Park Place
Inspection history, citations, penalties and survey trends for this long-term care facility in Mount Pleasant, Iowa.
- Location
- 401 South Van Buren, Mount Pleasant, Iowa 52641
- CMS Provider Number
- 165147
- Inspections on file
- 19
- Latest survey
- December 2, 2025
- Citations (last 12 mo.)
- 1
Citation history
Health deficiencies cited at Park Place during CMS and state inspections, most recent first.
Two residents' personal funds were not properly managed or safeguarded by facility staff. In one case, a cognitively impaired resident's money was taken home by a staff member instead of being deposited into a trust account, with no documentation or quarterly statements provided. In another case, a resident's checkbook and debit card were held by a staff member without formal documentation or use of the facility's trust account system. Required policies for handling resident funds were not followed, and staff lacked adequate training.
Multiple residents experienced significant delays in call light response, with documented wait times ranging from 19 minutes to over an hour. Residents and family members reported repeated instances of long waits for assistance with toileting, transfers, and other care needs. Staff interviews confirmed that it was common to reset call lights and delay assistance, especially during busy periods. The facility did not have a written policy for call light response, and leadership acknowledged ongoing issues with timely responses.
A facility failed to accurately communicate a resident's behaviors during discharge planning, leading to challenges at the receiving facility. The resident, with cognitive impairments and daily wandering behavior, frequently entered other residents' rooms, requiring redirection. The receiving facility was informed of no significant behaviors, resulting in the need for 1:1 supervision upon the resident's arrival.
A facility failed to ensure timely follow-up on a Medication Regimen Review recommendation for a resident taking hypnotic medication. Despite multiple attempts by the RN Manager to obtain a physician's response to a recommendation to reduce temazepam dosage, no response was documented. The facility's policy requires documentation of actions taken or rationale for inaction, which was not adhered to, leading to the deficiency.
The facility failed to implement non-pharmacological interventions before administering an antianxiety medication and did not attempt a gradual dose reduction (GDR) for an antidepressant for two residents. A resident with wandering behavior was given lorazepam without documented interventions, and another resident with severe cognitive impairment did not have a GDR attempted for escitalopram. The facility's policy required non-pharmacological approaches and GDR attempts, but these were not consistently followed.
Two residents experienced undignified transfers using mechanical lifts at a facility. One resident, with intact cognition, was roughly handled by a CNA during a transfer, causing distress. Another resident, with moderately impaired cognition, was subjected to inappropriate use of the emergency brake on a lift, leading to a rough landing. Staff interviews revealed a lack of awareness and reporting of these incidents, highlighting a failure to uphold residents' rights to dignity and respect.
A facility failed to report an alleged staff-to-resident assault within the required 24-hour timeframe. A CNA observed another CNA, Staff C, handling a resident roughly during transfers, including grabbing the resident by the waistband and letting them fall onto a lift. The incident was reported to the DON by two CNAs, but the DON did not report it to authorities within the mandated period. The facility's policy requires immediate reporting of abuse allegations to the charge nurse and authorities within 24 hours.
A facility failed to investigate an alleged abuse incident involving a resident with a history of stroke and muscle weakness. A CNA was observed handling the resident roughly during a transfer, causing the resident to fall back onto a lift without proper support. The facility did not conduct a thorough investigation, lacking documentation of a physical assessment and interviews with staff or residents, contrary to its abuse prevention policy.
Failure to Safeguard and Account for Resident Personal Funds
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to properly manage, safeguard, and account for personal funds entrusted to staff for two residents. In the first case, a resident with severe cognitive impairment and a diagnosis of non-Alzheimer's dementia was admitted to the facility, and a family friend reported that a $2,500 check intended for the resident was cashed by a staff member and not properly deposited into a resident trust account. The facility lacked documentation of a request to manage the resident's funds and did not provide required quarterly account statements. The staff member responsible for resident accounts took the resident's money home during a leave of absence, only returning it after being questioned by the administrator. The staff member reported not receiving training on handling resident trust accounts and acted independently without proper oversight or documentation. In the second case, another resident, who had intact cognition, did not have a resident trust account during their stay. After the resident's death, the administrator found the resident's checkbook in the office of the same staff member. There was no written request for the facility to manage the resident's funds, and no documentation of quarterly statements being provided. Interviews revealed that the staff member had possession of the resident's debit card, which was used to assist the resident with financial transactions, but this was not formally documented or managed through the facility's trust account system. The administrator and DON were unaware that the staff member held the resident's debit card and did not report the finding or conduct an investigation after the resident's death. Facility policy required that all resident funds entrusted to the facility be deposited and withdrawn through a designated trust account, with individual records maintained and receipts provided. However, these procedures were not followed for the two residents in question. The staff member responsible for managing resident funds did not receive adequate training and acted outside of established protocols, resulting in a failure to safeguard and account for resident funds as required.
Failure to Respond to Call Lights Within Required Timeframe
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure that nursing staff responded to resident call lights within 15 minutes, as required to meet the needs of every resident. Multiple sources, including Resident Council Meeting minutes, call light logs, direct observations, and interviews with residents, family members, and staff, documented repeated delays in response times. Residents and their families reported waiting from 19 minutes to over an hour for assistance, with some residents left waiting for toileting help, transfers, or other care needs. Staff interviews confirmed that it was common practice to reset call lights and tell residents they would return, sometimes resulting in further delays. Specific examples included a resident with moderately impaired cognition and significant physical care needs who waited up to 1 hour and 31 minutes for assistance, and another resident with intact cognition who reported waiting up to 42 minutes on multiple occasions. Call light logs for several residents showed numerous instances where response times exceeded 15 minutes, with some calls unanswered for over an hour. Residents with varying levels of cognitive and physical impairment, including those dependent on staff for toileting and transfers, were affected by these delays. Family members also observed and reported long wait times for their loved ones. Staff interviews revealed that response times were often longer during busy periods, such as after meals, and that staff sometimes prioritized other tasks over responding to call lights. The facility lacked a written policy for call light response times, and both the Director of Nursing and Administrator acknowledged ongoing issues with timely responses. The deficiency was further substantiated by the facility's own documentation and the absence of a formal policy to guide staff actions.
Inaccurate Discharge Planning and Communication of Resident Behaviors
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to provide an accurate representation of a resident's behaviors and to ensure discharge needs were identified within the discharge planning process. The Minimum Data Set (MDS) for the resident indicated cognitive impairments and daily wandering behavior that intruded on others' privacy. The care plan included interventions for elopement risk and behavioral symptoms, but staff interviews revealed that the resident frequently wandered into other residents' rooms and required redirection. The social worker and Director of Nursing (DON) were unaware of the extent of the resident's behaviors, which were not communicated to the receiving facility. The receiving facility's DON was informed that the resident had no significant behaviors and was unaware of the resident's tendency to follow others into their rooms. Upon arrival, the resident required 1:1 supervision due to frequent redirection needs. The facility had accepted residents from a closing facility on an emergency basis, and the resident was not suitable for the environment, prompting a search for a more appropriate placement. The lack of accurate communication regarding the resident's behaviors led to challenges in managing the resident's needs at the receiving facility.
Failure to Ensure Timely Follow-Up on Medication Regimen Review
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure timely follow-up on Medication Regimen Review recommendations for a resident identified as having unnecessary medications. The resident, who was rarely to never understood, was taking hypnotic medication, including temazepam. A review of the resident's care plan indicated monitoring for adverse reactions related to temazepam, quetiapine, and trazodone. A physician order dated December 4, 2023, prescribed temazepam 7.5 mg at bedtime. On March 31, 2024, a recommendation was made to reduce the temazepam dosage to PRN for two weeks to assess the resident's need for the medication. However, there was no documented response from the physician to this recommendation. The facility's RN Manager attempted to follow up on the recommendation multiple times, including on July 24, 2024, and May 23, 2024, but did not receive a response from the physician. The facility's Drug Regimen Review Policy requires the attending provider to document in the resident's record any actions taken in response to identified irregularities or provide a rationale if no action is taken. The RN Manager acknowledged that the ideal response time from the physician would be 24 to 48 hours, but this was not achieved. This lack of timely follow-up and documentation led to the deficiency identified during the survey.
Failure to Implement Non-Pharmacological Interventions and GDR
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to implement non-pharmacological interventions before administering an antianxiety medication and did not attempt a gradual dose reduction (GDR) for an antidepressant for two residents. Resident #19, who was rarely or never understood and exhibited wandering behavior, was prescribed lorazepam for anxiety. The facility's records lacked documentation of non-pharmacological interventions prior to administering lorazepam on multiple occasions. Interviews with staff revealed that interventions were expected to be documented before medication administration, but this was not consistently done. Resident #21, with severely impaired cognition and a diagnosis of depression, was prescribed escitalopram. The facility did not document any attempts at a GDR for this medication. The Director of Nursing (DON) acknowledged that the pharmacist missed including escitalopram in the GDR progress note and could not locate a request for a dose reduction. The facility's policy required two GDR attempts within the first year of medication use unless clinically contraindicated, but this was not followed for Resident #21. The facility's psychotropic medication policy emphasized the use of non-pharmacological approaches before medication and required documentation of these attempts. However, the facility did not adhere to this policy for the residents in question, leading to deficiencies in medication management. The DON admitted that some nurses were better at documenting interventions than others, and a charge nurse was overseeing the process to ensure compliance.
Inappropriate Use of Mechanical Lifts for Resident Transfers
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to provide transfers using mechanical lifts in a dignified and respectful manner for two residents. Resident #1, who had intact cognition and required assistance with mobility due to generalized muscle weakness and a history of stroke, was subjected to inappropriate handling during a transfer. Staff C, a CNA, was reported to have grabbed Resident #1 by the pockets of his pants and wrists during a transfer using a Sara Steady lift, causing the resident to be moved roughly and land on the bed in a manner that was not gentle. This incident left Resident #1 appearing upset and apologetic, indicating a lack of dignity and respect in the handling process. Resident #4, with moderately impaired cognition, also experienced undignified treatment during transfers. Staff C was reported to have used the emergency brake on the mechanical lift, causing Resident #4 to plop into her chair from a height of about a foot. This method of using the emergency brake was not standard practice and was noted to be rough and potentially unsafe. Other staff members, including Staff D and Staff E, confirmed that the emergency brake should not be used in this manner, and it was noted that Staff C had a history of being rough with residents during transfers. Interviews with various staff members, including the Director of Nursing, revealed a lack of awareness and reporting of Staff C's inappropriate handling of residents. The DON expressed shock upon learning about the incidents and acknowledged that Resident #1 was not treated appropriately. The facility's policy and the resident's rights emphasize the importance of treating residents with dignity and respect, which was not upheld in these instances. The use of the emergency brake during transfers was also highlighted as inappropriate and not aligned with the facility's procedures for safe and respectful resident care.
Failure to Timely Report Alleged Abuse
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to report an alleged staff-to-resident assault within the required 24-hour timeframe for one resident. The incident involved a Certified Nurse Aide (CNA), identified as Staff C, who was observed by another CNA, Staff A, during a transfer. Staff A reported that Staff C grabbed the resident by the waistband and pulled him up from the wheelchair, and later let the resident flop down onto the lift paddles. During another transfer to bed, Staff C was reported to have roughly handled the resident by grabbing him by the pockets of his pants to stand him up and later letting him fall back onto the bed. Staff B, another CNA, corroborated that Staff C was rough with residents and did not follow proper procedures during transfers. The incident was reported to the Director of Nursing (DON) by Staff A an hour after it occurred, and by Staff B the following day. However, the DON confirmed that the alleged abuse was not reported to the appropriate authorities within the required 24-hour period. The facility's policy mandates that allegations of abuse be reported immediately to the charge nurse, who is then responsible for notifying the DON, the Administrator, or a designated representative. The policy further requires that the Iowa Department of Inspections and Appeals be notified immediately, and no later than 24 hours after any allegations, even on weekends or holidays. The failure to adhere to this policy resulted in a deficiency being cited during the survey.
Failure to Investigate Alleged Abuse Incident
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to thoroughly investigate an alleged abuse incident involving a resident with intact cognition and medical diagnoses of generalized muscle weakness and a history of stroke. The incident occurred when a CNA was observed handling the resident roughly during a transfer using a mechanical lift. The CNA reportedly grabbed the resident by the waistband and pockets of his pants, causing the resident to fall back onto the lift paddles and bed without proper support. The resident was described as shaky and having difficulty standing, and the CNA's actions were reported to be rough and lacking communication with the resident. The facility's documentation lacked a comprehensive investigation into the incident. There was no documentation of a physical assessment of the resident following the incident, and no additional staff or residents were interviewed to gather further information. The Director of Nursing (DON) acknowledged the lack of immediate action and documentation, stating that she did not chart the assessment of the resident's wrists and did not conduct further interviews with staff or residents. The facility's policy on abuse prevention and investigation outlines specific steps to be taken in such cases, including immediate physical assessments, documentation, and interviews with relevant parties. However, these procedures were not followed, resulting in an incomplete investigation of the alleged abuse. The failure to adhere to the policy and thoroughly investigate the incident constitutes a deficiency in the facility's handling of the situation.
Latest citations in Iowa
A resident with severe cognitive impairment, multiple comorbidities (including Parkinson’s disease and CVA), high fall risk, and frequent incontinence experienced numerous unwitnessed falls over several months despite documented needs for substantial/maximal assistance and supervision. The care plan and facility policy called for individualized fall interventions and visual supervision, yet the resident repeatedly self-transferred in the room, common areas, and between the dining room and therapy gym, often being found on the floor after staff heard yelling or noticed the resident missing. Staff interviews confirmed that the resident was typically placed near the nurses’ station or in common areas for increased or visual supervision, but staff were not consistently present or able to intervene before the resident attempted unsafe transfers or tried to assist other residents, leading to repeated injuries such as abrasions and skin tears.
Two residents with cognitive impairment were not adequately protected from sexual abuse by another resident. One resident reported that a male resident in a wheelchair entered her room, moved her bedside table, touched her leg, and placed his hand under her blanket until she screamed and used her call light, after which he left. Shortly afterward, staff found the same male resident in bed with another resident, whose pants and brief were partially down, with his hand inside her pants on her buttocks; she was half asleep and unable to describe what happened. Staff interviews indicated delays and hesitancy in documenting and reporting the incidents to law enforcement and families, with nursing staff stating they were initially told by the DON not to document or report because penetration was not observed or the events were not physically witnessed. The affected resident later became more withdrawn and uncomfortable in common areas when the alleged perpetrator was present, while the facility’s own abuse policy defined sexual abuse as non-consensual sexual contact of any type and guaranteed residents’ right to be free from abuse.
A resident with moderate cognitive impairment, multiple chronic conditions, and chronic pain ordered Oxycodone HCl 15 mg every six hours received incorrect doses after the pharmacy changed the tablet strength from 5 mg to 15 mg. Staff had previously administered three 5 mg tablets to equal the ordered 15 mg, but when new 15 mg tablets arrived, a CMA first gave a total of 25 mg by combining remaining 5 mg tablets with a 15 mg tablet, then an LPN and the same CMA each later administered three 15 mg tablets (45 mg) while documenting the doses as if they matched the order. Progress notes described the resident as pale, confused, with garbled speech, hallucination-like behavior, pinpoint pupils, and intermittent drowsiness. Interviews showed staff did not re-check the tablet strength or compare the new medication card to the MAR and reported there was no formal process to alert staff to dose changes with new medication cards.
The facility failed to maintain a clean, comfortable, homelike environment when multiple residents’ beds remained stripped or unmade well into the morning and one room was observed with dried fluid on the floor and debris along the baseboard heater and wall. A cognitively intact resident reported wanting the bed made by the end of breakfast, but surveyors twice observed linens rolled at the foot of the bed with the bed unmade. Another resident with moderate cognitive impairment and physical care needs was found lying in bed with only a small lap blanket while all bedding was bunched at the bottom of the bed, and the resident stated staff had not returned to make the bed. CNAs and an LPN described busy workloads, stripped beds, and delays in bed-making, while leadership acknowledged expectations that beds be made by mid-morning and that rooms be clean, consistent with the facility’s homelike environment policy.
The facility failed to maintain kitchen sanitation and follow food safety practices, as shown by incomplete monthly cleaning checklists, unlabeled and undated food items, improper storage of raw meat above ready-to-eat foods, and dried food and debris on floors and equipment. During meal service, dessert plates were transported uncovered on hallway carts, random rags were left on the kitchen floor, and dietary staff used gloves improperly, touched non-food surfaces, wiped their nose, drank from a personal mug, and resumed food service without proper hand hygiene. Another staff member briefly rinsed hands after handling dirty dishes and then passed resident trays without appropriate handwashing, contrary to the facility’s own food safety and employee hygiene policies.
A resident-to-resident altercation occurred, and although the residents were immediately separated, the event was not reported to the state survey agency within the required timeframe. The incident was documented as having occurred weeks before it was recognized and reported as an allegation of abuse. Interviews with the Systems Process and Policy Specialist and the Administrator confirmed that the event met criteria for abuse reporting and should have been reported within 24 hours without serious injury or within 2 hours with serious injury, consistent with the facility’s abuse reporting policy and state requirements. Former administration did not complete this required timely reporting.
The facility failed to maintain comprehensive, person-centered care plans for three residents with significant clinical needs. One resident was on ongoing Duloxetine therapy, another was receiving Trazodone and Apixaban with diagnoses of Alzheimer’s disease, depression, and bipolar disorder, and a third had Parkinson’s disease, benign prostatic hyperplasia, and a newly placed Foley catheter for urinary retention. Despite MDS assessments and active physician orders for antidepressants, anticoagulants, and catheter care (including output monitoring, leg bag use when out of bed, and routine catheter changes), the residents’ care plans lacked corresponding problems, goals, and measurable interventions. The DON and Administrator acknowledged that dementia, anticoagulant use, Alzheimer’s disease, antidepressant use, and catheter use had not been incorporated into the individualized care plans as required by facility policy.
A resident with morbid obesity, heart failure, and intact cognition reported daily use of a female urinal that surveyors observed to be soiled with feces on the outside and urine scale in the bottom, with a bent top that the resident said reduced its effectiveness. The resident stated the urinal had not been changed for about three months and was not cleaned weekly. The facility lacked a urinal care policy, and the DON reported not knowing how staff managed this resident’s urinal, while noting that male urinals are changed monthly and expressing uncertainty about the availability of a replacement urinal.
A resident with moderate cognitive impairment was sent to the ED via ambulance for evaluation and oxygen after an on-call provider’s order, but the resident’s daughter, listed as emergency contact and POA, was not notified at the time of transfer. The LPN who arranged the transfer informed only the resident, considering him his own POA, and did not contact the daughter, later acknowledging this omission. A subsequent LPN learned from ED staff that the resident had been transferred to another hospital for urosepsis and kidney failure and then called the daughter, who reported she first learned of the situation only after the resident had been life flighted and was already at the second hospital. The DON confirmed the daughter should have been notified of the emergency transfer in accordance with the facility’s change-of-condition reporting policy, which requires notifying and documenting contact with the family/responsible party.
Staff were informed that a male resident had entered one resident’s room and attempted to get into bed with her, and shortly thereafter found him in bed with another resident whose pants and brief were partially down while his hand was on her buttocks. One resident was cognitively intact with CAD and diabetes, and the other had severe cognitive impairment and required assistance with personal care. Although facility policy required immediate reporting of abuse allegations to the Administrator and state agencies, the Administrator and DON were not fully informed at the time of the incidents, and the allegation was not reported to state authorities within the required 2-hour timeframe.
Failure to Provide Effective Supervision and Fall-Prevention for High-Risk Resident
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to maintain an environment free from accident hazards and to provide adequate supervision and effective fall-prevention interventions for a resident with severe cognitive impairment and a significant fall history. The resident had a BIMS score of 2, indicating severely impaired cognition, was oriented to self only, and exhibited dementia progression, short recall, impulsiveness, and frequent self-transfers. The MDS documented substantial/maximal assistance needs for bed mobility and transfers, supervision for toileting and transfers, and frequent urinary incontinence. Diagnoses included Parkinson’s disease, cerebrovascular accident, diabetes mellitus, and renal insufficiency, all contributing to a high fall risk. The facility’s own fall management policy required individualized care plans, IDT review of fall patterns, and interventions based on causal factors, but the resident experienced thirteen falls over approximately three months. Incident reports show repeated unwitnessed falls in both the resident’s room and common areas despite the resident being identified as high risk for falls and placed near the nurses’ station or in common areas for “increased” or “visual” supervision. On one occasion, staff heard yelling and found the resident picking himself up from the bathroom floor after self-transferring to the toilet without a walker or assistance and without using the call light. Another incident in a common area involved the resident being found on the floor with abrasions after staff only heard yelling and then discovered him lying on his side. In another fall, the resident attempted to assist another resident in the common area, stood up from a recliner, lost balance, and sustained a skin tear, indicating that staff were not sufficiently monitoring his movements or preventing unsafe attempts to help others. Additional falls occurred while the resident was supposed to be under observation near the nurses’ station or in the dining/common areas. In one event, an LPN sitting at the nurses’ station on the phone turned her head and saw the resident in mid-fall out of his recliner, demonstrating that the resident was able to initiate transfers and fall without timely staff intervention despite the expectation of visual supervision. In another event, the resident was last known to be seated in his wheelchair at a dining room table, but when the nurse returned from another resident’s room, the resident was missing and was later found on his knees in the therapy gym, which was connected to the dining room by several short hallways. Interviews with LPNs and the DON confirmed that the expectation was for visual supervision and that the resident was frequently placed in the living room/common area or near the nurses’ station, but staff could not account for where other staff were at the time of some falls. The pattern of repeated unwitnessed falls, self-transfers, and inadequate monitoring despite known high fall risk and cognitive impairment demonstrates the facility’s failure to implement and maintain effective, consistent supervision and fall-prevention interventions as required by its fall management policy and the resident’s care plan.
Failure to Protect Residents From Sexual Abuse and to Report and Document Incidents
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to protect residents from sexual abuse and to implement appropriate protective interventions after serious allegations involving one male resident and two female residents. Resident #3, who had a history of muscle weakness, stroke, diabetes mellitus, and a BIMS score of 12 indicating moderate cognitive impairment, reported that while she was in bed with her door partially closed, a male resident in a wheelchair (Resident #2) entered her room, moved her bedside table, touched her leg, and placed his hand under her blanket attempting to touch her. She stated she pushed her call light and screamed twice, after which he left the room. Resident #3 later described ongoing distress when seeing Resident #2 in common areas, reported difficulty sleeping when she saw him, and expressed that she had told others she would kill him if he touched her again. She also stated that it bothered her that he had violated another person and that she did not understand why he was allowed to sit at a table with residents who could not defend themselves. The same day, Resident #50, who had diagnoses including need for assistance with personal care, hypertension, and unspecified cognitive symptoms with a BIMS score of 6 indicating severe cognitive impairment, was found in a more advanced incident with Resident #2. According to the incident report and progress notes, staff discovered Resident #2 in bed with Resident #50, with her pants and brief halfway down and his left hand inside her pants on her buttocks. Her wheelchair was parked in front of the bed and the door was locked. Resident #50 was lying on her side, half asleep, and was unable to state or describe what had happened. Both residents were separated, and Resident #2 was later placed under 1:1 monitoring at the nursing station, but the documentation shows that the discovery of this incident occurred only after staff had been alerted that Resident #2 had already attempted to get into bed with Resident #3. Multiple staff and family interviews revealed failures in timely reporting, documentation, and implementation of protective interventions consistent with the facility’s abuse-prevention policy. Resident #3’s daughter stated her mother called her about the incident in the afternoon, but the facility did not notify her until several hours later, and that police were not called until the evening. Staff I, the RN on duty, reported that the DON told her that because there was no vaginal penetration, she should call the police later and that the police would probably only take a report over the phone. Staff N, an LPN, stated she was told that Staff I had initially been instructed not to document the incident because they did not know exactly what Resident #2 was doing, and that she insisted the incident needed to be reported. Staff J, an LPN, similarly stated that the DON told Staff I not to make a note of the incident because it was not physically witnessed, despite Staff I stating she had witnessed it. Staff interviews also documented that Resident #3 became more self-isolating and uncomfortable participating in activities or remaining in the dining room when Resident #2 was present, while Resident #2 remained in the facility. The facility’s written policy defined abuse, including sexual abuse as non-consensual sexual contact of any type with a resident, and stated that each resident has the right to be free from abuse, neglect, misappropriation, and exploitation, but the actions and inactions described did not align with these stated protections for Residents #3 and #50.
Significant Oxycodone Dosing Error Due to Failure to Verify Tablet Strength and Orders
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to prevent a significant medication error for a resident receiving opioid therapy for chronic pain. The resident had moderate cognitive impairment and multiple diagnoses including anxiety, COPD, depression, heart failure, and respiratory failure, and was care planned for chronic pain with interventions to monitor for opiate side effects. The physician’s order, in place since early March, specified Oxycodone HCl 15 mg every six hours. Initially, the pharmacy dispensed 5 mg tablets with instructions on the medication card and controlled drug record to administer three tablets every six hours to equal the ordered 15 mg dose, and staff followed this regimen. On a later date, the pharmacy delivered a new supply of Oxycodone HCl as 15 mg tablets, with the new controlled drug record and medication card directing staff to administer one tablet every six hours. However, on the afternoon when the new card arrived, a CMA completed the remaining 5 mg tablets from the old card (two tablets) and then took one 15 mg tablet from the new card, resulting in a 25 mg dose instead of the ordered 15 mg. The following morning, an LPN documented administering three 15 mg tablets (45 mg total) and signed the controlled drug record and MAR as if the ordered dose had been given. Later that same day at midday, the CMA again documented administering three 15 mg tablets (another 45 mg total) and signed the MAR as if the ordered dose had been provided. Progress notes later that day documented the resident appearing pale, with garbled speech, confusion, and pinpoint pupils, and then later reaching out to grab at the air, laughing about it, with pupils measured at 1 mm and intermittent drowsiness, though easily arousable. An RN associated with the resident’s primary care provider assessed the resident that afternoon and found the resident drowsy but responsive, with a contracted arm, shakiness, and pinpoint pupils, and reported that the primary care provider considered possible opioid overdose among other differential diagnoses. Facility staff interviews revealed that the CMA and LPN continued to give three tablets because that had been the prior practice with the 5 mg tablets, did not verify the tablet strength or compare the new medication card to the MAR, and that there was no formal process in place to notify staff of dose changes when new medication cards with different tablet strengths were received.
Unmade Beds and Poor Room Cleanliness Undermine Homelike Environment
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to provide a safe, clean, comfortable, and homelike environment by not making beds in a timely manner and not maintaining room cleanliness for several residents. For one cognitively intact resident (BIMS 14), surveyors observed on multiple occasions the bed linens rolled up at the foot of the bed and the bed unmade well into the morning, despite the resident’s stated preference that the bed be made by the end of breakfast and certainly before lunch. Another resident with moderate cognitive impairment (BIMS 9) and diagnoses including unspecified intellectual disabilities, muscle weakness, and need for assistance with personal care was observed lying in bed with only a small lap blanket while all bedding was wrapped at the bottom of the bed; the resident reported that a staff member had placed the bedding there earlier that morning and had not returned to make the bed. Additional observations on the same hall showed other beds without bedding at all. Staff interviews revealed that CNAs typically make beds when residents are gotten up in the morning, but one CNA reported it was his first day working at the facility, that the morning was very busy, and that he was unable to get beds made before being pulled away from the hall. Another CNA who started at 10:00 a.m. stated that when he arrived, beds on the hall had been stripped, linens not changed, and beds not made, and that he could not make the beds until after completing resident care. An LPN reported noticing frequently that resident beds were not made until after 11:00 a.m. and sometimes instructing staff or making beds herself. The DON and Administrator both stated they expected beds to be made by mid-morning and acknowledged that the day in question was not scheduled for housekeeping to strip and remake beds on that hall. In a separate room, surveyors observed a bed pulled away from the wall, streaks of dried fluid on the floor, brown debris along the baseboard heater and on the wall above it, and a white object in the baseboard; the resident confirmed these areas had been present for some time. The facility’s homelike environment policy stated that rooms should be homelike and, per the Administrator, rooms should be clean.
Failure to Maintain Kitchen Sanitation and Food Safety Practices
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to maintain appropriate kitchen sanitation and food safety practices as required by its food safety policy. Monthly cleaning checklists posted on the reach-in cooler door for AM/PM aides and cooks showed that most daily cleaning assignments had only been completed once during the month, with several tasks not initialed at all, indicating they were not done. During a kitchen tour, surveyors observed multiple sanitation and storage issues, including unlabeled drink pitchers, dried liquid and food debris on the bottom of the reach-in cooler, and raw ground hamburger stored above ready-to-eat cold cuts with incomplete labels lacking open dates. Additional unlabeled or undated food items included a plastic bag of what appeared to be hard-boiled eggs, a covered green resident bowl, a small plastic storage container, a container labeled cream of chicken soup dated 3/12/26, a container of what appeared to be pickles, and multiple cereal containers without identifying information, including one covered with torn plastic wrap. The kitchen floor had dried liquid and food debris unrelated to the current day's menu, and debris such as dried food splatter, plastic lids, condiment packets, a used rag, wrappers, dust, and food buildup was noted under and around equipment including the dish machine, prep tables, ice machine, and steam tables, as well as dried food splatter on the Kitchen Aid mixer, Robot Coupe, and an outlet box and utility pole. During meal service observations, surveyors noted additional failures to follow food safety and hygiene practices. Two carts with resident room trays left the kitchen with uncovered dessert plates while being transported down hallways. Random white rags were observed on the floor under the ice machine, handwashing sink, reach-in cooler, and the back side of the oven. A dietary aide (Staff I) donned gloves and then touched service cart handles, wiped gloved hands on their clothing, adjusted eyeglasses, and proceeded to portion brownies with the same gloves. Later, the same staff member removed gloves, wiped their nose, drank from a personal mug, then put on new gloves and resumed service without any hand hygiene. Another staff member (Staff J) placed dirty dishes in the dish machine, briefly rinsed hands under water at the handwashing sink, and then resumed passing resident trays without performing proper hand hygiene. In an interview, the Dietary Director and Registered Dietitian acknowledged the poor cleanliness of the kitchen and the improper glove use and inadequate hand hygiene, despite the facility’s written policy requiring proper food storage, covering food during transport, handwashing before distributing trays and between resident contact, and appropriate cleaning of equipment and use of gloves or utensils to avoid bare-hand contact with food.
Failure to Timely Report Resident-to-Resident Altercation as Alleged Abuse
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to timely report an allegation of abuse involving a resident-to-resident altercation to the state survey agency (SSA) in accordance with federal, state, and facility policy requirements. A facility investigation titled "Resident to Resident Altercation" documented that an incident occurred between two residents on 02/07/2026 at approximately 5:00 PM, during which the residents were immediately separated. The investigation record further documented that the incident was not reported until 03/09/2026, indicating a significant delay between the occurrence of the event and the reporting of the allegation. During an interview on 03/24/2026, the Systems Process and Policy Specialist stated she assumed responsibilities from the previous administrator in early March and, on 03/10/2026, identified that the resident-to-resident interaction had not been reported to the SSA as required. She then reported the allegation of abuse to the SSA on 03/10/2026 and confirmed it should have been reported within 24 hours. In a separate interview on the same date, the Administrator agreed that allegations meeting the criteria for abuse must be reported within 24 hours if there is no injury and within 2 hours if there is injury. Review of the facility’s Abuse Prevention, Identification, Investigation and Reporting Policy, last revised 12/2025, showed that all allegations of neglect, exploitation, mistreatment, injuries of unknown origin, and misappropriation must be reported to the Iowa Department of Inspections and Appeals within 2 hours if serious bodily injury occurred, or within 24 hours if serious bodily injury did not occur. Former administration failed to notify the SSA within these required time frames for this incident.
Failure to Update Comprehensive Care Plans for Psychotropic, Anticoagulant, and Catheter Management
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to develop and implement comprehensive, person-centered care plans with problems, goals, and measurable interventions for multiple residents with identified clinical needs. For one resident admitted from a short-term hospital stay, the MDS showed antidepressant use, and the EHR contained ongoing physician orders for Duloxetine beginning at admission and later revised in dose and formulation. Despite this, the resident’s care plan, last revised in early March, did not include any problem, goal, or intervention related to antidepressant medication usage. Another resident’s MDS documented use of both anticoagulant and antidepressant medications and diagnoses including Alzheimer’s disease, depression, and bipolar disorder. The EHR showed active orders for Trazodone as an antidepressant and Apixaban as an anticoagulant. However, the resident’s care plan, revised in late December, did not contain problems, goals, or interventions addressing antidepressant use, and the DON later acknowledged that dementia, anticoagulant use, and Alzheimer’s disease should also have been included on this resident’s care plan with appropriate goals and interventions. A third resident’s quarterly MDS indicated intact cognition, an indwelling catheter, a primary diagnosis of Parkinson’s disease with dyskinesia and fluctuations, and additional diagnoses including benign prostatic hyperplasia with lower urinary tract symptoms, depression, and cognitive communication deficit. Progress notes documented a new Foley catheter placed for urinary retention due to neurogenic bladder, and subsequent physician orders directed shift catheter output monitoring, use of a leg drainage bag when out of bed, and routine catheter changes every four weeks. The care plan, last revised in late December, had not been updated by the interdisciplinary team after the March quarterly assessment to include a focus or problem, goals, and interventions for catheter use. During interview and observation, the resident reported that Parkinson’s disease was slowing him down and that staff had not changed his catheter to a leg bag; he was observed using a bed bag under his wheelchair seat. The DON and Administrator both confirmed that the care plan had not been revised to address the catheter with measurable goals and individualized interventions, despite facility policy requiring review and revision of comprehensive care plans after each assessment and with new diagnoses, changes in condition, or new devices.
Failure to Provide Clean, Functional Urinal Supplies for a Resident
Penalty
Summary
Surveyors identified a deficiency in the facility’s failure to reasonably accommodate a resident’s needs and preferences for urinary independence by not providing proper urinal supplies and care. The resident, who had morbid obesity, heart failure, and a BIMS score of 15 indicating no cognitive impairment, reported using a female urinal daily. On observation, the urinal had brown areas on the outside, which the resident identified as feces that had been present for some time, and a urine scale in the bottom. The resident stated the facility had not changed the urinal for approximately three months and did not clean it weekly, and the urinal top was bent, which she said made it work less effectively. The facility did not have a policy on urinal care, and the DON stated she did not know what staff did with this resident’s urinal, acknowledged that male urinals are changed monthly and that this resident’s should be as well, and was unsure if there were any new urinals available for the resident.
Failure to Notify Resident’s POA of Emergency Hospital Transfer
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to notify a resident’s representative of a significant change in condition that resulted in transfer to the emergency department. The resident had a BIMS score of 9, indicating moderate cognitive impairment, and was documented as his own POA, with his daughter listed in the EHR profile as emergency contact #1, POA, and care conference person. On the morning of 1/7/26, an on-call provider ordered the resident sent to the ED via ambulance with oxygen, and the LPN (Staff E) documented updating the resident on the orders but did not notify the daughter/POA of the transfer. Staff E later acknowledged she did not notify the daughter at the time of transfer, stating she considered the resident his own POA and that she sent a text to another LPN (Staff D) to let the daughter know the resident had been transferred. Later that morning, Staff D documented speaking with an ED nurse and learning the resident had been transferred to another hospital due to urosepsis and kidney failure, and then documented calling and notifying the resident’s daughter. The daughter/POA reported she was not notified when the resident was first sent to the ED and only learned of the situation after he had been life flighted to a second hospital, stating the nursing home called her about 30 minutes before the second hospital notified her. Staff D confirmed that when she arrived for her shift, the previous nurse (Staff E) had not notified the daughter, and that the daughter was upset. The DON stated the resident was his own POA but confirmed the daughter, listed as emergency contact #1, should have been notified of the emergency transfer and was not. Facility policy on Change of Condition Reporting required licensed nurses to inform the family/responsible party of a change of condition and document all notification attempts, including time and response, which was not followed in this case.
Failure to Timely Report Resident-on-Resident Abuse Allegations to State Authorities
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to timely report allegations of abuse to the Iowa Department of Inspections & Appeals and Licensing (DIAL) within 2 hours for two residents. Resident #3, who had coronary artery disease, diabetes mellitus, muscle weakness, and a BIMS score of 12 indicating no cognitive impairment, reported that while she was in bed with her door partially closed, a male resident in a wheelchair entered her room, approached her bed, touched her leg, moved her bedside table, and placed his hand under her blanket attempting to touch her. She stated she pushed her call light, screamed twice, and that a neighboring resident also activated a call light. Staff documentation reflected that a caregiver informed the RN at the nurses’ station that Resident #2 had been in Resident #3’s room attempting to get into bed with her, prompting the RN to immediately go down the hall to check on the situation. Resident #50, who had diagnoses including need for assistance with personal care, lack of coordination, hypertension, and a BIMS score of 6 indicating severe cognitive impairment, was subsequently found by staff in bed with the same male resident. At approximately 3:22 p.m., the RN and caregivers located Resident #2 in bed with Resident #50, with Resident #50’s pants and brief halfway down and Resident #2’s hand in her pants on her buttocks, and his wheelchair parked in front of her bed with the door locked. Resident #50 was lying on her side, half asleep, and was unable to describe what had occurred. Facility policy required that all allegations of abuse, neglect, misappropriation, or exploitation be reported immediately to the Administrator and to appropriate state or federal agencies within applicable timeframes. Interviews with the Administrator and DON revealed that the Administrator did not learn of the incident until later that evening, at which time she reported it to the state, and the DON stated she had been called around 3:00 p.m. but was not informed about the touching or that a resident had been in bed with another resident, resulting in the allegation not being reported to DIAL within the required 2-hour timeframe.
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.
