but stated that residents could receive a grilled cheese sandwich if requested.
The facility did not follow its food storage policy, resulting in expired food items being found in the stand-up cooler during a kitchen tour. The Dietary Manager confirmed and discarded the expired sliced ham and chicken and noodles, acknowledging the expectation for staff to dispose of items before expiration. This oversight potentially affected 50 of 53 residents on an oral diet, posing a risk of illness.
A facility failed to follow infection control protocols during tracheostomy care for a resident with multiple diagnoses, including tracheostomy status. RN AA did not perform hand hygiene after glove changes, and soiled items were improperly disposed of, increasing the risk of infection. Staff interviews revealed a lack of in-service training for LPN CC, and the DON confirmed expectations for proper hand hygiene and glove changes.
The facility failed to maintain a clean environment in a resident's room, as a privacy curtain was found with a brown stain and white chalky substance. Despite the facility's policy for monthly deep cleaning, Room 33 was not cleaned in January or February 2025. Interviews revealed that the housekeeper did not notice the soiled curtain, and the Administrator confirmed the expectation for staff to follow cleaning protocols.
A facility failed to provide a written reason for transfer to a resident or their representative, as required by policy. Despite the policy mandating written notification, staff interviews revealed that the facility only provided verbal communication. This inconsistency with policy led to a deficiency being identified during the survey.
A facility failed to provide a written bed hold notice to a resident's representative during hospital transfers, contrary to its policy. Despite the policy requiring written notification within 24 hours of an emergency transfer, staff interviews revealed that the facility only verbally informed the representative, assuming the resident would return. An unsigned bed hold agreement was found in the resident's record.
The facility failed to follow care plans for oxygen administration for three residents, leading to discrepancies between physician orders and actual care provided. One resident with COPD received oxygen at a higher rate than ordered, while another with acute respiratory failure did not receive the prescribed oxygen via trach collar. The MDS Coordinator and DON confirmed these failures, highlighting a lack of adherence to the facility's care planning policy.
The facility failed to follow physician orders for oxygen administration for three residents, leading to incorrect oxygen flow rates. A resident with COPD received 7 liters per minute instead of 3, another with COPD received 3 liters instead of 2, and a resident with acute respiratory failure received 5 liters instead of 4. LPNs admitted to not checking the oxygen settings during medication pass, contrary to the DON's expectations.
Failure to Implement Advanced Directive Care Plan for Full Code Resident
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to implement the Advanced Directive care plan for a resident who was designated as Full Code, resulting in CPR not being performed when the resident was found without a pulse or respirations. The resident had a documented history of cerebral atherosclerosis, dysphagia, gastro-esophageal reflux disease, anemia, constipation, hypertension, and hyperlipidemia. The clinical record, physician's orders, and care plan all specified that the resident was to be a Full Code and that resuscitation (CPR) should be attempted. The resident was also admitted to hospice services, but the POLST form and care plan continued to specify Full Code status. On the day of the incident, staff discovered the resident deceased and documented the absence of pulse and respirations, but there was no evidence that CPR was attempted as required by the care plan and physician's orders. Interviews with staff, including the DON, revealed a misunderstanding among nursing staff, who believed that hospice admission automatically changed the resident's code status to DNR, despite clear documentation to the contrary. The deficiency occurred during a shift change, and the DON confirmed that no resuscitation efforts were made.
Failure to Initiate CPR for Full Code Resident Due to Staff Misunderstanding
Penalty
Summary
Facility staff failed to assess and implement life-sustaining measures for a resident who was found unresponsive, despite the resident's advanced directives and physician orders specifying full code status and to attempt CPR. The facility's Emergency Response Management and Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (CPR) policies required staff to initiate CPR in the event of cardiac or respiratory arrest for residents with full code status. The resident, who had diagnoses including cerebral atherosclerosis and was receiving hospice services, had a current POLST form and physician's order indicating that CPR should be attempted. On the day of the incident, the resident was noted by a CNA to be cold and not feeling well, and this was reported to the assigned LPN. Later, when the CNA returned to check on the resident, she found the resident cold and called for help. Multiple staff, including CNAs and LPNs, became aware that the resident was unresponsive and had no pulse or respirations. However, none of the nurses present checked the resident's code status or initiated CPR, as required by the resident's directives and facility policy. The DON later confirmed that staff mistakenly believed that hospice status implied a Do Not Resuscitate (DNR) order, despite documentation to the contrary. Interviews with staff revealed confusion during the shift change, with day and night shift nurses deferring responsibility to each other and not responding to the resident's room when alerted. The night shift LPN, upon being notified by a CNA, assessed the resident and confirmed the absence of vital signs but did not attempt CPR or verify code status. The failure to initiate CPR was not due to lack of policy or documentation, but rather staff assumptions and lack of verification regarding the resident's code status.
Failure to Honor Advance Directive for Full Code Resident
Penalty
Summary
Facility nursing administration failed to provide effective oversight to ensure that nursing staff assessed and implemented the correct Advance Directive for one of eleven sampled residents reviewed for Advance Directives. The resident, who had diagnoses including cerebral atherosclerosis, dysphagia, gastro-esophageal reflux disease, anemia, constipation, hypertension, and hyperlipidemia, was admitted to hospice services but maintained a Full Code status as specified in both the physician's order and the updated POLST form. The resident's responsible party also confirmed the desire for Full Code status. Despite these clear directives, when the resident was found without a pulse or respirations, there was no evidence that CPR was attempted by facility staff. Interviews with the DON revealed that nursing staff mistakenly believed that hospice admission automatically meant Do Not Resuscitate (DNR) status, leading to the failure to initiate CPR. The incident occurred during a shift change, with both day and night shift nurses present in the facility. The DON confirmed that the staff were already notifying hospice when she arrived at the resident's room and that she was later informed by staff that the resident was a Full Code. Documentation and staff interviews confirmed that the resident's wishes for resuscitation were not honored at the time of death.
Lack of Alternate Meal Options for Residents
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to provide residents with appealing meal options that accommodate their preferences, as required by their policy. During a Resident Council meeting, residents expressed dissatisfaction with the lack of alternate meal choices, stating that if they did not like the meal served, their only options were a sandwich or soup. The facility's fall/winter menu did not include alternate meal choices for lunch or dinner, and interviews with dietary staff confirmed that no alternate hot entrees were available. The Registered Dietician acknowledged the absence of alternate meal options and attributed it to budget constraints, noting that no alternate menus had been requested from the vendor. One resident, who had been at the facility for a year, reported never having a choice of meals and not being offered an alternate meal if she disliked the one served. Observations during the survey confirmed the absence of alternate meals on the menu and the hot steam tray unit during meal service. Interviews with the Dietary Manager, Dietary Aids, and the Administrator revealed a consistent practice of offering only sandwiches or soup as alternatives, with no hot meal options available. The Administrator was aware of the issue but stated that residents could receive a grilled cheese sandwich if requested.
Expired Food Items Found in Facility's Stand-Up Cooler
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to adhere to its food storage policy, which mandates that leftover food be stored in covered containers, clearly labeled, dated, and used within 48 hours or discarded. During a kitchen tour, surveyors observed expired food items in the stand-up cooler, including a resealable plastic bag of sliced ham and a plastic container of chicken and noodles, both past their expiration dates. The Dietary Manager confirmed the presence of these expired items and discarded them, acknowledging that the expectation was for staff to dispose of items before they expire. This oversight had the potential to affect 50 of the 53 residents receiving an oral diet, posing a risk of illness to the residents.
Infection Control Deficiency in Tracheostomy Care
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to adhere to proper infection prevention and control protocols during tracheostomy care for a resident with multiple diagnoses, including tracheostomy status and acute respiratory failure. During an observation, it was noted that RN AA did not perform hand hygiene after donning and doffing gloves throughout the tracheostomy care procedure, which is a deviation from the facility's policy. Additionally, RN AA placed soiled towels in a yellow plastic trash bag and left it on the floor for two hours, which is not in line with proper disposal practices. The resident involved was non-verbal and had a tracheostomy in place, secured with ties, and was receiving oxygen via a trach collar. Interviews with the staff revealed that LPN CC, who assisted with the procedure, had not received in-service training on tracheostomy care, and RN AA acknowledged the failure to wash hands as required. The Director of Nursing confirmed the expectation for hand hygiene and glove changes during the procedure, and LPN BB later removed the improperly placed trash bag from the floor.
Failure to Maintain Clean Environment in Resident Room
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to maintain a clean and homelike environment in Room 33, as evidenced by the presence of a brown stain and a white chalky substance on the privacy curtain. Observations were made on three separate occasions, confirming the deficiency. The facility's cleaning schedule indicated that Room 33 was not deep cleaned in January or February 2025, despite the facility's policy requiring monthly deep cleaning of each resident's room, including checking and replacing soiled privacy curtains. Interviews with the housekeeping staff and the Account Manager revealed that the facility has a five-step daily cleaning process and a seven-step deep cleaning process, both of which include checking the curtains for stains. However, the housekeeper responsible for cleaning Room 33 admitted to not noticing the soiled curtains during her cleaning routine. The Administrator confirmed that the housekeeping staff is expected to follow these cleaning steps to ensure a clean environment for residents.
Failure to Provide Written Transfer Notification
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to provide a written reason for transfer to a resident or their representative, as required by their policy. The policy, dated February 2015, mandates that the resident or their family/responsible party be notified in writing of a transfer, except in cases of unplanned, acute clinical needs where verbal communication is followed by written documentation in the medical record. However, for a resident with unspecified dementia and type 2 diabetes mellitus with hyperglycemia, there was no evidence of a written reason for transfer provided to the resident's representative during two hospitalizations. Interviews with facility staff, including LPNs and the Business Officer Manager, revealed that the facility's practice was to verbally notify the family or representative of the reason for transfer but not to provide written documentation. The Director of Nursing confirmed that no written notification was given because the facility expected the resident to return. This practice was inconsistent with the facility's policy and resulted in a deficiency being identified during the survey.
Failure to Provide Written Bed Hold Notice
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to provide a written notice of bed hold to a resident's representative during two separate hospital transfers. The facility's policy, revised on 3/3/2020, mandates that a copy of the bed hold agreement be provided to the resident or responsible party prior to a transfer or within 24 hours in case of an emergency transfer. However, for a resident with diagnoses including unspecified dementia and type 2 diabetes mellitus, there was no evidence of a bed hold notice being provided during hospital transfers on 5/13/2024 and 12/18/2024. An unsigned bed hold agreement was found in the resident's record for the latter date. Interviews with facility staff revealed a lack of adherence to the policy. An LPN stated that while a document including a bed hold agreement is completed and given to emergency medical services, it is not provided to the resident or their representative. The Business Officer Manager confirmed that the facility only calls the family representative to notify them of the bed hold agreement, without providing written documentation. The Director of Nursing also verified that no written notice is given to the representative, as the facility assumes the resident will return.
Failure to Follow Oxygen Administration Care Plans
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to adhere to the care plans for three residents regarding oxygen administration, as observed and confirmed through record reviews and staff interviews. Resident 12, diagnosed with COPD and hypoxemia, was observed receiving oxygen therapy at 7 liters per minute, contrary to the physician's order of 3 liters per minute. This discrepancy was confirmed by both the LPN and the Director of Nursing, who acknowledged the failure to follow the care plan. Similarly, Resident 7, with a diagnosis of COPD, had a physician's order for oxygen at 2 liters per minute as needed, but the care plan was not followed as verified by the MDS Coordinator. Resident 14, diagnosed with acute respiratory failure, was supposed to receive oxygen at 4 liters per minute via trach collar according to the physician's order. However, the care plan was not adhered to, as confirmed by the MDS Coordinator and the DON. The facility's policy on care planning management was not effectively implemented, leading to these deficiencies in care. The MDS Coordinator and the DON both expressed expectations that staff should follow the care plans, which clearly outlined the required oxygen administration for each resident.
Failure to Follow Physician Orders for Oxygen Administration
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to adhere to physician orders for oxygen administration for three residents, leading to a deficiency in respiratory care. Resident 12, diagnosed with COPD and hypoxemia, was observed receiving oxygen therapy at 7 liters per minute, contrary to the physician's order of 3 liters per minute. Licensed Practical Nurse EE admitted to not checking the oxygen settings during medication pass, which is when the settings should have been verified. The Director of Nursing (DON) confirmed that staff are expected to ensure oxygen is administered as ordered. Similarly, Resident 7, with a diagnosis of COPD, was receiving oxygen at 3 liters per minute instead of the prescribed 2 liters per minute. LPN BB acknowledged the oversight in checking the oxygen rate during the morning medication pass. Resident 14, diagnosed with acute respiratory failure, was receiving oxygen at 5 liters per minute via trach collar, instead of the ordered 4 liters per minute. LPN BB again admitted to not verifying the oxygen rate as per the physician's order. The DON reiterated the expectation that oxygen settings should be checked during medication pass, as oxygen is considered a medication.
Latest citations in Georgia
The facility failed to follow its abuse investigation policy when responding to an allegation that a male resident wandered into a female shared room, allegedly sat on a resident’s bed, inappropriately touched her leg, stared at another resident, and opened the bathroom door to watch a third resident brushing her teeth. The allegation was reported by a cognitively intact resident and involved residents with varying levels of cognitive impairment. The investigation, conducted by the Administrator and former DON, relied only on interviews with a RN and a CNA, did not obtain required written, signed, and dated witness statements, and did not include interviews with other residents to assess their sense of safety. Despite these omissions and incomplete documentation, the facility’s final report concluded the allegation was unsubstantiated.
A resident with protein calorie malnutrition and a terminal prognosis was admitted on hospice with corresponding physician orders and a care plan, but hospice services were not coded on either the admission or quarterly MDS assessments. The MDS Coordinator and two MDS LPNs confirmed that, despite the resident receiving hospice care, Section O of both MDS assessments incorrectly indicated the resident was not on hospice, which the Administrator and DON acknowledged resulted in inaccurate MDS data.
Surveyors found that PTAC unit filters in two resident rooms on one hallway were not maintained free of visible grey, fuzzy debris, despite facility policy requiring regular inspection and cleaning or replacement at least every three months. Across multiple observations on different days, the condition of the dirty filters remained unchanged. The Maintenance Director reported he is responsible for monthly cleaning and checks, including spot checks and inspections in construction areas, and did not dispute the observed dust accumulation when shown. The Administrator confirmed that maintenance staff are responsible for monthly PTAC filter cleaning as part of preventative maintenance and acknowledged that this issue could negatively affect residents’ health and well-being.
A resident with intact cognition and known skin integrity risks reported being left on a bedpan for an extended period and not being adequately cleaned by a CNA. The following shift, another CNA found the resident on soiled linens with a blister on the left upper thigh but did not report this new skin issue to the charge nurse or DON. Subsequent documentation showed development of an open area on the thigh associated with pain, and later NP evaluation identified a larger wound requiring sharp excisional debridement. These events show failure to provide adequate incontinent care and to promptly assess and report a new wound, contrary to the facility’s abuse/neglect prevention policy and CNA responsibilities.
A cognitively intact resident with skin-related diagnoses reported delayed and inadequate incontinent care after using a bedpan, describing prolonged waits for staff response and feeling not properly cleaned by a CNA. The next morning, another CNA found feces-soiled linen and a blister on the resident’s left upper thigh, later documented as a new open area. The resident texted the Administrator stating that a CNA had left feces on her and that she had developed a painful blister, but the Administrator did not report this allegation of neglect to the State Survey Agency as required by facility policy.
A resident with lymphedema and identified risk for pressure ulcers developed a new open wound on the upper thigh, documented by a NP with specific wound measurements. Although the existing care plan included interventions to observe and document skin changes, the care plan was not updated to include this new wound. The Wound Care Nurse and the resident confirmed the wound location, while the MDS Coordinator reported not receiving recent weekly wound reports and only recently learning of the wound. The MDS Coordinator confirmed that the care plan had not been revised in real time as required by facility procedures, resulting in a failure to implement care plan interventions for the newly developed pressure ulcer.
The facility did not complete a required Georgia Criminal History Check System (GCHEXS) fingerprint background check for a CNA, as identified during review of ten employee files with a census of eighty residents. The facility’s abuse-prevention policy required criminal background checks for all employment candidates, but there was no documentation of a fingerprint records check for this CNA. The HR manager, who is responsible for background and fingerprint checks and maintaining employee files, confirmed that the GCHEXS fingerprint check had not been conducted, resulting in a deficiency under F-Tag 600.
Surveyors found that four of six resident shower rooms were not kept free of hazards or adequately cleaned. On one floor, razors were on the floor, dirty gloves and a comb were on a shower bed, floors were stained, an opened gallon of bath soap and a bottle of chemical-resistant spray were present, and a razor and hair clippers were in a bag on the floor along with a shower cap and toothbrush. On other floors, surveyors observed multiple opened containers of skin and hair cleaner, conditioner, and skin ointment, along with a strong urine odor. Unit managers and the Environmental Senior Director stated that CNAs were responsible for cleaning after each resident and that environmental services cleaned shower rooms daily, and acknowledged that items should not be left on the floor and that product containers should be closed.
Surveyors found that staff did not follow standard and transmission-based precautions when handling ice on two floors. On one floor, the ice scoop cover on top of the ice machine had visible black specks near the end of the scoop used to dispense ice. On another floor, the ice scoop was observed submerged in ice and water inside the cooler used to serve residents, despite the unit manager acknowledging that the scoop should not be left in the cooler. The Maintenance Director reported that maintenance cleaned and checked ice machines regularly, while nursing staff were responsible for cleaning scoops and covers. The SDC/Infection Control nurse stated that all staff had been in-serviced on hand hygiene and ice scoop protocol, including that scoops should be stored in a holder after use and never left in the ice.
A resident with multiple serious conditions, moderate cognitive impairment, and total dependence for ADLs was placed in bed with side rails intended to assist with positioning, despite the MDS indicating no bed rail use. Facility records showed no evidence of safe rail spacing or regular inspection of the bed and rails. The assigned CNA, who came on duty late in the evening, last saw the resident around the start of the shift and did not check on him again for several hours, relying on the resident to use a call light. In the early morning, the CNA and an RN found the resident partially out of bed, entrapped in the half side rail, requiring multiple staff to free and reposition him. The resident was unresponsive except for moaning, with altered mental status and respiratory failure documented by EMS and the ER, and later expired at the hospital. The facility’s failure to provide required monitoring and to ensure safe side rail use resulted in neglect and Immediate Jeopardy.
Failure to Thoroughly Investigate Allegation of Sexual Abuse
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to conduct a thorough investigation of an allegation of sexual abuse in accordance with its policy titled “Abuse, Neglect, Exploitation or Misappropriation-Reporting and Investigating.” The policy required that all allegations be thoroughly investigated, including reviewing documentation and evidence, interviewing any witnesses, interviewing staff on all shifts who had contact with the resident, and completely documenting the investigation, with written, signed, and dated witness statements. A facility-reported incident documented that a male resident was wandering into a female three-bed room, allegedly inappropriately touching one resident, staring at another for a length of time, and then opening the bathroom door and staring at a third female resident while she was brushing her teeth. The allegation was initially reported by a cognitively intact resident (BIMS score 15) and involved another resident with moderate cognitive impairment (BIMS score 8) and a resident with severe cognitive impairment (BIMS score 99). The Administrator reported that the investigation of this incident was conducted by the former DON and herself after the allegation was reported by a RN. She stated that this was not the first time the alleged male resident had wandered into other residents’ rooms and described the allegation as the male resident entering a resident’s room, sitting on the resident’s bed, and allegedly touching the resident’s leg. Staff interviews for the investigation were limited to the RN and a CNA, and the Administrator acknowledged that no written witness statements were obtained, contrary to facility policy. She also confirmed that no additional residents were interviewed to assess their sense of safety following the incident. The facility’s final investigation report concluded that the allegation was unsubstantiated, despite the lack of comprehensive interviews, written statements, and full documentation required by the facility’s abuse investigation policy.
Failure to Accurately Code Hospice Services on MDS Assessment
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to ensure accurate completion of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) for a resident receiving hospice services. The facility’s policy on Certification of Accuracy of the MDS requires that appropriate health professionals correctly document residents’ medical, functional, and psychosocial problems using the Resident Assessment Instrument. The resident in question was admitted with diagnoses including protein calorie malnutrition and had a care plan dated 01/09/2026 indicating a terminal prognosis and admission to hospice, with a goal to honor advance directives and provide comfort with dignity. Physician’s orders dated 12/09/2025 also included an order to admit the resident to hospice. Despite this, review of the admission MDS and a subsequent quarterly MDS showed that hospice services were not coded in Section O (Special Treatments, Procedures and Programs), even though both assessments documented a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of five, indicating severely impaired cognition. Interviews with the MDS Coordinator and two MDS LPNs confirmed that the resident had been on hospice since admission and that both the admission and quarterly MDS assessments were incorrectly coded as not on hospice. The MDS Coordinator acknowledged that the MDS should present an accurate clinical picture for a given period and stated that this was a clerical error, resulting in CMS not receiving correct hospice coding for the resident. The Administrator and DON stated their expectation that MDS assessments accurately reflect residents’ services and confirmed that failure to code hospice in the MDS results in an inaccurate reflection of the data.
Failure to Maintain Clean PTAC Unit Filters in Resident Rooms
Penalty
Summary
Surveyors identified a deficiency related to the facility’s failure to maintain Packaged Terminal Air Conditioner (PTAC) unit filters in a safe, clean condition in two resident rooms on the Sapphire Hallway. The facility’s written policy titled "Instructions" requires that air filters be removed and inspected for cleanliness, washed or replaced if dirty, and at a minimum replaced or thoroughly cleaned every three months. During multiple observations in one room on 3/22/2026, 3/24/2026, and 3/25/2026, the PTAC unit filter was noted to have visible grey, fuzzy debris accumulation, with no change in condition across all three observations. Similar repeated observations on those same dates in another room showed the PTAC unit filter also contained visible grey, fuzzy debris accumulation that remained unchanged. In an interview, the Maintenance Director stated he is responsible for cleaning and checking the PTAC filters monthly, including conducting monthly checks and random inspections in areas where construction is occurring, and confirmed that the maintenance department is responsible for ensuring filters are clean and functioning properly. He also stated that expectations include spot checks of PTAC units. However, during an observation of one of the affected rooms in his presence, dust accumulation was again observed on the PTAC unit filter, and he did not dispute the finding. In a separate interview, the Administrator stated that the maintenance department is responsible for cleaning PTAC filters, which are supposed to be cleaned monthly, and that her expectation is for preventative maintenance to be completed monthly and as needed, noting that a potential negative outcome is the impact on residents’ health and well-being.
Neglect of Incontinent Care and Delayed Wound Reporting Leading to Thigh Wound
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to prevent neglect and to assess and provide timely wound and incontinent care to a cognitively intact resident with known skin integrity risks. The resident, who had diagnoses including a disorder of the skin and subcutaneous tissue and lymphedema, was care planned as being at risk for pressure ulcer development and skin integrity issues, with interventions directing staff to observe, document, and report any changes in skin status. On a night shift, the resident reported being left on a bedpan for approximately an hour and a half. When the CNA on that shift (CNA BB) assisted with post-toileting care, the resident told her she did not feel adequately cleaned; CNA BB did not recheck or further clean the resident and left the room. The next morning, the resident reported burning in the left upper thigh and informed another CNA (CNA EE) that she had not been cleaned well. During morning care, CNA EE found the pad under the resident soiled with feces and wet with urine and observed a blister on the resident’s left upper thigh, but did not report the new blister to the charge nurse or DON. A subsequent Skin Wound Note documented a new open area on the left posterior thigh with the resident reporting pain while sitting on the bedpan. Later, an NP wound care consult documented that the thigh wound had been present for approximately two weeks per nursing report and measured 3.5 cm x 4.0 cm x 0.2 cm, requiring sharp excisional debridement to remove necrotic tissue and decrease bacterial burden. On observation by the surveyor with the Wound Care Nurse, the left upper thigh area was open to air, shiny pink and granular, about the size of a half dollar. These findings demonstrate that the facility did not follow its abuse/neglect prevention policy and CNA job responsibilities to provide necessary care and to report changes in condition, resulting in neglect of incontinent care and delayed wound assessment and treatment for this resident.
Failure to Report Allegation of Neglect to State Survey Agency
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to timely report an allegation of neglect to the State Survey Agency (SSA) as required by its own abuse and neglect reporting policy. The facility’s policy, dated 1/2025, states that any complaint, allegation, observation, or suspicion of resident neglect must be immediately communicated to the Abuse Coordinator and promptly investigated and documented, and that all alleged violations involving mistreatment, abuse, or neglect will be thoroughly investigated under the direction of the Administrator in accordance with state and federal law. Despite this, the Administrator acknowledged that an allegation of neglect reported by a resident was not reported to the SSA. The resident involved was cognitively intact, with a BIMS score of 15, and had diagnoses including a disorder of the skin and subcutaneous tissue and lymphedema. The resident reported that during a night shift she requested assistance for incontinent care after using a bedpan and experienced multiple delays before a CNA assisted her. She stated that when the CNA finally provided care, she did not feel adequately cleaned, and the CNA did not verify cleanliness before leaving. The next morning, another CNA found soiled linen with feces and a blister on the resident’s left upper thigh, which the resident reported as burning. A subsequent skin/wound note documented a new open area on the left posterior thigh. The resident texted the Administrator describing that a CNA had left feces on her and that she had developed a painful blister. The Administrator confirmed receiving this text but did not report the allegation of neglect to the SSA, despite being aware it should have been reported.
Failure to Update and Implement Care Plan for Newly Developed Pressure Ulcer
Penalty
Summary
Surveyors identified a failure to implement and update the care plan for a newly developed pressure ulcer for one resident. The facility’s policy "RAI Care Planning Management" requires a comprehensive, accurate assessment and real-time modification of the care plan when changes occur. The resident was admitted with diagnoses including a disorder of the skin and subcutaneous tissue and lymphedema. A recent MDS quarterly assessment showed the resident was cognitively intact (BIMS 15), at risk for pressure ulcer development, and had no unhealed pressure ulcers at that time. The existing care plan, dated 6/6/2024, identified potential for pressure ulcer development and skin integrity issues related to immobility and lymphedema, with interventions to observe, document, and report changes in skin status, including wound size, stage, and signs of infection. Subsequently, a NP wound report documented a new open wound on the resident’s thigh that had been present for approximately two weeks, with specific measurements recorded. During observation and interview, the Wound Care Nurse and the resident confirmed the wound was on the left upper thigh, which differed from the NP report that referenced the right thigh. The MDS Coordinator reported she previously received weekly wound sheets from the Wound Care Nurse but had not received one in about a month, and that the DON was now responsible for emailing the weekly wound report. She verified that the last wound report she received did not include this resident and stated that new wounds should be discussed in the morning management meeting and the care plan updated in real time. The MDS Coordinator confirmed she only recently became aware of the upper left thigh wound and that the resident’s care plan had not been updated to reflect this new wound, resulting in a failure to implement care plan interventions for the newly developed pressure ulcer.
Failure to Complete Required GCHEXS Fingerprint Check for CNA
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure that a Georgia Criminal History Check System (GCHEXS) fingerprint check was conducted for one CNA among ten employee files reviewed, despite a census of eighty residents and a written policy requiring criminal background checks for all employment candidates. The policy titled "Freedom of Abuse Abuse Prevention Fast Alert" dated 1/2025 states that, as part of pre-employment screening, all candidates must authorize a criminal background check for conviction of crimes. During record review with the Human Resources Manager (HRM), there was no documentation of a fingerprint records check for CNA BB, and the HRM confirmed that this CNA did not have a GCHEXS fingerprint check conducted. The HRM also stated that she is responsible for background checks, fingerprint checks, reference checks, and maintaining employee files. This failure to complete the required fingerprint background check for CNA BB resulted in noncompliance cited under F-Tag 600. No resident-specific medical histories, conditions, or direct resident care events were described in the report related to this deficiency.
Failure to Maintain Safe and Clean Conditions in Multiple Resident Shower Rooms
Penalty
Summary
Surveyors identified a deficiency related to accident hazards and inadequate environmental controls in multiple resident shower rooms. On the 4th floor, observation with the Unit Manager showed four razors on the floor, dirty gloves and a dirty comb on a shower bed, stained/dirty floors, an opened gallon bottle of complete bath soap, and a bottle of chemical resistant spray in the shower room. A razor and hair clippers were found in a black bag on the floor, and a shower cap and toothbrush were lying on the floor. The 4th floor Unit Manager stated that CNAs were supposed to clean up before showering residents and acknowledged that the items found should not be on the floor. The Environmental Senior Director reported that shower rooms were cleaned daily, with responsibilities including cleaning high-touch areas, sweeping and mopping floors, removing linen, and cleaning the area, and stated there had been no complaints about showers not being cleaned. On the 3rd floor, observation with the Unit Manager revealed an open bottle of skin and hair cleaner, an open bottle of conditioner, and an open bottle of skin ointment in the resident shower room. The 3rd floor Unit Manager stated that items in the shower room should be closed and that CNAs were to clean after each resident. On the 2nd floor, observation with the Unit Manager revealed two opened gallon containers of skin and hair cleaner and a strong urine odor in the shower room. The 2nd floor Unit Manager stated that the soap should have a top on it and that CNAs were responsible for cleaning after each resident. These observations and interviews showed that four of six resident shower rooms were not maintained free of hazards and were not cleaned as expected by facility staff, creating the potential for injury and spread of infection as stated in the report.
Improper Ice Scoop Handling and Storage Breaches Infection Control Protocol
Penalty
Summary
Surveyors identified a deficiency in the facility’s infection prevention and control program related to improper handling and storage of ice scoops on two of four floors. On the 4th floor, observation of the ice scoop and scoop cover showed black specks near the end of the scoop used to put ice in cups, and the scoop cover was located on top of the ice machine. The 4th floor Unit Manager stated that kitchen staff cleaned the scoops once a week and acknowledged that the scoop should be clean. On the 3rd floor, observation of the ice chest/cooler used to serve residents revealed the ice scoop submerged in ice and water. The 3rd floor Unit Manager later confirmed that the ice scoop was not supposed to be left in the cooler. The Maintenance Director reported that maintenance staff were responsible for cleaning the ice machines, which were checked weekly and monthly, while nursing staff were responsible for cleaning the ice scoops and covers. The Staff Development Coordinator/Infection Control staff stated that all staff had been trained in infection control procedures, including hand hygiene and handling of the ice scoop and holder, and that staff had been educated that the ice scoop should be placed in the scoop holder after use and never left in the ice. Documentation in the maintenance logbook showed monthly checks and cleaning of all four ice machines, and the ice machine cleaning log showed that the ice machines on the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th floors and in the kitchen had been cleaned on specific dates. Staff training records indicated that an in-service on handwashing and ice scoop protocol had been provided for all staff.
Neglect Related to Inadequate Supervision and Unsafe Side Rail Use Leading to Entrapment
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to protect a resident from neglect related to inadequate supervision and oversight of side rail use, resulting in entrapment. Facility policies on Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation required protections to prevent neglect, defined as failure to provide goods and services necessary to avoid physical harm, pain, mental anguish, or emotional distress. The policy on Proper Use of Bed Rails required a person-centered approach, attempts at alternatives before bed rail use, and ensuring correct installation, use, and maintenance of bed rails, including attention to entrapment risk. For this resident, the Medicare 5-day MDS indicated moderate cognitive impairment (BIMS score of 8), total dependence on staff for all ADLs, and documented that bed rails were not used, while an admission assessment documented side rails were placed to assist with movement in bed. Facility records showed no evidence that safe rail spacing and regular inspection of side rails and beds had been completed. The resident had multiple serious medical diagnoses, including acute and subacute infective endocarditis, end stage renal disease, hemiplegia and hemiparesis following cerebral infarction, bacteremia, and cervical disc degeneration, and was dependent on staff for all ADLs. Nursing staff last observed the resident at 12:46 am when a sponge bath was provided; there was no documented monitoring or ADL assistance between 12:46 am and 4:30 am. The assigned CNA reported coming on duty at 11:00 pm, seeing the resident up with the bed in a low position, placing the call light in the resident’s hands, and not seeing or checking the resident again until approximately 4:30–5:00 am, stating that the resident did not press the call light during that time. Around 5:00 am, the CNA requested help from the RN, reporting that the resident needed assistance. The RN found the resident with the lower part of his body hanging off the bed and the upper body still on the bed, with his elbow wedged into the half side rail, requiring three staff to reposition him back into bed. The RN stated the resident, who was quadriplegic, was no longer as alert as when put to bed, did not respond to sternal rubs, had open but unfocused eyes, and was not verbally interactive. The CNA described finding the resident on his knees, all the way out of bed, with one hand tangled in the side rail, and noted that he was moaning but not talking after being returned to bed. Progress notes documented that EMS was called for evaluation and treatment due to the resident’s condition, and hospital ER records indicated he arrived with altered mental status and respiratory failure, agonal respirations, and a GCS of 3. The facility’s Maintenance Director stated bedrails had been checked the prior year but could not provide proof, and requested documentation of safe rail spacing and regular inspection was not provided.
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.
