Majestic Care Of Terre Haute
Inspection history, citations, penalties and survey trends for this long-term care facility in Terre Haute, Indiana.
- Location
- 3150 N Seventh St, Terre Haute, Indiana 47804
- CMS Provider Number
- 155143
- Inspections on file
- 23
- Latest survey
- February 5, 2026
- Citations (last 12 mo.)
- 10
Citation history
Health deficiencies cited at Majestic Care Of Terre Haute during CMS and state inspections, most recent first.
A resident with cognitive limitations and psychiatric diagnoses required staff assistance with ADLs, including bathing and hygiene, but facility records showed long gaps without documented baths, limited shower documentation, and no specific care plan for refusal of care despite later evidence of care rejection. Surveyors observed the resident with disheveled hair and food-stained clothing, while skin assessments from the facility inconsistently documented issues, noting only intermittent redness under the breasts. Upon admission to a behavioral center, the resident was found wearing a tight lace bralette that had to be cut off, with bilateral under-breast areas excoriated and seeping green-yellow pus, and additional pressure-related and skin-tear findings. Interviews with CNAs, an LPN, the DON, the administrator, the behavioral center director, and the resident’s POA revealed inconsistent accounts of bathing, lack of documented partial baths, absence of documented family notification of refusals, and no routine discharge skin assessment, despite facility policies requiring necessary ADL services and timely recognition and treatment of impaired skin integrity.
The facility failed to protect residents from various forms of abuse and neglect, including physical, mental, and sexual abuse, as well as physical punishment, by any individual.
The facility failed to maintain sanitary conditions during food preparation, affecting 35-38 residents. Staff did not follow hand hygiene protocols, leading to potential cross-contamination during the preparation of pureed food and lemonade. The Dietary Manager confirmed the breach of policy, as staff used bare hands inappropriately and did not perform hand hygiene between tasks.
The facility failed to properly store respiratory equipment and administer nebulizer treatments without physician orders for two residents. One resident continued receiving treatments after the order was discontinued, and another had a nebulizer at the bedside without an order. The facility's policies on medication and oxygen administration were not followed, leading to these deficiencies.
A facility failed to follow physician orders for a resident's pain management. An LPN removed an undated Lidocaine patch from a resident's back, which should have been removed the previous night according to the physician's order. The resident, with osteoporosis and moderate cognitive impairment, was to have the patch on for 12 hours and off for 12 hours. The facility's policy required adherence to physician orders, which was not followed in this case.
A facility failed to ensure timely review and documentation of pharmacy recommendations for a resident with multiple chronic conditions. Recommendations to adjust or discontinue medications were not addressed by the physician in a timely manner, leading to a deficiency. Interviews revealed awareness of delays in physician responses, contrary to facility policy.
The facility failed to date a multi-dose bottle of Latanoprost eye drops and a vial of Tuberculin solution upon opening, as required by policy. An LPN acknowledged the oversight, and the DON confirmed the medications' limited effectiveness post-opening. This deficiency was observed during a review of medication storage and administration practices.
A resident with chronic kidney disease stage 5, dependent on renal dialysis, had inaccurate documentation of peritoneal dialysis (PD) administration. QMAs, not trained to administer PD, were documented as having done so. Interviews revealed that nurses were responsible for setting up and documenting PD, but errors occurred due to computers being logged in under QMA credentials. The facility's policy required medications to be administered by authorized personnel, highlighting a breach in documentation practices.
Failure to Provide Consistent ADL Care and Skin Assessment for a Resident
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to adequately assess, prevent, and treat skin conditions and to provide consistent ADL care, including bathing and hygiene, for one resident. The resident had multiple psychiatric diagnoses, cognitive limitations, and required staff assistance with ADLs per repeated MDS assessments and care plans. Care plans identified the need for assistance with bathing, dressing, and personal hygiene, and noted delusional thinking with an intervention to postpone and re-approach care if the resident became combative or resistive. However, the medical record lacked a specific care plan and interventions addressing refusal of care, despite a discharge MDS later indicating that the resident had exhibited rejection of care 1 to 3 times during the assessment period. Surveyors’ review of skin assessments showed multiple entries documenting no skin issues on several dates, with one assessment on 1/9/26 noting a right wrist skin issue and another on 2/4/26 noting redness under the breasts. A nursing admission assessment on 2/4/26 also documented redness under the breasts and the need for physical assistance with bathing. Shower sheets provided by the DON showed a shower on 1/16/26 and refusals on 1/20/26 and 1/23/26, but no other showers documented during that period. Point-of-care (POC) documentation indicated the resident was not provided a bath from 1/17/26 through 1/27/26, aside from the two documented refusals. The medical record lacked nursing or social services documentation of shower or bathing refusals and lacked documentation of family notification regarding such refusals. When the resident was observed by surveyors on 2/4/26, she was alert, answered questions appropriately, and reported having had a shower the previous evening, but her hair was uncombed and disheveled and her clothing was stained with food. Interviews with CNAs revealed inconsistent accounts: one CNA stated the resident did not refuse showers if given before dark and that skin issues would be reported and documented; another CNA stated the last shower was on 1/16/26 and that the resident often would not allow staff to change her, sometimes allowing only one person to assist. A CNA who cared for the resident on the day of transfer to a behavioral center reported giving a partial bath and removing the bra, noting only some redness under the breasts, but this partial bath was not documented in the record. At the behavioral center, an admission skin assessment documented that the resident arrived wearing a tight lace bralette that had to be cut off because it was too tight and appeared to cut into the skin under the breasts. The garment was saturated with green and yellow pus and had a foul odor, and the bilateral under-breast areas were described as excoriated, seeping yellow-green pus, and requiring cleansing and dressings. The behavioral center also documented a stage 1 deep tissue injury to a heel and a skin tear to a toe. The behavioral center’s director reported that they did not contact the originating facility about these concerns but did notify the resident’s POA. The POA later reported being told that the bra had to be cut off and that the resident had a rash under the breasts, and also stated she had not been informed by the facility of any refusal of showers or baths. The facility’s own policies on ADLs and wound management required necessary services to maintain hygiene and timely recognition and treatment of impaired skin integrity, but the documentation and interviews showed gaps in bathing provision, skin assessment prior to discharge, and care planning for refusal of care. Additional interviews with facility staff further highlighted the lack of consistent skin assessment and documentation. An LPN who sent the resident out reported only bruising to the right arm and “a little redness” under the breasts and stated she was not aware of other skin issues. The DON stated she did not believe there was a policy to perform a skin assessment prior to discharge and that she would not normally do one, and indicated the facility relied on weekly skin checks and monthly skin sweeps. At the time of the survey interview, the DON stated the resident did not have any skin issues. The administrator stated that if a resident refused a shower, the facility would contact the family and attempt multiple times to provide bathing, but the record did not contain documentation of such contacts or repeated attempts for this resident. These combined observations, record reviews, and interviews formed the basis for the cited failure to provide appropriate treatment and care according to orders, and to adequately assess, prevent, and treat the resident’s skin conditions and daily care needs.
Failure to Protect Residents from Abuse and Neglect
Penalty
Summary
A deficiency was identified regarding the facility's failure to protect each resident from all types of abuse, including physical, mental, sexual abuse, physical punishment, and neglect by any individual. The report notes that residents were not adequately safeguarded from these forms of mistreatment, indicating lapses in the facility's responsibility to ensure resident safety and well-being. No specific details about the residents involved, their medical history, or their condition at the time of the deficiency are provided in the report.
Sanitation Deficiency in Food Preparation
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure food was prepared in a sanitary manner during a kitchen observation, which had the potential to affect 35-38 residents. During the preparation of pureed food, a staff member washed her hands for less than 20 seconds and proceeded to handle food and utensils without performing additional hand hygiene. She used a wet spatula to transfer pureed vegetables, which could lead to cross-contamination. The staff member also dried a container with a paper towel instead of allowing it to air dry, which is against the facility's policy. Additionally, another staff member, a dietary aide, was observed preparing lemonade and used his ungloved finger to remove a particle from the inside of a pitcher, contaminating the lemonade. The Dietary Manager confirmed that staff should not touch the inside of drink pitchers with ungloved hands and acknowledged the cross-contamination risk. The facility's policies on hand hygiene and food production were not followed, as staff did not perform hand hygiene when moving between clean and dirty tasks, and bare hands were used inappropriately during food preparation.
Failure to Ensure Proper Respiratory Care and Equipment Storage
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure proper storage of respiratory equipment and did not obtain a physician order for nebulizer treatments for two residents. Resident 22's nebulizer mouthpiece and tubing were found unbagged on the resident's side table with a clear liquid in the medication chamber, and the nebulizer machine was on the bed. The resident's record indicated a diagnosis of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and acute respiratory failure with hypoxia. Although a physician order for nebulizer treatment was discontinued on 8/21/24, the resident continued to receive treatments without a current order, as confirmed by interviews with the resident, a Qualified Medication Aide (QMA), and the Director of Nursing (DON). Similarly, Resident 4's nebulizer unit was observed unbagged on the bedside table during multiple observations. The resident, diagnosed with COPD, indicated she had as-needed breathing treatments, but the record lacked documentation of any physician order for nebulizer treatments. Interviews revealed that the resident had a PRN inhaler but rarely requested it, and a nebulizer treatment was administered without a documented order. The DON confirmed the absence of an order and stated that nebulizer equipment should not be at the bedside without one. The facility's policies on medication and oxygen administration were reviewed, indicating that medications should be administered as ordered by the physician and that delivery devices should be covered in a plastic bag when not in use. The Executive Director provided these policies, which were dated 12/12/23, but the facility failed to adhere to them, resulting in the deficiencies observed during the survey.
Failure to Follow Physician Orders for Pain Management
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to follow physician orders for a resident requiring pain management, specifically in the administration of a Lidocaine patch. During a medication pass observation, an LPN was seen removing an undated Lidocaine patch from a resident's back before applying a new one. The removed patch should have been taken off the previous night, as the physician's order specified that the patch should be on for 12 hours and then off for 12 hours. The LPN confirmed that the patch was not labeled or dated, and the medication administration record (MAR) lacked a section to document the removal of patches. The resident involved had a diagnosis of osteoporosis and pain, with a moderate cognitive impairment as indicated by a BIMS score of 12. The physician's order, dated a few days prior, instructed the application of a Lidocaine 5% patch to the resident's lower back daily, every morning for pain management. The facility's medication administration policy required medications to be administered as ordered by the physician and in accordance with professional standards, which was not adhered to in this instance.
Failure to Address Pharmacy Recommendations Timely
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure timely review and documentation of pharmacy recommendations for Resident 45, who had multiple chronic conditions including type 2 diabetes, COPD, chronic diastolic congestive heart failure, and end-stage renal disease. The resident's medication regimen included insulin, anti-depressants, anti-coagulants, diuretics, and opioids. Several pharmacy recommendations were made to adjust or discontinue medications due to potential contraindications or the need for lab monitoring, but these were not addressed or documented by the physician in a timely manner. Specifically, recommendations to reduce the dose of midodrine and discontinue Hiprex due to renal impairment were not signed or addressed by the physician. Additionally, recommendations for lab work related to several medications were not acted upon promptly. A recommendation to reduce the dose of Protonix was eventually signed and acted upon, but only after a significant delay. Similarly, a recommendation to discontinue Cymbalta was delayed, despite a behavior meeting indicating the need for a gradual dose reduction. Interviews with the Director of Nursing and Social Service Director revealed awareness of delays in physician responses to pharmacy recommendations. The facility's policy required provider intervention within a specified timeframe, but this was not adhered to, leading to the deficiency. The lack of timely action and documentation regarding pharmacy recommendations for Resident 45's medication regimen highlights the facility's failure to ensure the resident's drug regimen was free from unnecessary medications.
Failure to Date Opened Medications
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure that a multi-dose bottle of Latanoprost eye drops and a multi-dose vial of Tuberculin solution were dated when opened, which is a requirement for proper medication management. During an observation, it was noted that the medication cart contained an opened but undated bottle of Latanoprost eye drops for a resident diagnosed with glaucoma. The LPN acknowledged that both the bottle and container should be dated upon opening. The Director of Nursing confirmed that the Latanoprost eye drops are only effective for six weeks after opening, highlighting the importance of proper labeling. Additionally, a multi-dose vial of Tuberculin solution was found in the medication storage room refrigerator without an opening date. The LPN mentioned that the box is usually dated when opened, but was unsure of the vial's opening date. The Director of Nursing indicated that the Tuberculin solution is only viable for 30 days after opening. Facility policies require that multi-dose vials be labeled with the date they are opened and discarded within 28 days unless specified otherwise by the manufacturer. The failure to date these medications upon opening is a deviation from the facility's medication administration and drug expiration dating policies.
Inaccurate Documentation of Peritoneal Dialysis Administration
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to accurately document medication administration for a resident undergoing peritoneal dialysis (PD). The resident, who had chronic kidney disease stage 5 and was dependent on renal dialysis, had a physician's order to receive PD treatment at bedtime. However, the Medication Administration Records (MAR) for June and July 2024 showed that Qualified Medication Aides (QMAs) documented the administration of PD, despite not being trained or certified to do so. Interviews revealed that QMAs were not allowed to administer PD, and it was the responsibility of the nurse to set up and document the procedure. The documentation errors were attributed to the possibility of nurses using computers logged in under QMA credentials, leading to incorrect documentation. The Director of Nursing and the Unit Manager acknowledged that staff should not leave computers logged in and that documentation should not be done under someone else's login. The facility's policy stated that medications should be administered by licensed nurses or authorized staff, but the documentation errors indicated a breach of this policy. The Executive Director provided a policy document that emphasized the need for medications to be administered by authorized personnel to prevent contamination or infection. The report highlights the need for proper documentation practices and adherence to professional standards in medication administration.
Latest citations in Indiana
Surveyors observed that dietary staff repeatedly worked in kitchen and meal service areas with uncovered facial hair, despite facility policy and state sanitation requirements mandating effective hair restraints. Two dietary aides with short beards or mustaches were seen walking through food preparation areas, taking food temperatures, handling food, and plating meals at steamtables in dining rooms without any facial hair coverings, while the current policy required all hair, including facial hair, to be restrained to prevent contamination.
The facility failed to consistently provide and document required bed-hold policy notices when several residents were transferred to the hospital. In multiple cases, residents with dementia, psychotic disorders, COPD, chronic respiratory failure, altered mental status, and cerebral infarction were sent out for acute changes in condition, and while transfer notes reflected physician and family notifications, they lacked documentation that the bed-hold policy was discussed with the resident or responsible party. Notices of Transfer or Discharge often indicated a copy of the bed-hold policy was sent with the resident, but the records did not show signed and dated acknowledgment by the resident or appropriate representative, including in situations where a resident had moderate cognitive impairment, short-term memory issues, or a documented need for a proxy and a financial POA authorizing an agent for health care decisions.
Surveyors found that the facility failed to provide trauma‑informed and culturally competent care by not incorporating two residents’ extensive trauma histories and specific behavioral triggers into their care plans. One resident with documented homelessness, polysubstance abuse, severe accidents with multiple fractures, viral encephalitis with coma, physical and sexual abuse, loss of family contact, and a past suicide attempt had multiple behavior‑focused care plans that referenced identifying triggers but listed none and did not mention their physical, sexual, medical, or psychosocial trauma. Another resident with TBI from being struck by a truck, an 11‑month coma, long‑term state hospital residence, alleged shooting of a parent, and diagnoses including intermittent explosive disorder and borderline personality disorder had a PASRR identifying a specific trigger and notes of inappropriate sexual behavior, yet their care plans omitted these traumatic events, the identified trigger, and the sexual behavior. Staff interviews confirmed that residents were screened for trauma, but the trauma histories and triggers were not reflected in the individualized plans of care.
A resident with schizophrenia, post‑stroke hemiparesis, and mild cognitive impairment expressed feeling down and wanting to kill himself, but staff did not document asking about a specific plan, did not notify the physician or psychiatric NP as expected, and did not develop or update a care plan addressing depression or suicidal ideation. The SSD documented offering support and initiating 15‑minute checks once, but there was no further follow‑up or documentation of interventions after subsequent suicidal statements made in a care plan meeting with the resident’s father. The DON and Administrator reported that facility policy requires immediate notification of key staff, assessment for a plan and means of self‑harm, and thorough documentation, which were not carried out or reflected in the medical record for this resident.
A resident with schizophrenia, post-stroke hemiparesis, and mild cognitive impairment verbalized suicidal ideation, but the care plan did not address depression or suicidal thoughts, and required assessments and services were not accurately or timely documented. An SSD note recorded the resident saying he wanted to kill himself and referenced 15‑minute checks and a care plan update, yet the active care plan lacked depression/suicidal ideation interventions. Multiple late-entry Social Services notes were later added, describing follow-up visits and the resident denying suicidal ideation, but the SSD later reported she did not typically ask about a suicide plan and did not personally provide individual follow-up visits as described. These practices conflicted with the facility’s policy requiring factual, first-hand, and timely documentation of assessments and services.
A resident was observed with an Albuterol inhaler on an overbed table and later reported keeping the inhaler in a nightstand drawer, with no staff present during these observations. Record review showed the resident had no cognitive impairment on the admission MDS but lacked any documented self-medication administration assessment. The DON acknowledged that the required assessment had not been completed, despite facility policy requiring staff and the practitioner to evaluate each resident’s mental and physical abilities before allowing self-administration of medications.
Surveyors found that the facility submitted inaccurate direct care staffing data to CMS through the PBJ system over multiple days in a quarter. CASPER reports showed apparent gaps in 24-hour licensed nurse coverage, low weekend staffing, and a 1-star staffing rating, while internal staffing sheets documented that licensed nurses were present and the facility was fully staffed on those days. The Administrator reported that the discrepancies were due to PBJ data entry errors, despite a facility policy requiring all PBJ entries to be accurate, auditable, and verifiable against payroll, invoices, or contracts.
Surveyors found that the facility did not provide or document required written transfer/discharge notices and bed-hold policy information for four residents who were sent to the hospital, including individuals with conditions such as dementia, CHF, chronic respiratory failure, and CKD. In each case, progress notes showed that the resident was transferred for acute issues, but the clinical records lacked evidence that written notices were given to the residents or their representatives, and in one case lacked documentation that required information was sent to the receiving provider. Facility leadership, including the ADON, DON, and Administrator, acknowledged that the records did not contain the required documentation, despite a written policy requiring such notices and information exchange.
A resident with Alzheimer’s disease and depression, previously on an antidepressant, exhibited intermittent refusals of medications and care, occasional yelling at staff, and reports of unusual perceptions, such as believing men were in or near her room. Nursing notes over several months documented these refusals and complaints but did not show that the behaviors were evaluated or recorded as dangerous, non-redirectable, or causing significant distress, nor did they document specific non-pharmacological interventions attempted or their outcomes. Despite this, a psychiatric NP later added new diagnoses of schizoaffective disorder, borderline personality disorder, and delusional disorder and ordered an antipsychotic (Seroquel) without a comprehensive evaluation in the record to support these diagnoses. The facility’s psychotropic medication policy, which requires identification and documentation of target behaviors, use of nonpharmacological interventions, and ongoing behavior monitoring, was not followed for this resident.
The facility failed to keep PASARR Level I screenings accurate and current for three residents when new mental health diagnoses and psychoactive medications were initiated. One resident’s PASARR omitted a PTSD diagnosis and an added antidepressant, despite documentation of PTSD on the MDS and care plan and a physician order for Pristiq. Another resident’s PASARR listed only depression and dementia, even after additional diagnoses such as borderline personality disorder, delusional disorder, and schizoaffective disorder were added and an antipsychotic (quetiapine) was ordered, with the MDS later reflecting psychotic disorder, schizophrenia, and depression with antipsychotic and antidepressant use. A third resident’s PASARR did not include a depression diagnosis or newly ordered escitalopram and lorazepam, although the admission MDS documented depression with antianxiety and antidepressant use. These omissions occurred despite facility policy requiring a new Level I review after significant mental status changes, including new mental health diagnoses or new psychotropic medications.
Uncovered Facial Hair During Food Preparation and Meal Service
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to ensure that food was served in a sanitary and safe manner in accordance with professional standards and facility policy during multiple kitchen and meal service observations. During an initial kitchen observation, two dietary aides were seen walking through the kitchen food preparation area with uncovered facial hair. One aide had facial hair above and below the lip and along the jaw line, approximately one-fourth inch in length, and the other had a mustache of similar length; neither used any facial hair covering. These observations occurred while staff were present in the kitchen area where food was stored and prepared. During subsequent observations on the same day, the same two dietary aides were again observed with uncovered facial hair while directly involved in meal preparation and service. One aide walked through the kitchen while the noon meal was being prepared and placed into a transport cart for service in the south dining room, and later was observed plating the noon meal at the steamtable in that dining room, still without a facial hair covering. The other aide walked through the kitchen while the noon meal was being prepared and placed into the steamtable for the north dining room, took food temperatures, assisted with plating meals at the steamtable, and retrieved food items and supplies from the kitchen, all while having an uncovered mustache approximately one-fourth inch in length. The Dietary Manager stated that staff hair was to be covered when in the kitchen and during meal service, and the facility’s written policy and the cited Indiana Food Establishment Sanitation Requirements both required effective hair restraints, including for facial hair, to prevent contamination of food, equipment, and utensils.
Failure to Provide and Document Bed-Hold Policy at Time of Hospital Transfer
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to ensure that required bed-hold policy information was provided and documented for four residents transferred to the hospital. For a resident with dementia, psychotic disorder, and autistic disorder who had a BIMS score of 0 indicating severe cognitive impairment, progress notes documented physician notification and guardian notification when the resident was sent to the hospital, but there was no documentation that the bed-hold policy was provided to the responsible party. A Notice of Transfer or Discharge later indicated a copy of the bed-hold policy was sent with the resident. Another resident with COPD and chronic respiratory failure, cognitively intact with a BIMS score of 13, experienced a decline in condition and was transferred to the hospital by ambulance; progress notes documented family notification but did not document any discussion of the bed-hold policy, although a Notice of Transfer or Discharge indicated a copy of the bed-hold policy was sent with the resident. A third resident with altered mental status and cerebral infarction, with a BIMS score of 10 indicating moderate cognitive impairment and documented short-term memory impairment, experienced changes in condition and was transferred to the hospital. Progress notes stated the resident was their own responsible party and that no other notification was completed, and transfer documentation did not include the bed-hold policy, although an untimed Notice of Transfer or Discharge indicated a copy of the bed-hold policy was signed by the resident. A financial power of attorney document in the record showed the resident had designated an agent to act in consent or refusal of health care. For a fourth resident with dementia and osteomyelitis, transfer documentation and a Notice of Transfer or Discharge indicated a copy of the bed-hold policy was sent with the resident, and the transfer form noted the resident required a proxy for decision making. The facility’s policy required that at the time of transfer to a hospital, written notice specifying the duration of the bed-hold policy and information on return to the next available bed be provided, and that a signed and dated copy of the bed-hold notice given to the resident or representative be kept in the resident file, which was not consistently documented for these residents.
Failure to Integrate Trauma Histories and Behavioral Triggers Into Care Plans
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to identify and incorporate residents’ trauma histories and specific behavioral triggers into their care plans, despite documented histories of significant trauma and behavioral health issues. For one resident, extensive social service and progress notes documented homelessness, polysubstance abuse, major depressive and anxiety disorders, chronic pain, a history of severe car accidents with multiple fractures, viral encephalitis resulting in a three‑month coma, loss of child custody, multiple divorces, physical abuse by a spouse, the death of a fiancé who was struck by a car while in a wheelchair, lack of family contact, and a past suicide attempt by Valium overdose. Additional documentation noted a history of rape by a brother at age eight and prior placement under direct supervision and 15‑minute checks related to suicidal ideation. Despite these documented traumatic events and behavioral health concerns, the resident’s care plans did not identify a history of physical trauma, sexual trauma, homelessness, substance abuse, medical trauma, or attempted suicide. For this same resident, the MDS showed no cognitive deficit and identified behaviors such as verbal aggression and rejection of care, along with diagnoses including seizure disorder, depression, chronic pain syndrome, homelessness, and anxiety disorder. Multiple care plans addressed behaviors such as drug‑seeking, pretending to have seizures for attention or medication, making false allegations, verbal aggression when unable to smoke, and a desire for intimate relationships with consenting male residents. These care plans referenced goals such as effective coping skills, seeking staff support, and compliance with the smoking policy, and they called for identification and reduction of behavioral triggers. However, none of these care plans actually listed any specific triggers. The care plan addressing the resident’s right to consensual intimate relationships focused on assessment and education regarding consent but did not integrate the resident’s extensive trauma history. Staff interviews indicated the resident had displayed sexual behaviors since admission, including an incident where the resident expressed anger at another resident for not buying a soda after engaging in sexual acts. A second resident with a documented history of traumatic brain injury (TBI), dementia, seizure disorder, borderline personality disorder, anxiety, intermittent explosive disorder, tobacco use, and other behavioral/emotional disorders was also affected by the same deficiency. Social history and progress notes documented that this resident sustained a TBI after being hit by a semi‑truck while riding a bicycle at age 18, resulting in an 11‑month coma, followed by 13 years in a state hospital and subsequent residence in a group home. Additional documentation indicated the resident allegedly shot their father at age 26 after being sworn at and had a PASRR identifying TBI, intermittent explosive disorder, and borderline personality disorder, with a specific trigger of hearing the name of the current U.S. President. Progress notes also described inappropriate sexual behavior toward staff, including touching themselves intimately during personal care and refusing to stop when redirected. Despite this, the resident’s care plans, which addressed explosive disorder and history of altercations, risk for decreased psychosocial well‑being, and refusal to bathe or shower, did not list any specific behavioral triggers, did not reference the traumatic events such as being hit by a truck or shooting their father, and did not document the inappropriate sexual behavior. The Administrator and Social Service Director acknowledged that residents were to be screened for trauma and that trauma responses and PTSD should be added to care plans, but the specific trauma histories and triggers for these two residents were not incorporated into their plans of care.
Failure to Assess and Care Plan for Resident Suicidal Ideation
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to adequately assess, investigate, and care plan for a resident’s suicidal ideation in accordance with its own policy and staff expectations. The resident had diagnoses including schizophrenia, cerebral edema, and hemiparesis/hemiplegia following a cerebral infarction, and a current MDS showed mild cognitive impairment (BIMS score 12). A progress note documented that the resident told the Social Services Director (SSD) he was feeling down and wanted to kill himself; the SSD offered assistance, activities, and initiated 15‑minute checks, and the note stated the care plan was updated. However, the note did not indicate that the SSD asked whether the resident had a plan to kill himself, and there were no additional notes regarding suicidal ideation or follow‑up. Review of the current care plan showed no problem, goal, or interventions addressing depression or suicidal ideation, and progress notes over the following month contained no documentation of physician notification related to the suicidal statement. Further record and interview evidence showed that the care plan conference summary did not document interventions for suicidal ideation, and the SSD acknowledged she did not normally ask residents expressing suicidal ideation if they had a plan. The SSD reported that the resident had admission paperwork mentioning suicidal ideation related to depression after a stroke and that the resident again vocalized suicidal ideation during a care plan meeting with his father, after which emotional support was offered and the father took the resident out on a leave of absence; no further visits or follow‑up were done. The DON stated that, upon notification of suicidal verbalization, staff should assess the resident, ask if there is a plan, remove potential means of self‑harm, immediately notify the psychiatric NP, and document the occurrence, and that a detailed progress note and updated care plan were expected but not present for this resident. The Administrator similarly stated that staff should ask about a plan, document interventions, notify the physician and family, and update the care plan, and indicated the resident should have had a care plan addressing depression with suicidal ideation. The facility’s written policy required immediate notification of the DON, SSD, and physician, an interview including asking about a plan and assessing mood and means for self‑harm, and thorough documentation of mood, behavior, and all actions taken, which were not reflected in the resident’s record.
Incomplete and Inaccurate Documentation of Suicidal Ideation and Follow-Up
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure accurate, complete, and timely documentation of assessments and services for a resident who verbalized suicidal ideation. Resident 6, who had schizophrenia, cerebral edema, and right-sided hemiparesis/hemiplegia following a cerebral infarction, had a BIMS score of 12 indicating mild cognitive impairment. The resident’s admission paperwork mentioned suicidal ideation related to depression after a stroke, and a Social Services note on 3/11/2026 documented that the resident was feeling down and said he wanted to kill himself. The Social Services Director (SSD) documented that she talked with the resident, coordinated with Activities, advised the resident to contact SSD or nursing if he wanted to talk, and that the resident was scheduled for 15-minute checks and the care plan was updated. However, the current care plan initiated on 2/26/2026 did not address depression or suicidal ideation. Multiple Social Services progress notes were later entered as late entries in April, with effective dates in March, stating that the resident had no plan and no longer had suicidal ideation, that he felt much better after 1:1 time, and that he continued his daily routine and therapy. These late entries described follow-up visits and reassessments of suicidal ideation on several consecutive days, but in interviews the SSD stated she did not normally ask residents about having a plan when they verbalized suicidal ideation and did not recall any other occurrences beyond the initial event. She further indicated she did not personally provide individual follow-up visits with this resident regarding suicidal ideation, despite the late-entry notes describing such visits. The DON acknowledged that late entries had been added to address concern about suicidal verbalization, and the Administrator stated that upon suicidal statements staff should ask about a plan, notify the physician and family, and update the care plan, and that this resident should have had a care plan addressing depression with suicidal ideation. The facility’s documentation policy required factual, first-hand, timely documentation, which was not followed in this case.
Failure to Complete Required Self-Administration Assessment for Inhaler Kept at Bedside
Penalty
Summary
Surveyors identified that a resident was allowed to keep and access an Albuterol inhaler without the facility completing the required self-administration medication assessment. During an initial tour, the resident was observed sitting in a wheelchair with a handheld Albuterol inhaler on the overbed table and no staff present in the room or hallway. On a subsequent observation, the resident again was in a wheelchair and reported that the Albuterol inhaler was stored in the top drawer of the nightstand, where it was found. Review of the clinical record showed an admission MDS indicating no cognitive impairment, but there was no documentation of a self-medication administration assessment. In an interview, the DON confirmed that the resident did not have the required self-medication assessment, despite the facility’s policy stating that staff and the practitioner must assess each resident’s mental and physical abilities to determine whether self-administering medications is clinically appropriate. This failure to complete and document a self-administration medication assessment for a resident who had an Albuterol inhaler kept at bedside constituted noncompliance with the facility’s own policy and with 410 IAC 16.2-3.1-11(a).
Inaccurate PBJ Staffing Data Submission to CMS
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to electronically submit complete and accurate direct care staffing information to CMS through the Payroll-Based Journal (PBJ) system for 22 days in a fiscal quarter. A CASPER report review on 4/6/26 showed that, according to PBJ data, the facility did not have licensed nursing coverage 24 hours per day on multiple specific dates across three months, had low weekend staffing, and held a 1-star staffing rating. However, review of the facility’s internal staffing sheets for that quarter indicated the facility was fully staffed and had licensed nurse coverage on all of the dates in question. During an interview, the Administrator stated that the PBJ information must have contained data entry errors, as she had verified licensed staff coverage on the timesheets. The facility’s PBJ policy in effect stated that all staffing data entered into the PBJ system would be auditable and verifiable through payroll, invoices, or contracts, but the submitted PBJ data did not accurately reflect the facility’s actual licensed nurse staffing as documented on internal records. No specific residents or clinical conditions were mentioned in the report, and the deficiency centers solely on inaccurate staffing data submission rather than direct resident care events.
Failure to Provide and Document Required Transfer/Discharge and Bed-Hold Notices
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to provide and document required written notices of transfer/discharge and bed-hold policies, as well as required information to receiving providers, for four residents who were transferred or discharged to the hospital. For a resident with generalized anxiety disorder, major depressive disorder, and dementia, progress notes showed that the resident was sent to the hospital via 911 for chest pain, lower back pain, and shortness of breath and later returned to the facility, but the clinical record lacked documentation that a written Notice of Transfer/Discharge and the bed-hold policy were provided to the resident or representative, and lacked documentation that required information was conveyed to the receiving facility. The ADON and the Administrator both confirmed there was no documentation that these written notices were provided. For a resident with congestive heart failure and muscle weakness who was sent to the emergency room for painful urination and bloody urine, the clinical record lacked documentation that a Notice of Transfer/Discharge or bed-hold policy was given to the resident or representative, which the DON confirmed. Another resident with chronic respiratory failure and diabetes was discharged to the hospital for respiratory failure, and a resident with chronic kidney disease and dementia was discharged to the hospital, but in both cases there was no documentation that a written notice of transfer/discharge or bed-hold policy was provided to the residents or their representatives. Review of the facility’s Transfer and Discharge policy, dated 1/15/26, showed that the policy required the facility to provide written transfer/discharge notices and bed-hold information to residents and representatives and to provide specified information to receiving providers, but the records for these four residents did not contain the required documentation.
Failure to Document Target Behaviors and Non-Pharmacological Interventions Before Initiating Antipsychotic
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to document how a resident’s behaviors presented danger or distress to self or others, and failure to document non-pharmacological interventions attempted prior to initiating an antipsychotic medication. Resident 6 had documented diagnoses of Alzheimer’s disease, depression, and severe cognitive impairment, and was receiving sertraline for depression. A PASSAR identified only depression and dementia, and the admission MDS listed Alzheimer’s disease and depression as active diagnoses. Over several months, nursing progress notes documented that the resident intermittently reported unusual perceptions, such as believing there were men causing trouble, a man in her room, or a man wanting to marry her and yelling through the walls, but there was no documentation that these episodes caused danger to the resident or others or that they resulted in unmanageable distress. From late April through mid-July, nursing notes primarily described the resident’s frequent refusals of evening and morning medications, blood sugar checks, blood pressure checks, insulin administration, hygiene care, and showers. Staff documented that the resident sometimes yelled at staff, said “Get out!”, was visibly upset by a room move, was leery of staff and asked to see name badges, and became upset about a pillow under her head until it was removed, after which she calmed down. The notes also recorded instances where the resident believed housekeeping had not cleaned her room or that she had not received medications when she had. However, there were no progress notes or assessments indicating that these behaviors were evaluated as dangerous, non-redirectable, or causing significant distress or functional impairment, and no detailed behavior monitoring logs were present as required by facility policy. On a psychiatric NP visit for initial psychotropic medication management, new mental health diagnoses of schizoaffective disorder, borderline personality disorder, and delusional disorder were added, and Seroquel 25 mg, an antipsychotic, was ordered. The clinical record did not contain a comprehensive evaluation to support these new diagnoses, and there was no documentation of target behaviors meeting the facility’s policy criteria for psychotropic use, such as behaviors representing danger to self or others, causing distress and impairment in functional abilities, or clearly attributable to psychosis or mania. The resident’s representative reported that the resident had no prior history of mental health disorders or psychiatric hospitalization and was unaware of the new diagnoses. The facility’s own psychotropic medication policy required identification and documentation of specific target behaviors, use and documentation of nonpharmacological interventions, and ongoing monitoring of behaviors and interventions, which were not reflected in the record for this resident.
Failure to Update PASARR Screens for New Mental Health Diagnoses and Psychotropic Medications
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to ensure that Preadmission Screening and Resident Review (PASARR) Level I screenings were accurate and updated when new mental health diagnoses and psychoactive medications were initiated for multiple residents. For one resident with dementia, anxiety, depression, and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), the PASARR completed on admission listed anxiety, depression, and dementia with sertraline and quetiapine, but did not include the PTSD diagnosis or the antidepressant Pristiq, despite the admission MDS and care plan documenting PTSD and a subsequent physician’s order for Pristiq. For another resident with Alzheimer’s disease, borderline personality disorder, delusional disorder, schizoaffective disorder, and depression, the PASARR only reflected depression and dementia with sertraline, even though additional mental health diagnoses were added later and an antipsychotic (quetiapine) was ordered for borderline personality disorder, and the quarterly MDS documented psychotic disorder, schizophrenia, and depression with antipsychotic and antidepressant use. A third resident had diagnoses including Alzheimer’s disease, depression, anxiety disorder, irritability and anger, and nonrheumatic aortic valve stenosis. The PASARR for this resident listed dementia and anxiety with Risperdal but omitted the diagnosis of depression and the medications escitalopram and lorazepam, although physician’s orders were in place for escitalopram for depression and lorazepam for anxiety, and the admission MDS documented depression with antianxiety and antidepressant use. Interviews with the Assistant Director of Nursing confirmed that new Level I PASARR screens should have been completed when new mental health diagnoses and psychoactive medications were added, and that the PASARR for one resident, completed prior to arrival, should have included all mental health diagnoses and medications. The facility’s own policy required notification of the state mental health authority within 14 days after a significant change in mental condition and specified that a new Level I screen is required for new mental health diagnoses or newly prescribed psychotropic medications, which was not followed in these cases.
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.
