Sanford Senior Care Sheldon
Inspection history, citations, penalties and survey trends for this long-term care facility in Sheldon, Iowa.
- Location
- 118 North Seventh Avenue, Sheldon, Iowa 51201
- CMS Provider Number
- 16E263
- Inspections on file
- 21
- Latest survey
- March 5, 2026
- Citations (last 12 mo.)
- 8
Citation history
Health deficiencies cited at Sanford Senior Care Sheldon during CMS and state inspections, most recent first.
Staff failed to timely report an allegation of abuse after a CNA took and shared a photo of a cognitively impaired resident lying on the floor after a fall, with the resident’s brief down and the CNA visible in the background. Another CNA viewed the photo on the CNA’s phone and, despite recognizing it was inappropriate, waited about a week before informing administration. Two CNAs discussed the photo with a third CNA, who then immediately reported it to the DON. Facility policy required that any alleged or suspected abuse be reported to administration and appropriate agencies immediately and no later than 2 hours after the allegation was made.
A resident at risk for pressure ulcers developed a stage 4 sacral ulcer after staff failed to assess, document, and intervene despite repeated reports of skin breakdown. CNAs observed and reported worsening skin issues, but licensed nurses did not consistently assess, notify the physician or family, or initiate treatment. The resident was eventually hospitalized with a severe pressure wound and died from MRSA cellulitis related to the ulcer.
The facility failed to notify the physician and family of significant weight loss for two residents and a choking incident for one resident. A resident with no cognitive impairment experienced significant weight loss without physician or family notification, contrary to facility policy. Another resident with moderate cognitive impairment also had significant weight loss and a choking incident, yet the facility did not inform the physician or family. The DON did not see the need for notification, although the resident's physician expected to be informed.
The facility failed to notify the LTC Ombudsman of hospitalizations for two residents. Hospital transfers were omitted from the monthly notification forms, as the Social Worker was not instructed to include them. The facility's policy requires such notifications to ensure the ombudsman can advocate effectively for residents.
A facility failed to ensure an accurate MDS assessment for a resident with severe cognitive impairment and mental illness. The resident's MDS inaccurately documented their PASRR status, despite having a Level 2 PASRR indicating the need for specialized behavioral health services. The MDS Coordinator did not correctly answer the PASRR-related question, leading to the deficiency.
A facility failed to reposition a resident with spinal cord dysfunction as per provider orders, which required repositioning every hour in a chair and every two hours in bed. The care plan did not reflect the updated orders, and records showed non-compliance on multiple dates. Staff interviews revealed a lack of documentation for refusals and absences, and the DON acknowledged the need for improved compliance.
The facility failed to complete daily skin assessments for a resident with a spinal cord injury and pressure ulcer risk, and did not follow physician orders for oxygen administration for a resident with cognitive impairment and coronary artery disease. Documentation was lacking for both skin assessments and oxygen therapy adjustments, contrary to the facility's policies.
A facility failed to ensure a physician evaluated a gradual dose reduction (GDR) for a resident's psychotropic medication. The resident, diagnosed with Alzheimer's and dementia with psychotic disturbance, was prescribed Amitriptyline 50 mg at bedtime. Despite a consultant pharmacist's recommendation for a GDR in May, there was no documented physician response. The DON confirmed the absence of a GDR evaluation during the survey.
Failure to Timely Report Allegation of Abuse Involving Inappropriate Resident Photograph
Penalty
Summary
Facility staff failed to timely report an allegation of abuse involving a cognitively impaired resident. The resident had diagnoses including depression, hypertension, and psychomotor defect following cerebral infarction, with a BIMS score of 8 indicating severe cognitive impairment. After the resident experienced a fall and was on the floor wearing a brief and T‑shirt, a CNA (Staff B) took a photo showing the resident on the floor with the brief down to the ankles and a pillow under the resident’s head, with Staff B visible in the background. Staff B then shared this photo in a staff work group chat. Another CNA (Staff A) later viewed the photo on Staff B’s phone in the hallway and questioned why Staff B had the photo; Staff B responded that it was in their work group chat. Staff A did not immediately report the incident to administration, instead “sitting on it” for approximately a week before deciding to turn it in, acknowledging she knew it was not right for Staff B to have the photo. During this period, Staff A and another CNA (Staff D) discussed the photo with a third CNA (Staff C), describing the image but not showing it to her. Staff C, upon learning of the photo, immediately reported the matter to the DON. The DON confirmed that Staff A, Staff C, and Staff D informed her that about a week earlier Staff B had shown them the photo of the resident on the floor after the fall. The facility’s abuse and neglect policy required that alleged or suspected violations involving mistreatment, neglect, exploitation, or abuse be reported immediately to the administrator and to designated agencies not later than 2 hours after the allegation is made. The DON stated that staff should have reported the allegation to administration right away.
Failure to Assess and Intervene for Pressure Ulcer Leads to Resident Death
Penalty
Summary
A resident with diagnoses including non-Alzheimer's dementia, diabetes mellitus, and hypertension, and who was assessed as having no cognitive impairment, was identified as being at risk for pressure ulcers but did not have any at baseline. The resident required partial to moderate assistance with activities of daily living and had a pressure-reducing device in bed. Over a period of time, certified nursing assistants (CNAs) observed and reported reddened and open areas on the resident's coccyx and buttocks to nursing staff. Documentation in bath sheets and progress notes indicated repeated observations of skin issues, including redness, open areas, and bleeding, but there was a lack of consistent and thorough assessment, documentation, and follow-up by licensed nursing staff. Despite multiple reports from CNAs about the resident's deteriorating skin condition, including descriptions of the area as "very red and sore," "openish," and "looked like hamburger," nursing staff failed to perform timely and accurate assessments, did not notify the physician or the resident's family, and did not initiate appropriate treatment interventions. Several nurses admitted in interviews that they either did not assess the area, did not document their findings, or assumed another nurse would handle the situation. There was also a lack of communication and follow-through between shifts, resulting in the resident's worsening condition going unaddressed. The resident's condition progressed to a stage 4 sacral decubitus ulcer, which was only identified after the resident was admitted to the emergency room with altered mentation and hypotension. Hospital records documented a large sacral pressure wound with purulent drainage, and the resident was diagnosed with sepsis likely originating from the ulcer. The resident subsequently died, with the death certificate listing MRSA cellulitis of the buttock due to a stage 4 sacral ulcer as the immediate cause of death. The facility's own policies required prompt assessment, documentation, and notification for pressure ulcers, but these procedures were not followed in this case.
Removal Plan
- All residents receive a full body skin review by RN Nurse Supervisor.
- All nursing staff are reminded of the importance of skin observations and following process.
- Additional education is provided to staff, including notifications to physicians and family, and this information is included in skin checklist packets.
- Skin processes and status are reviewed at each huddle using the huddle checklist.
- All care plans are reviewed and updated as appropriate by RN supervisors, Social Worker, and Activity Director.
- A tracking tool is initiated to show all ulcers and surgical wounds, and is reviewed at the Risk meeting.
- A Risk meeting is established including Administrator, Director of Nursing, RN Supervisors, Social Services, Activity Director, Quality Director, and Infection Preventionist to review residents with skin impairments and update care plans as needed.
- Reviews for each resident with ulcers and/or surgical wounds are conducted for signs and symptoms of pain and infection, noted on the residents treatment sheet.
- The Director of Nursing and/or RN Supervisors review the Matrix Even to review tasks and assessments that were completed as necessary.
- Audits to ensure skin observations are complete are conducted by the Director of Nursing or designee.
- The tracking tool is completed to track measurements, treatment and care plan updates by an RN supervisor or designee.
Failure to Notify Physician and Family of Significant Events
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to notify the physician and family of significant weight loss for two residents and a choking incident for one resident. Resident #14, who had no cognitive impairment and was self-feeding, experienced a significant weight loss of 5% or more in the last month or 10% or more in the last six months. Despite the facility's policy requiring immediate notification of the physician and family in such cases, there was no documentation that this was done. The Director of Nursing (DON) could not confirm whether the physician or family were informed, although a meeting with the dietician for recommendations was held. Resident #27, with moderate cognitive impairment and requiring assistance with eating, also experienced significant weight loss. The clinical record lacked documentation of physician or family notification. Additionally, Resident #27 had a choking incident where the resident struggled to breathe due to aspiration, but the facility did not notify the physician or family. The DON did not believe notification was necessary as the nurses managed the situation, and the resident was fine afterward. However, the resident's physician expected to be informed of both the weight loss and the choking incident. The facility's policy mandates immediate notification of significant changes in a resident's status to the physician and family.
Failure to Notify Ombudsman of Resident Hospitalizations
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to notify the long-term care (LTC) Ombudsman of resident hospitalizations for two residents. Resident #4 was hospitalized on multiple occasions and returned to the facility on specific dates, yet the monthly Transfers/Discharges forms provided by the facility for ombudsman notification did not include these hospital transfers. Similarly, Resident #8 was hospitalized and returned on a specific date, but their transfer was also omitted from the notification forms. The Social Worker at the facility stated that she did not include hospital transfers in the monthly notifications to the ombudsman because she was not instructed to do so. The facility's Ombudsman policy emphasizes the role of the ombudsman as an advocate for residents, promoting the highest quality of life by serving as a communication bridge. According to federal regulations, copies of notices for emergency transfers must be sent to the ombudsman when practicable, such as in a monthly list, which the facility failed to do.
Inaccurate MDS Assessment for Resident with Mental Illness
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure that the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment accurately reflected the status of a resident, specifically for one resident out of the 17 reviewed. The resident in question had a diagnosis of non-Alzheimer's dementia and bipolar disorder, and was identified as having severe cognitive impairment with a score of 5 on the Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS). Despite this, the MDS inaccurately documented that the resident was not considered to have a serious mental illness by the state Level 2 Preadmission Screening and Record Review (PASRR), even though the resident had a PASRR Notice indicating the need for specialized behavioral health services. The discrepancy arose because the MDS Coordinator, a Registered Nurse, did not correctly answer the PASRR-related question on the MDS. The facility's policy required each discipline to complete its section of the MDS, with the MDS Coordinator responsible for submission. However, the coordinator acknowledged the resident had a Level 2 PASRR, which should have been reflected in the MDS assessment.
Failure to Reposition Resident as Ordered
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to adhere to professional standards of care by not repositioning a resident with spinal cord dysfunction according to the provider's orders. The resident, who had a diagnosis of traumatic spinal cord dysfunction and an unhealed pressure ulcer, was supposed to be repositioned every hour while in a chair and every two hours while in bed, as per the provider's order dated 9/4/24. However, the care plan did not reflect the updated repositioning schedule, and the facility's repositioning records showed non-compliance with these orders on multiple dates between 9/4/24 and 9/30/24. Additionally, there was a lack of documentation for several days within this period. Interviews with staff revealed that there was a failure to document the resident's refusals to reposition and absences from the facility for medical appointments and family outings. The Director of Nursing acknowledged the need for improvement in compliance with repositioning orders and documentation. The facility's policy on provider orders, last revised on 2/14/24, did not include instructions for care, treatments, and services beyond medications, which may have contributed to the oversight.
Deficiencies in Skin Assessments and Oxygen Administration
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to complete required skin assessments for a resident diagnosed with traumatic spinal cord dysfunction and an unhealed pressure ulcer. The resident's care plan required daily skin inspections due to immobility, but the facility's records showed multiple days where these assessments were not completed. The Director of Nursing acknowledged the oversight in skin assessment documentation and noted that follow-up with the nursing staff had occurred. Additionally, the facility did not adhere to physician orders for oxygen administration for another resident with moderate cognitive impairment and coronary artery disease. The resident's care plan required oxygen therapy adjustments to maintain saturation levels above 90%. However, documentation was lacking for the administration of increased oxygen levels, assessments of the resident's respiratory status, and follow-up on low oxygen saturation levels. The facility's policy required oxygen administration to be carried out with a medical provider order and regular assessments, which were not consistently documented.
Failure to Evaluate Gradual Dose Reduction for Psychotropic Medication
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure that a physician evaluated a gradual dose reduction (GDR) for a psychotropic medication for one of the residents reviewed. The resident, diagnosed with Alzheimer's disease with late onset and dementia with psychotic disturbance, was prescribed Amitriptyline 50 mg at bedtime starting from November 20, 2023. The facility's records indicated that the resident was due for a dose evaluation in May 2024, but there was no documented response from the physician regarding the GDR recommendation made by the consultant pharmacist on May 30, 2024. During the survey, the Director of Nursing (DON) was unable to confirm whether a GDR had been conducted for the resident's Amitriptyline. The lack of a physician's response to the consultant pharmacist's recommendation was confirmed during the exit conference with facility staff. This oversight indicates a failure in the facility's process to ensure appropriate medication management and evaluation for dose reduction as required.
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.
