Below average — CMS composite of the measures below.
Past the typical resurvey interval — a standard survey could occur at any time
Estimate from public CMS data, current as of July 2026. Survey timing is at the state agency's discretion.
Citation history
Health deficiencies cited at Avantara Lincoln Park during CMS and state inspections, most recent first.
Involuntary Seclusion by Tying a Resident’s Door Shut. A resident with bipolar disorder, violent behavior, and moderate cognitive impairment became physically aggressive toward staff and a roommate, and staff then tied a sheet from the resident’s room door handle to a hallway handrail so the resident could not leave the room. Staff interviews and nursing notes described the resident as alone in the room, calling for help, and being kept in place by the tied sheet, which the DON and ADON acknowledged as involuntary seclusion.
Failure to protect a resident from physical abuse occurred when two roommates got into a struggle over a grabber/reacher tool. Staff observed both residents holding the device in a tug-of-war, and a CNA reported it looked like the roommate was trying to push it toward the resident’s neck. The resident said his roommate hit him and had a left palm abrasion, while the roommate said he was trying to take the tool away because the resident was banging it on the counter.
Failure to timely report an allegation of involuntary seclusion. An LPN placed a bedsheet on a resident’s door handle and tied it to the hallway handrail while the resident was having behavioral issues, and the ADON identified the act as abuse and involuntary seclusion. The Administrator later acknowledged the incident was not reported to IDPH, despite the facility policy requiring immediate reporting within 2 hours.
A newly admitted resident with dementia, confusion, multiple comorbidities, and a documented history of recent falls was not accurately identified as high fall risk, despite hospital PT notes and nurse-to-nurse report indicating unsteady gait, need for a gait belt, walker, and at least contact guard to minimal assist for transfers and ambulation. The facility’s post-fall assessment documented that the resident was not at risk for falls and had no fall history, and no fall interventions were in place. Shortly after admission, the resident, who was on an anticoagulant, repeatedly got up without using the call light and was observed ambulating alone in the hallway with a walker before lifting the walker to turn, losing balance, and falling, striking the head. Family reported they had informed staff of the resident’s fall risk and prior use of bed and chair alarms in the hospital, and that staff said alarms could not be used until therapy assessed the resident, while the resident was placed several rooms away from the nurses’ station.
Two residents at high risk for falls were not provided with effective fall prevention interventions or adequate supervision. One resident with severe cognitive impairment and multiple medical conditions experienced an unwitnessed fall after a malfunctioning bed alarm failed to alert staff, resulting in a fatal subdural hematoma. Another resident with impaired mobility fell in a hallway blind spot after another resident pulled their wheelchair, leading to a subdural hemorrhage. Staff interviews and records indicated that equipment issues and lack of supervision in high-risk areas contributed to these incidents.
A resident who had consented to receive the COVID-19 vaccine did not receive the vaccination, and there was no documentation of administration or declination. The resident, who had multiple medical conditions and later tested positive for COVID-19, was involved in a facility outbreak traced through contact with a staff aide. The facility's infection control procedures were not followed regarding vaccine documentation and administration.
A resident with cognitive impairment and a history of frequent falls was not consistently provided with required fall prevention interventions, such as accessible call light, bed alarm activation, and appropriate footwear. Staff observations and interviews confirmed that essential items were out of reach, alarms were not activated, and activity interventions were not provided as outlined in the care plan. Facility policy requiring individualized interventions after each fall was not followed, resulting in repeated falls and hospital evaluations.
A deficiency was cited when a resident was not provided with sufficient food and fluids to maintain their health, as required. The report does not include further details about the circumstances or the resident's condition.
A deficiency was cited when a resident's care plan did not include all necessary components, such as measurable timetables and specific actions, leading to incomplete planning and documentation of care needs.
A resident with multiple medical conditions and documented food allergies and dislikes was served a meal containing dairy and other items they could not tolerate, despite clear documentation and facility policy requiring accommodation. Staff confirmed that the resident should not have received these foods, and the facility's policy prohibits serving items that cause allergic or intolerance reactions.
Multiple high-risk residents with cognitive impairment and mobility issues experienced serious injuries after falls that occurred when required interventions and supervision were not provided. Staff interviews and record reviews revealed that residents were often left unsupervised or allowed to ambulate alone, care plans were not consistently followed, and call lights were not always accessible, resulting in repeated falls and hospitalizations.
The facility failed to provide adequate staffing, resulting in residents not receiving timely incontinence care and monitoring. Observations showed residents with unchanged briefs since the night shift, and staff interviews confirmed chronic understaffing, particularly on the dementia care floors. The staffing schedule revealed a significant shortfall in CNA numbers, impacting the quality of care and increasing fall risks.
A resident expressed dissatisfaction with his unkempt beard and mustache, which were not trimmed due to staffing shortages. Despite the facility's policy to offer daily grooming assistance, the resident was not provided with the necessary help, as the facility was operating with fewer CNAs than required. The resident, who has multiple medical conditions, was unable to manage grooming independently and was not offered assistance by the staff.
The facility failed to provide incontinence care every two hours for three dependent residents, as required by its policy. Observations and interviews revealed that residents were left in soiled briefs for extended periods, with staff citing staffing shortages as a barrier to providing timely care. The facility was operating below the required number of CNAs, impacting the quality of care for residents with various medical conditions.
A resident with a sacral pressure ulcer was found without a wound dressing, and their incontinence brief was saturated, indicating a lapse in care. The LPN confirmed the dressing should have been applied, and the CNA admitted to not checking the resident since the start of their shift. The resident's treatment plan required specific wound care, which was not followed, leading to the deficiency.
The facility failed to serve food at appropriate temperatures, affecting three residents who reported consistently receiving cold meals. Observations revealed that breakfast trays lacked heated palates and plates, and a test tray confirmed substandard food temperatures. The Director of Dietary acknowledged the issue, citing short staffing and equipment problems as contributing factors.
The facility failed to complete accurate fall risk assessments and implement fall prevention interventions for residents at risk. A resident with dementia and mobility issues had an incomplete assessment and non-functioning alarms. Another resident's fall risk was initially unrecognized, and necessary interventions were not in place. A third resident's fall report lacked contributing factors, and staff were unaware of prevention measures. These deficiencies highlight lapses in policy adherence and staff communication.
A resident with a history of falls and Alzheimer's disease experienced two fall incidents, one resulting in a fracture. The facility failed to complete required monitoring and documentation post-fall and did not conduct a significant change assessment after the second fall, which led to a notable decline in the resident's condition. This highlights deficiencies in adhering to standard nursing practices and facility policies.
A resident with obstructive sleep apnea and other health conditions did not receive the necessary CPAP equipment due to a missing mask, which was known to the facility staff. The resident reported difficulty breathing at night without the CPAP mask, and the facility's policies emphasize the importance of providing compliant respiratory equipment.
The facility failed to maintain proper food safety and sanitation standards, including not dating opened food items, improper storage of cleaning chemicals near food, and inadequate dishwasher temperatures. Additionally, a dietary aide was observed serving food without gloves, and some food items did not maintain the required temperature, potentially affecting 204 residents.
The facility failed to assist residents with cognitive impairments in dressing in their own clothes, leaving them in hospital gowns, which compromised their dignity. Observations showed many residents in bed wearing gowns, and some were unaware of available activities. Staff interviews revealed inconsistencies in care routines, such as the absence of a 'get-up list' for certain shifts, contributing to residents remaining in bed. This failure to provide equal access to quality care and uphold residents' rights was evident in the survey findings.
The facility failed to ensure that four residents had access to the call light system, which is essential for them to request assistance. Observations revealed that the call lights were not within reach, despite the facility's policy requiring accessibility. Staff acknowledged the issue, and the deficiency affected residents with varying physical and cognitive impairments.
The facility failed to accurately account for narcotic medications and adhere to labeling and storage policies. Discrepancies were found in the documentation and actual count of Lorazepam and Clonazepam. Insulin vials lacked proper labeling, expired tuberculin vials were stored, and expired house stock medications were found. Topical medications were stored near oral supplements, posing contamination risks. These issues were observed in multiple medication carts and rooms.
A resident with intact cognitive abilities reported receiving food that was warm but not hot, contrary to the facility's policy requiring hot food to be served above 135°F. Observations confirmed the food temperature was below standard. Staff interviews revealed inconsistencies in reheating procedures, contributing to the deficiency.
The facility failed to accurately complete MDS assessments for two residents, leading to deficiencies in the assessment process. One resident was observed to be toothless and reported difficulties eating, but their dental status was not documented in the MDS. Another resident was admitted to hospice care, but this was not reflected in their MDS. The Clinical Care Coordinator highlighted the importance of accurate MDS assessments for reliable care planning.
The facility failed to refer three residents with serious mental disorders for PASRR Level II screenings, as required. One resident had new diagnoses of psychotic disorder, depression, and anxiety, another had major depressive disorder, and a third had anxiety disorder with moderate cognitive impairment. Despite these conditions, the necessary screenings were not conducted, contrary to facility policy.
The facility failed to accurately account for narcotic medications and adhere to policies on labeling and storing medications. Discrepancies were found in the documentation and actual count of Lorazepam and Clonazepam. Insulin vials lacked proper labeling, expired medications were stored improperly, and topical medications were stored near oral supplements. These issues were observed in multiple medication carts and rooms, highlighting lapses in medication management.
A facility failed to administer the correct medication and dosage, resulting in a 10.71% error rate. An LPN administered incorrect nasal spray and eye drops to a resident, contrary to the physician's orders. Another resident received the wrong type of eye drops due to unavailability in the medication cart. These errors were noted during a survey and reported to the DON.
The facility failed to ensure proper use of PPE for residents under isolation precautions, leading to potential cross-contamination. Staff and family members were observed not following guidelines, such as not wearing PPE when required and improperly exiting isolation rooms. This was evident in cases involving residents with wounds, C-Diff, and indwelling medical devices. Interviews indicated a lack of consistent education on infection control policies.
The facility failed to implement effective fall precautions for two residents at risk, resulting in multiple falls and injuries. One resident with cognitive impairments experienced several falls due to inadequate supervision and improper placement of a walker. Another resident's bed was not kept in the lowest position as required, increasing the risk of falls. The facility's policies on fall risk assessment and intervention were not properly followed, contributing to these deficiencies.
The facility failed to protect a resident from physical abuse by another resident, resulting in a laceration that required five sutures. The incident occurred when a resident with moderate cognitive impairment hit another resident with a walker. Staff provided immediate care, and the incident was classified as physical abuse, highlighting a failure in the facility's ability to prevent such occurrences.
A resident experienced swelling of the right leg and a decline in activity, which was repeatedly reported by the resident's daughter. The nursing staff attributed the symptoms to arthritis and did not take appropriate action, leading to the resident continuing with a swollen leg for several days. This inaction resulted in an acute right hip fracture that required surgical intervention.
The facility failed to prevent falls and ensure resident safety, resulting in severe injuries for two residents with dementia. Despite being identified as high fall risks, the facility did not implement effective interventions such as bed alarms or increased supervision, leading to multiple falls and significant injuries, including fractures and subdural hematomas.
A cognitively impaired resident with a history of a right femur fracture and other conditions was not consistently assessed for pain as required by physician orders. Despite frequent expressions of pain, staff did not document or address these complaints, and the March 2024 MAR showed no pain assessments. The Director of Nursing confirmed the lack of assessments, acknowledging that nurses are supposed to assess pain every shift.
Involuntary Seclusion by Tying Resident Room Door Shut
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure that a resident was kept free from involuntary seclusion when staff tethered a bedsheet from the resident’s room door handle to a hallway handrail, which physically prevented the resident from leaving the room. The resident involved, R1, was documented as a female with diagnoses including polyneuropathy, bipolar disorder with severe manic episode, unspecified protein-calorie malnutrition, and violent behavior. Her MDS documented a BIMS score of 8, indicating moderate cognitive impairment. On 5.2.2026, nursing documentation stated that R1 was physically aggressive toward her roommate and staff, attempted to hurt her roommate, came to the nurse’s station, grabbed the pill crusher machine, and bit a nurse on the right arm. Staff interviews described that R1 was moved back to her room and then a sheet was placed on the door and tied to the hallway handrail so she would not get out. One CNA stated the door was completely closed, R1 was alone in the room, and R1 called for help while the sheet was still tied to the door. Another CNA said the door should not have been tied and described the action as abuse. The NP stated she was told R1 was detained in her room alone and that she was concerned about the resident being monitored in her manic state, but she did not feel comfortable with the resident being detained and later added an addendum after being pressured to change her note. The ADON acknowledged that a towel or sheet had been tied to the door and stated, “That’s abuse, involuntary seclusion.” The facility’s abuse policy defined involuntary seclusion as isolation of a resident against his/her will and included locking a resident in a room or area by themselves as an example.
Failure to Protect Resident from Physical Abuse
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure that a resident was free from physical abuse when two roommates became involved in a struggle over a grabber/reacher tool. The resident involved in the incident had diagnoses including reduced mobility, COPD, dysphagia, type 2 diabetes mellitus, chronic kidney disease stage 3, and chronic respiratory failure, and his MDS documented a BIMS of 13, indicating he was cognitively intact. The other resident involved had diagnoses including encephalopathy, delusional disorders, chronic kidney disease, dementia, psychotic disorder, and anxiety disorder, and his MDS documented a BIMS of 9, indicating moderate cognitive impairment. Facility documentation and staff interviews described that the cognitively impaired roommate went to the bedside of the other resident while the resident was using his grabber and attempted to take it away. Staff observed both residents holding the grabber and pushing and pulling it back and forth in a tug-of-war type struggle. One CNA stated it appeared the roommate was trying to push the grabber toward the resident’s neck, and the resident was heard hollering that he had been hit. The resident sustained a new abrasion to the left palm measuring 2 cm by 1.5 cm by 0.1 cm, and a gauze dressing was later observed on the hand. The resident told the surveyor without hesitation that his roommate hit him. The roommate stated he was annoyed by the resident banging the grabber on the counter and tried to take it away, denying that he intended to hurt the resident. The administrator also described the event as a commotion in the room involving both residents holding the grabber and pushing and pulling it back and forth, with the resident’s hand showing a small reddish area and an abrasion documented in the skin/wound evaluation. The facility’s abuse policy defined physical abuse as infliction of injury other than by accidental means and included examples such as hitting, grabbing, and roughly handling.
Failure to Timely Report Allegation of Involuntary Seclusion
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to follow its abuse and retaliation policy by not ensuring that an allegation of involuntary seclusion involving one resident was reported to the State Survey Agency within the required two-hour timeframe. The policy stated that all allegations of abuse and retaliation must be reported to the Administrator immediately and to IDPH immediately, not exceeding 2 hours after the initial allegation is received. During interviews, the Administrator stated that only one reportable incident had been submitted in the past three months and acknowledged that an incident involving the resident had not been reported to IDPH, calling it a missed opportunity. The ADON reported that an LPN told her she had placed a bedsheet on the resident’s door handle and tied it to the hallway handrail while the resident was having behavior issues. The ADON stated she told the LPN to immediately remove the sheet and identified the action as abuse and involuntary seclusion that should have been reported to IDPH.
Inaccurate Fall Risk Assessment and Lack of Assisted Ambulation for High-Risk New Admission
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to complete an accurate fall risk assessment and to identify a newly admitted resident as high risk for falls, despite a documented history of falls, unsteady gait, and dementia with confusion. The resident’s diagnoses included polyneuropathy, peripheral vascular disease, hypertension, dementia, osteomyelitis of the left ankle and foot, and cellulitis of the left lower limb. Hospital physical therapy records used by the facility documented that the resident required a gait belt, 2-wheeled walker, and at least contact guard to minimal assist for transfers and ambulation, with noted unsteady gait, decreased cadence and step length, heavy reliance on upper extremities, narrow base of support, and impaired balance, cognition, strength, and safety awareness. The nurse-to-nurse report from the hospital also indicated dementia, confusion, forgetfulness, and a need for +1 assist with mobility. The admitting RN’s assessment documented the resident as confused and forgetful, alert and oriented only x1–2, requiring partial/moderate assist with transfers, and that walking was not attempted due to medical or safety concerns. Despite this information, the facility’s fall risk assessment completed after the fall documented that the resident was not at risk for falls and had no history of falls, and that no fall interventions were in place prior to the incident. The DON stated that the fall risk assessment for a new admission is expected to be completed within four hours of admission to establish a baseline for the plan of care and that, hypothetically, a resident who had fallen in January and was admitted in February would be considered a fall risk. The DON also stated that the fall assessment for this resident was considered accurate based on the history that the resident had a fall in the past, even though the post-fall investigation form indicated “No” for history of falls and “No” for being at risk for falls. The resident’s inventory did not identify a walker, and the DON did not know where the walker used at the time of the fall came from. The fall coordinator explained that a history of falls reported by family would identify a resident as a fall risk and that the facility has a fall risk assessment and interventions such as floor mats and alarms, but there is no indication these were implemented for this resident. Interviews with staff and the resident’s wife further described the circumstances leading to the fall. The RN on duty reported being told at shift report that the resident was a fall risk and used a walker, and that the resident was alert and oriented x2–3. The RN stated that the resident was new, had some confusion, was getting up frequently, and did not use the call light. The RN assisted the resident with toileting about an hour before the fall and later observed the resident ambulating alone in the hallway with a walker, wearing non-skid socks and a gown, and then attempting to turn by lifting the walker, losing balance, and falling onto his buttocks and hitting his head. A CNA reported seeing the resident get himself up from bed and walk toward the nurse’s cart before the fall, and that the other CNA assigned to the floor was not in the area at the time. The resident’s wife reported that the resident had fallen several times at home, including off the toilet, and that in the hospital he had bed and chair alarms. She stated that a full-time caregiver informed a group of staff at the desk that the resident was at risk for falls and had alarms in the hospital, and that staff responded they could not implement alarms until he was assessed the next day. She also reported that no one from the facility called her for history or questions during admission and that the resident was placed in a room several rooms away from the nurses’ station. The incident and change in condition forms documented the fall time as 3:10 a.m., while the post-fall investigation documented 4:10 a.m., indicating a discrepancy in the recorded time of the event. The post-fall investigation’s root cause analysis stated that the resident, admitted within 24 hours and baseline alert/oriented x1, lifted his walker in an attempt to turn, lost balance, and fell on his buttocks, then hit his head. The RN reported that the resident was on a blood thinner (Xarelto), hit his head, and was sent to the hospital by 911. The DON confirmed that the resident had wounds on the left ankle and a healed amputated toe on admission and that the resident did not return to the facility after transfer to the hospital. Staff interviews confirmed that CNAs are issued gait belts at hire and trained in their use, and that extra gait belts are available at nurses’ stations, but the report does not document that a gait belt or one-person assist was used when the resident was ambulating independently in the hallway at the time of the fall. The combination of inaccurate fall risk assessment documentation, failure to recognize and document the resident’s history of falls and need for assistance, and lack of implementation of fall interventions contributed to the resident ambulating alone and experiencing a fall with head impact shortly after admission.
Failure to Prevent Falls and Provide Adequate Supervision for High-Risk Residents
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure that fall prevention interventions were in place and adequate supervision was provided for two residents identified as high risk for falls. One resident with a history of falls, severe cognitive impairment, and multiple comorbidities experienced several falls within the facility. Despite being care planned for interventions such as placement near the nurse's station and use of a bed alarm, the resident was found on the hallway floor after an unwitnessed fall. Staff interviews revealed that the bed alarm was not functioning properly due to a low battery, which had been reported but not addressed, resulting in the alarm being too faint to alert staff. The resident sustained a severe intracranial subdural hematoma and was hospitalized, ultimately expiring due to the injuries sustained from the fall. Another resident, also at high risk for falls due to impaired mobility and a history of falling, was found on the floor in a hallway area not visible from the nurse's station. Staff interviews indicated that this area was a known blind spot and not considered safe for unsupervised residents. The fall was unwitnessed, and it was reported that another resident had pulled the wheelchair from under the resident, causing the fall. The resident was sent to the hospital and diagnosed with a subdural hemorrhage. The care plan for this resident included the use of a chair alarm to alert staff of independent transfers, but the incident occurred in an area where staff could not provide adequate supervision. Facility policies and job descriptions reviewed in the report emphasized the responsibility of staff to ensure resident safety, maintain functioning equipment, and provide supervision according to individualized care plans. However, the failure to maintain equipment such as bed alarms and to supervise residents in high-risk areas directly contributed to the falls and subsequent injuries. The documented deficiencies were based on staff interviews, record reviews, and hospital records, which detailed the sequence of events and the lack of effective interventions at the time of the incidents.
Failure to Administer and Document COVID-19 Vaccine for Consenting Resident
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to administer the COVID-19 vaccine to a resident who had provided consent for vaccination. Despite the resident's family member confirming that consent was given, there was no documentation of the vaccine being administered or declined for this resident. The resident was admitted with multiple diagnoses, including cerebral infarction, hyperlipidemia, essential hypertension, chronic atrial fibrillation, insomnia, protein calorie malnutrition, and a history of COVID-19. The infection control nurse and the Director of Nursing both acknowledged that the process for obtaining consent and documenting vaccine administration or declination was not followed for this resident. During a COVID-19 outbreak in the facility, contact tracing revealed that a staff aide who worked directly with the resident tested positive, and the resident subsequently tested positive for COVID-19. The facility's infection prevention and control policy requires identification, recording, and documentation of infections and corrective actions, as well as compliance with public health recommendations. However, the lack of documentation and failure to administer the vaccine as consented represented a lapse in following these procedures for the affected resident.
Failure to Implement and Maintain Fall Prevention Interventions for High-Risk Resident
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to provide adequate supervision and implement fall prevention interventions for a cognitively impaired resident with a history of repeated falls. The resident, diagnosed with hydrocephalus, dementia, type II diabetes, and essential hypertension, experienced 11 falls over several months. Despite being identified as a high fall risk, the resident's care plan interventions, such as keeping essential items within reach, ensuring a working and accessible call light, providing appropriate footwear, and activating a bed alarm, were not consistently implemented. On multiple occasions, fall interventions were missing or not updated following each fall, contrary to facility policy. Direct observations and interviews revealed that the resident was left unsupervised, with the call light tangled and out of reach, the bed alarm not activated, and essential items like water and tissues not accessible. Staff acknowledged that the bed alarm was not turned on and that the call light should have been within reach. The resident was also observed walking around the room in socks, which was not in accordance with the care plan specifying appropriate footwear. Activity interventions were not provided as required, and the resident was not engaged in activities despite this being a listed intervention for fall prevention. Documentation and staff interviews confirmed that the facility's fall prevention policy, which requires individualized interventions after each fall and consistent implementation of care plan measures, was not followed. The resident continued to experience falls, some resulting in hospital evaluations, and staff admitted to not always being able to provide the required level of supervision. The deficiency was further substantiated by the lack of timely updates to the care plan and failure to ensure all interventions were in place after each incident.
Failure to Provide Adequate Nutrition and Hydration
Penalty
Summary
A deficiency was identified regarding the facility's failure to provide adequate food and fluids necessary to maintain a resident's health. The report notes that the required provision of nutrition and hydration was not met, which is essential for the resident's well-being. Specific details about the actions or inactions leading to this deficiency, as well as information about the resident's medical history or condition at the time, are not provided in the report.
Incomplete Care Plan Development and Implementation
Penalty
Summary
A deficiency was identified due to the failure to develop and implement a complete care plan that addresses all of a resident's needs. The care plan lacked measurable timetables and specific actions, resulting in incomplete documentation and planning for the resident's care. This omission was observed during the review of resident records and care planning documentation, where surveyors noted the absence of comprehensive and individualized planning to meet the resident's assessed needs.
Failure to Accommodate Resident Food Allergies and Preferences
Penalty
Summary
A resident with diagnoses including type 2 diabetes mellitus, muscle weakness, major depressive disorder, essential hypertension, and blindness in one eye was not provided with food that accommodated their documented allergies and preferences. The resident was cognitively intact, as indicated by a Brief Interview for Mental Status score of 14. On observation, the resident received a lunch tray containing shrimp, rice, corn on the cob, and apple pie alamode. The meal ticket on the tray documented allergies to cheese, dairy products, ice cream, milk, and yogurt, as well as dislikes for apple, applesauce, bratwurst sausage, and corn. Staff interviews confirmed that the resident should not have been served ice cream due to a dairy allergy, nor apples or corn due to documented dislikes. The Director of Dietary stated that residents' food allergies and dislikes should not be served, and that the diet card for each resident should be followed. The facility's Food Preference Policy requires identification and accommodation of resident allergies, intolerances, and preferences, and prohibits serving foods that cause allergic or intolerance reactions. Despite these policies, the resident was served food items that did not accommodate their allergies and preferences.
Failure to Provide Adequate Fall Prevention and Supervision for High-Risk Residents
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure that fall interventions and adequate supervision were in place for multiple residents identified as high risk for falls. Several residents, all with significant medical histories including dementia, unsteady gait, and previous falls, experienced unwitnessed or inadequately supervised falls that resulted in serious injuries such as femoral fractures, vertebral fractures, and lacerations. In multiple instances, residents were found on the floor by staff after the fact, and documentation revealed that required interventions, such as ensuring call lights were within reach, were not consistently implemented. For example, one resident was found on the floor with a laceration and a fractured right femur after attempting to ambulate unsupervised, with staff later confirming that the call light was not accessible and that the resident was known to walk independently despite being high risk. Interviews with staff and review of records indicated that high-risk residents were often left unsupervised or allowed to ambulate alone, despite care plans and assessments indicating the need for supervision. Staff statements confirmed that some residents, due to cognitive impairment and poor safety awareness, would attempt to walk or toilet themselves without assistance, and that supervision was not always provided. In several cases, staff were not present or were engaged in other tasks when falls occurred, and some staff were unclear about the specific supervision needs of the residents in their care. Additionally, the facility lacked a clear policy on resident supervision, and staff relied on informal communication or personal knowledge rather than standardized protocols. Documentation further showed inconsistencies in incident reporting and care plan implementation. For example, one resident's fall with injury was not accurately documented in the injury report, and another resident's care plan interventions, such as purposeful rounding and environmental safety measures, were not reliably followed. The facility's own records indicated a pattern of repeated falls among high-risk residents, with multiple incidents occurring over a short period. Despite the presence of care plans and fall risk assessments, the necessary interventions and supervision were not consistently provided, directly leading to multiple residents sustaining serious injuries.
Staffing Shortages Lead to Inadequate Resident Care
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to provide sufficient staffing to ensure that residents' needs were met, particularly in monitoring and providing timely incontinence care. Observations and interviews revealed that residents were not being checked every two hours as required. For instance, a resident was found with a saturated incontinence brief that had not been changed since the night shift, which ended at 7:00 AM. This lack of timely care was echoed by other residents who reported not being checked on since early morning hours, leading to discomfort and potential health risks. Staff interviews highlighted the chronic understaffing issue, with CNAs expressing that they were unable to meet the care needs of residents due to insufficient numbers. On the 4th floor, only two CNAs were available when there should have been four, leading to delays in care and increased risk of falls, especially for residents with dementia who require more supervision. The staffing shortage was further exacerbated by the need to pull restorative aides from their duties to cover basic care needs, leaving other essential services unmet. The facility's staffing schedule and policy indicated a clear discrepancy between the required and actual number of CNAs on duty. The staffing scheduler confirmed that the facility was operating below the necessary staffing levels, which impacted the quality of care provided. The Director of Nursing acknowledged that insufficient staffing could potentially affect resident care, aligning with concerns raised in the Resident/Food Council Meeting Minutes about the need for more CNA staff.
Failure to Provide Grooming Assistance Due to Staffing Shortages
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to provide grooming assistance to a resident, identified as R9, who expressed dissatisfaction with the condition of his beard and mustache. On observation, R9's facial hair was described as bushy, shaggy, and untamed, with the mustache growing into his mouth. R9 stated that he would like to have his beard and mustache trimmed but was not offered assistance by the staff. He mentioned that the facility's barber charges too much and that he was unable to reach an external barber due to fatigue. R9 expressed a need for staff assistance as he did not believe he could manage the grooming himself. Interviews with facility staff revealed that it is the responsibility of CNAs to offer shaving and grooming assistance daily. However, due to staffing shortages, this was not consistently done. The facility was operating with fewer CNAs than required, which contributed to the oversight in R9's grooming needs. The facility's policies emphasize the importance of providing hygienic care and maintaining resident dignity, but these were not adhered to in R9's case, leading to the deficiency.
Inadequate Incontinence Care Due to Staffing Shortages
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to adhere to its policy and procedures regarding incontinence care, resulting in inadequate care for three dependent residents. Observations and interviews revealed that these residents did not receive the required incontinence care every two hours. For instance, one resident was found with a saturated incontinence brief and underpad, indicating a lack of timely care. The resident was unable to recall the last time their brief was changed, and the assigned CNA admitted to not having checked on the resident since the start of their shift. Interviews with staff, including CNAs and the Director of Nursing, confirmed that the facility's policy mandates incontinence care every two hours. However, staffing shortages were cited as a significant barrier to providing this level of care. Multiple staff members reported that the unit was understaffed, with only two CNAs working when there should have been at least three or four. This staffing issue was corroborated by the facility's staffing scheduler, who noted that the facility was operating below the required number of CNAs for the shift. The residents involved had various medical conditions that necessitated regular assistance with activities of daily living, including incontinence care. One resident, who was cognitively intact, expressed discomfort due to the lack of timely care. Another resident, with moderately impaired cognition, was dependent on staff for toileting and transfers. The facility's failure to provide adequate staffing and adhere to its care policies resulted in these residents not receiving the necessary care to maintain their dignity and comfort.
Failure to Maintain Wound Dressing and Incontinence Care
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure proper wound care for a resident with a sacral pressure ulcer. During an observation, it was noted that the resident's wound dressing was not in place, leaving the wound open to air. The Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) accompanying the surveyor confirmed that the dressing should have been applied as per the treatment order. The resident, who was alert and able to communicate, reported discomfort due to a soiled incontinence brief, which was found to be saturated with urine and feces. The Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) assigned to the resident admitted to not having checked or changed the resident's brief since the start of their shift, indicating a lapse in care since the night shift ended. The resident's medical records revealed a history of epilepsy and peripheral vascular disease, with a documented unstageable sacral pressure ulcer. The treatment plan required cleansing the wound with normal saline, applying medical-grade honey, and securing it with a bordered foam dressing three times a week and as needed. The Wound Care Coordinator emphasized the importance of keeping the resident clean and dry to promote healing and prevent further skin breakdown. The facility's policy mandates prompt identification and treatment of skin breakdown, yet the resident's care did not align with these guidelines, resulting in the deficiency.
Failure to Serve Food at Appropriate Temperatures
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to provide food at an appetizing temperature for three residents, as observed during a survey. Residents reported that their hot food was consistently served cold, which affected their willingness to eat. One resident consumed only the hot cereal from their breakfast, leaving the cold eggs and sausage untouched. Another resident ate the cold eggs out of hunger, while a third resident mentioned that they had never received hot food during their six-week stay, except for coffee. The surveyor observed that breakfast trays arrived on the 4th floor without heated palates or heated ceramic plates. A Certified Nursing Assistant confirmed that heated palates were not always used, and a test tray revealed that the scrambled eggs and sausage links were served at temperatures significantly below the expected range. The Director of Dietary acknowledged that the food temperatures were unacceptable and emphasized the importance of maintaining proper food temperatures to ensure resident satisfaction and adequate food intake. The facility's policy on food temperature maintenance requires hot food to be served above 135 degrees Fahrenheit and cold food at or below 41 degrees Fahrenheit. However, due to short staffing and equipment issues, these standards were not met. The kitchen staff admitted to not using heated palates consistently and not heating ceramic plates due to a malfunctioning warmer, contributing to the deficiency in food service quality.
Deficiencies in Fall Risk Assessment and Prevention
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure that fall risk assessments were completed accurately and that staff were aware of and implemented fall prevention interventions for residents at risk of falls. Specifically, the admission fall risk assessment for a resident with dementia, Parkinson's disease, and mobility issues was incomplete, lacking a score or conclusion indicating actual risk. Despite the resident's care plan including interventions such as bed and chair alarms, these were not functioning properly, as observed when the chair alarm failed to sound during a surveyor's inspection. Another resident, with a history of falls and chronic conditions affecting mobility, was found to have an incomplete fall risk assessment upon admission, which initially did not indicate a fall risk. However, a subsequent assessment confirmed a high fall risk. The resident's care plan did not include necessary interventions, such as keeping commonly used items within reach, which was observed to be neglected during the surveyor's visit. A third resident, also with dementia and a history of falls, had a high fall risk assessment score, but the incident report following a fall did not include predisposing factors that contributed to the fall. Additionally, a CNA assigned to the resident's unit was unaware of the resident's fall prevention interventions, indicating a lack of communication and training among staff. The facility's fall occurrence policy requires assessments and interventions, but these were not consistently followed or documented, leading to deficiencies in resident care.
Failure to Monitor and Assess Resident Post-Fall Incidents
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to properly assess, monitor, and evaluate a resident, referred to as R2, after two fall incidents. R2 was admitted with multiple diagnoses, including a history of falling and Alzheimer's disease. On two separate occasions, R2 experienced falls, one of which resulted in a significant injury. The first fall on 3/13/24 was unwitnessed, and although R2 was ambulatory with no injury reported, the required documentation and monitoring every 8 hours for 72 hours post-fall were incomplete. Only one documentation entry was made on the first and third days, with no entry on the second day, indicating a lapse in the standard nursing practice of monitoring and documentation. The second fall occurred on 5/12/24 while R2 was out on pass with her daughter. R2 fell while running after her grandchildren, resulting in a left iliac fracture. This incident led to a significant change in R2's condition, as she became non-ambulatory and required more assistance with activities of daily living. Despite this change, the facility did not complete a significant change assessment, which is required when there is a notable alteration in a resident's physical or mental condition. The oversight in coordination and failure to conduct this assessment was acknowledged by the MDS coordinator. The facility's policy mandates that a significant change MDS be completed when there is a change in a resident's condition. However, this was not adhered to in R2's case, as evidenced by the lack of a significant change assessment following the fall that resulted in a fracture. The failure to properly document and assess R2's condition post-fall incidents highlights deficiencies in the facility's adherence to its own policies and standard nursing practices.
Failure to Provide CPAP Equipment
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to provide a resident with the necessary equipment for their CPAP machine, as ordered by a medical doctor. The resident, who has a history of obstructive sleep apnea, chronic systolic heart failure, and other serious health conditions, reported not having their CPAP mask for two nights, which made it difficult for them to breathe at night. The CPAP machine was observed without a face mask on the resident's nightstand. The resident expressed the need for assistance with their CPAP machine, indicating that a piece was missing. The issue was known to the facility staff, as a registered nurse and the Director of Nursing were aware of the missing mask. The Director of Nursing had asked the Assistant Administrator to order the mask due to the absence of the person responsible for ordering supplies. The facility's respiratory therapist, who is a contractor, confirmed that the facility is responsible for ordering respiratory supplies. The resident's care plan and medication administration notes documented the need for the CPAP machine and the absence of the mask on specific dates. The facility's policy emphasizes the importance of ensuring that respiratory equipment is compliant with acceptable standards of practice.
Food Safety and Sanitation Deficiencies
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to adhere to its Sanitation & Safety Operations policy, resulting in several deficiencies related to food safety and hygiene. During a kitchen tour, it was observed that uncooked open waffle patties were stored in the walk-in fridge without an open date or use-by date. The Food Service Director acknowledged that all open food should be dated to prevent the use of stale or expired foods, which could lead to residents becoming ill. Additionally, kitchen cleaning chemicals were improperly stored in the food pantry alongside food items and food service containers, contrary to the facility's policy of keeping chemicals separate to avoid contamination. Further inspection revealed issues with the dishwasher's sanitizing process. The dishwasher failed to reach the required temperature of 160 degrees Fahrenheit, as indicated by the testing strips that did not turn black. The Assistant Dietary Manager confirmed that the testing strips should turn black to verify proper sanitization, but the facility's logs only recorded temperatures without attaching the strips. This practice was based on advice from the dishwasher servicing company, which led to a lack of verification that the correct sanitizing temperature was achieved. Additional observations included a dietary aide serving food without wearing gloves, which is necessary to prevent cross-contamination. The temperature of the food served was also inconsistent, with some items not maintaining the required temperature of 135 degrees Fahrenheit when reaching the residents. These deficiencies in food handling and sanitation practices have the potential to affect the health and safety of the 204 residents receiving meals from the kitchen.
Failure to Uphold Resident Dignity and Quality Care
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to encourage and assist residents with cognitive impairments to dress in their own clothes, instead allowing them to remain in hospital-type gowns. This was observed in 22 residents, including those who were bedbound or had limited mobility. The surveyor noted multiple instances where residents were observed lying in bed wearing gowns, rather than being dressed in their personal clothing. This practice was not consistent with the residents' rights to dignity and self-determination, as outlined in the facility's own documentation. Additionally, the facility did not provide equal access to quality care for residents regardless of their diagnosis or severity of condition. Three residents were specifically noted for this deficiency. The surveyor observed that some residents were not aware of the activities available to them, and there was a lack of effort to engage them in these activities. For instance, one resident expressed unawareness of any activities and was unsure if they had their clothes available, indicating a lack of communication and support from the staff. Interviews with staff revealed inconsistencies in the implementation of care routines, such as the absence of a 'get-up list' for certain shifts, which contributed to residents remaining in bed. Staff members also indicated that some residents were not encouraged to get up due to their confusion or non-verbal status, despite the potential benefits of socialization and exercise. The facility's failure to uphold the residents' rights to dignity and quality care was evident in these observations and interviews.
Failure to Ensure Call Light Accessibility for Residents
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure that four residents had access to the call light system, which is essential for them to request assistance. During the survey, it was observed that the call lights for these residents were not within their reach, rendering them unable to call for help when needed. For instance, one resident was found with the call light dangling to the floor, and despite being cognitively able to use it, they could not reach it due to physical limitations. Another resident, who was legally blind, also had their call light out of reach, making it impossible for them to call for assistance independently. The surveyor's interactions with the staff revealed that the call lights were not consistently placed within reach of the residents. Certified Nursing Assistants and Licensed Practical Nurses acknowledged that the call lights were not accessible to the residents, and they were aware of the importance of keeping them within reach. Despite the facility's policy stating that call lights should be accessible to residents at all times, this was not adhered to, leading to the deficiency. The residents involved had varying degrees of physical and cognitive impairments, which necessitated the need for accessible call lights. One resident had a history of Parkinson's disease and spinal stenosis, requiring substantial assistance with activities of daily living. Another resident, although cognitively impaired, demonstrated the ability to use the call light when it was within reach. The failure to ensure the call lights were accessible compromised the residents' ability to communicate their needs effectively, highlighting a significant oversight in the facility's adherence to its own policies.
Medication Management Deficiencies in LTC Facility
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to accurately account for residents' narcotic medications on two out of six medication carts reviewed. Specifically, discrepancies were found in the documentation and actual count of Lorazepam and Clonazepam. For Lorazepam, the recorded doses did not match the actual remaining amount in the bottle, leading to a discrepancy of four to five milliliters. Similarly, for Clonazepam, there was a mismatch between the number of tablets recorded and the actual count in the bingo card. Additionally, the shift change accountability record for controlled substances was not signed on a particular shift, indicating a lapse in the required documentation process. The facility also failed to adhere to policies regarding the labeling and dating of insulin vials and the storage of medications. Insulin vials were found without proper labeling, and expired tuberculin vials were stored in the refrigerator. Furthermore, expired house stock medications were found on medication carts, and topical medications were stored in proximity to oral supplements, posing a risk of contamination. These issues were observed in two out of three medication rooms and two out of six medication carts reviewed. The deficiencies were identified through observations, interviews, and record reviews, highlighting lapses in the facility's medication management practices. The Director of Nursing acknowledged the need for accurate documentation and adherence to medication policies, emphasizing the importance of maintaining accurate narcotic counts and ensuring medications are within recommended use dates.
Failure to Provide Hot Food to Resident
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to adhere to its hot food policy by not providing hot food to a resident, identified as R172, who was part of a sample of 35 residents reviewed. R172, who has intact cognitive abilities as indicated by a BIMS score of 15/15, reported receiving food that was warm but not hot. The facility's policy requires hot food to be served at a temperature above 135 degrees Fahrenheit. However, during an observation, the food temperature was recorded at 112 degrees Fahrenheit, which is below the required standard. R172 expressed dissatisfaction with the temperature of the food and mentioned that no staff offered to replace the meal with a hotter one, despite being informed by the Assistant Administrator that a new tray could be requested if the food was not hot enough. Interviews with staff revealed inconsistencies in the facility's approach to reheating food. The Assistant Administrator stated that staff could rewarm food using microwaves on the units, but a Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) reported that management had instructed staff not to use microwaves due to safety concerns about overheating. Instead, the CNA stated that staff were told to call the kitchen for a new tray if a resident's food was cold. This discrepancy in communication and procedure contributed to the failure to provide hot meals to residents, as evidenced by R172's experience.
Inaccurate MDS Assessments for Two Residents
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to accurately complete Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessments for two residents, leading to deficiencies in the resident assessment process. One resident, identified as R59, was observed to be toothless and reported difficulties eating without teeth. However, the MDS Section L for R59's annual comprehensive assessment did not document the resident's accurate dental status, despite a dental hygiene encounter form noting the resident's edentulous condition. Another resident, R133, was admitted to hospice care, as documented in the physician order set, but the MDS Section O for R133's annual comprehensive assessment failed to reflect the resident's hospice care status. The Clinical Care Coordinator emphasized the importance of accurate MDS assessments for reliable resident assessments and care planning, noting that care plans are reviewed at least a week after assessments are completed.
Failure to Conduct Required PASRR Level II Screenings
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to refer three residents with newly evident or possible serious mental disorders to the appropriate state-designated authority for review, as required by the Preadmission Screening and Resident Review (PASRR) program. This deficiency affected three residents, identified as R73, R125, and R166, out of a sample of 35 residents. Resident R73 had new diagnoses of psychotic disorder with delusions, depression, and anxiety disorder, all with an onset date of November 7, 2023. Despite these diagnoses, the PASRR Level I form indicated no need for a Level II review, and no new screening was requested following the change in condition. Similarly, Resident R125 was diagnosed with major depressive disorder and depression, but the PASRR Level I form did not trigger a Level II review, and no new screening was conducted. Resident R166, who had a diagnosis of anxiety disorder and moderate cognitive impairment, also did not receive a necessary PASRR Level II screening. The Social Services Director acknowledged that conditions such as schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, major depressive disorder, and anxiety should trigger a PASRR Level II screening to ensure residents receive appropriate services. However, the facility did not initiate the required screenings for these residents, despite the presence of serious mental health conditions. The facility's policy mandates that residents with mental disorders or intellectual disabilities receive PASRR screenings within the allowed timeframe, but this was not adhered to in these cases.
Medication Management Deficiencies in LTC Facility
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to accurately account for residents' narcotic medications on two out of six medication carts reviewed. Specifically, discrepancies were found in the documentation and actual count of Lorazepam and Clonazepam. For Lorazepam, the recorded doses did not match the actual remaining amount in the bottle, leading to a discrepancy of four to five milliliters. Similarly, for Clonazepam, there was a mismatch between the number of tablets recorded and the actual count in the bingo card. Additionally, the shift change accountability record for controlled substances was not signed on a particular shift, indicating a lapse in the required documentation process. The facility also failed to adhere to policies regarding the labeling and dating of insulin vials, storage of expired medications, and proper separation of topical and oral medications. Insulin vials were found without proper labeling, and expired tuberculin vials were stored in the refrigerator. Furthermore, expired house stock medications were found on medication carts, and topical medications were stored in proximity to oral supplements, posing a risk of contamination. These issues were observed in two out of three medication rooms and two out of six medication carts reviewed. The Director of Nursing acknowledged the deficiencies, emphasizing the need for accurate documentation and adherence to medication policies. The facility's policies require that all opened medication vials be labeled with the date of opening and discarded within specified timeframes. However, these procedures were not consistently followed, leading to potential risks for residents who rely on these medications for their care.
Medication Administration Errors
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to administer the correct medication and dosage as ordered by the physician, resulting in a medication error rate of 10.71%. During an observation of medication administration, a Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) administered Deep Sea Nostril Spray to the left nostril and Artificial Tears eye drops to the left eye of a resident, R118. However, the physician's order specified Sodium Chloride Nasal Spray to be applied in both nostrils and Artificial Tears eye drops to be administered as two drops in both eyes. In another instance, the same LPN was observed administering medication to resident R68, who requested eye drops for dry eyes. The LPN initially stated that the eye drops were not available in the medication cart and retrieved Artificial Tears from another floor, administering one drop to each eye. The physician's order for R68 specified Tetrahydrozoline HCl Ophthalmic Solution 0.05% as the as-needed eye drop, not Artificial Tears. These errors were brought to the attention of the Director of Nursing, who acknowledged the need for adherence to the five rights of medication administration.
Inadequate Adherence to Infection Control Protocols
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure proper adherence to infection prevention and control protocols, specifically regarding the use of personal protective equipment (PPE) for residents under isolation precautions. Observations revealed that staff and family members did not consistently follow the recommended guidelines for wearing PPE when interacting with residents on enhanced barrier or contact isolation precautions. For instance, a therapist and another staff member were observed working with a resident with a wound vac without wearing PPE, despite the resident being on enhanced barrier precautions. Additionally, a family member was seen exiting a resident's room with contact isolation for C-Diff while still wearing PPE and subsequently interacting with others in the hallway, indicating a lack of proper education on isolation protocols. The report highlights specific cases where the facility's infection control measures were not followed. One resident with a history of a left foot wound and wound vac was not properly managed by staff who failed to wear PPE during care. Another resident with C-Diff was not isolated effectively, as evidenced by a family member's improper use of PPE. A third resident with a chronic Foley catheter and PEG tube was assisted by staff without PPE, despite the presence of wounds and indwelling medical devices. Interviews with staff revealed a lack of consistent education and understanding of the facility's infection control policies, contributing to these deficiencies.
Failure to Implement Effective Fall Precautions
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to implement effective fall precautions for two residents identified as fall risks, leading to multiple falls and injuries. One resident, who has schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, and dementia, experienced four falls in May 2024 alone, resulting in knee abrasions and a cast on the left arm. The falls were attributed to inadequate supervision and improper placement of ambulatory equipment, such as a walker being out of reach. The fall coordinator acknowledged that the resident's behavior was a contributing factor, yet the care plan did not address behavioral interventions to prevent falls. Another resident was observed with their bed in a high position, contrary to the care plan's directive to keep the bed in the lowest position as a fall precaution. This resident, who has a history of falling and a healed traumatic fracture, expressed concern about falling again. The LPN and CNA responsible for the resident's care admitted to not ensuring the bed was in the correct position, which could have led to a fall and injury. The facility's policy mandates that residents identified as high risk for falls receive appropriate interventions, and that these interventions are reevaluated and revised as necessary. However, the fall coordinator noted discrepancies in the fall risk assessment for one resident, indicating a lack of accurate documentation and assessment. The facility's failure to adhere to its own policies and procedures contributed to the deficiencies observed by the surveyors.
Failure to Protect Resident from Physical Abuse
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to protect a resident (R4) from physical abuse by another resident (R5). The incident occurred when R5, who has moderate cognitive impairment, hit R4 with a walker, resulting in a laceration on R4's forehead that required five sutures, a skin tear on the right hand, and an abrasion on the mid-back. R4, who has intact cognitive function, reported the incident to staff, and it was confirmed by multiple staff members who observed the injuries and provided immediate care. The facility's policy on abuse and neglect clearly states that physical contact between residents is not allowed and should be prevented by staff intervention. On the night of the incident, a Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) and two Licensed Practical Nurses (LPNs) were involved in responding to the situation. The CNA was initially in another resident's room when she was called to assist with the altercation. Upon arrival, she found R4 bleeding from a gash on the forehead. The LPNs provided immediate care by cleaning the wound and applying pressure to stop the bleeding. The Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON) was also called to the scene and subsequently contacted emergency services, the physician, and the family. The Director of Nursing (DON) and the facility administrator were notified of the incident, and it was classified as physical abuse. The facility's investigation revealed that R5 was startled when R4 turned on the lights in their shared room, which led to the physical altercation. Staff interviews confirmed that residents are not supposed to hit each other and that such actions are considered abuse. The facility's policy emphasizes the importance of preventing abuse and ensuring a safe environment for all residents. Despite these policies, the incident occurred, indicating a failure in the facility's ability to protect residents from abuse.
Failure to Recognize and Address Resident's Condition Leading to Acute Hip Fracture
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to recognize, monitor, and provide needed services for a resident (R2) who had been noted with swelling of the right leg and a decline in activity. Despite the resident's daughter repeatedly informing the nursing staff about the swelling and the resident's complaints of pain, the staff attributed the symptoms to arthritis and did not take appropriate action. This inaction led to the resident continuing with a swollen leg for several days, ultimately resulting in an acute right hip fracture that required surgical intervention. The report documents that the facility reported an unwitnessed fall with injury on 03/18/2024, which led to the discovery of the acute right hip fracture. However, prior to this, there were multiple instances where the resident's condition was not adequately assessed or documented. For example, on 03/12/2024, the resident's daughter noticed discoloration on the resident's right lower face cheek, right arm, and hand, but there was no documentation of the provider being notified or any thorough assessment or treatment being done. Additionally, the resident's change in condition form dated 03/10/2024 indicated right knee pain starting on 03/08/2024, but no appropriate follow-up actions were taken. Interviews with various staff members, including CNAs, nurses, and the Director of Nursing, revealed inconsistencies and a lack of proper communication and documentation regarding the resident's condition. The resident's physical therapy notes also showed a decline in activity, with the resident refusing gait training and showing low tolerance for standing. Despite these clear signs of a deteriorating condition, the necessary medical evaluations and interventions were delayed, leading to the resident's acute right hip fracture and subsequent surgery.
Failure to Prevent Falls and Ensure Resident Safety
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to maintain the safety of residents by not identifying risks for fall prevention and not ensuring adequate supervision and assistance. Resident R6, who had a history of dementia and was at high risk for falls, experienced multiple falls resulting in severe injuries, including a right arm/shoulder fracture and subdural hematoma. Despite being identified as a high fall risk, the facility did not implement effective interventions such as bed alarms or increased supervision, especially during nighttime when the falls occurred. Staff interviews revealed that R6 was impulsive and forgetful due to dementia, which contributed to the falls, yet the only intervention noted was the use of a call light, which R6 often forgot to use. Resident R3, also diagnosed with dementia and at high risk for falls, experienced multiple falls within three days of admission to the facility. These falls resulted in a closed fracture of the right wrist. The facility failed to update R3's care plan or implement new interventions after each fall. The resident's Power of Attorney (POA) expressed concerns about the lack of communication from the facility regarding the falls and the inadequate measures taken to prevent further incidents. The facility's policy required fall risk assessments and the implementation of interventions, but these were not effectively carried out for R3. The facility's failure to adhere to its fall prevention policy and adequately supervise high-risk residents led to significant injuries for both R6 and R3. Staff interviews and documentation indicated a lack of consistent and effective interventions, such as bed alarms or increased supervision, which could have mitigated the risk of falls. The deficiencies in care and supervision directly contributed to the residents' injuries and highlighted the need for improved fall prevention strategies in the facility.
Failure to Follow Pain Management Regimen for Cognitively Impaired Resident
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure that a cognitively impaired resident's pain management regimen was followed in accordance with physician's orders. The resident, a [AGE] year-old female with a history of a nondisplaced intertrochanteric fracture of the right femur, muscle weakness, dementia, and pain in the right knee, was not consistently assessed for pain. Despite the resident's care plan and physician orders requiring pain assessments every shift, the March 2024 Medication Administration Record (MAR) showed no documentation of these assessments. Interviews with the resident's Power of Attorney and several Certified Nursing Assistants (CNAs) revealed that the resident frequently expressed pain, but the staff did not consistently document or address these complaints. The Director of Nursing confirmed the lack of pain assessments in the MAR, acknowledging that nurses are supposed to assess pain every shift. The resident's care plan, dated 02/29/2024, indicated that the resident was at risk for pain due to musculoskeletal issues and required regular pain assessments and appropriate pain management interventions. However, the facility's failure to adhere to these guidelines resulted in the resident's pain not being adequately monitored or managed. The facility's policy on pain management, which mandates pain assessments in situations where there is a potential for pain, was not followed, leading to a significant impact on the resident's well-being.
What surveyors are citing around you — mapped
All 10 risk areas, ranked with evidence
Repeat citations, what's rising near you, and quality measures — ranked so department heads know exactly where to look first.
Illustrative
What surveyors actually found near you
We read the 1,698 citations issued within 25 miles in the last 12 months — including the 27 immediate-jeopardy cases — and tell you exactly what happened, in plain English, matched to your record.
Resident with a documented fall history left unattended on the patio; found on the ground with a hip fracture.
Walk-in cooler logs missing for 12 days; expired supplements in the medication room fridge.
Illustrative
A prioritized, do-first checklist
Every risk area becomes concrete audit steps drawn from real citations at facilities like yours — run them this week, before your window opens.
Illustrative
Risk indicators are statistical estimates from public CMS data — not predictions, findings, or compliance advice.
Nursing homes near Chicago
How nearby facilities compare on the same public inspection record.
| Facility | Distance | Overall rating | Citations, 12 mo | Serious (J–L) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Little Sisters Of The Poor | 0.1 mi | ★★★★★ | 0 | 0 |
| Landmark Of Lincoln Park Rehabilitation And Nursin | 0.9 mi | ★★★★★ | 4 | 0 |
| Warren Barr Lincoln Park | 1.2 mi | ★★★★★ | 10 | 0 |
| Alden Lincoln Rehab & H C Ctr | 1.3 mi | ★★★★★ | 4 | 0 |
| Winston Manor Cnv & Nursing | 1.5 mi | ★★★★★ | 11 | 1 |
Every risk area ranked, a do-first checklist, and your local survey patterns
Built specifically for Avantara Lincoln Park.
100% money-back within 48 hours.
Trusted data, never guesswork. Every citation, penalty, rating and Plan of Correction on this page is sourced from public CMS records (latest release July 2026) and official state health department websites.