Rosebud Village
Inspection history, citations, penalties and survey trends for this long-term care facility in Richmond, Indiana.
- Location
- 2050 Chester Blvd, Richmond, Indiana 47374
- CMS Provider Number
- 155230
- Inspections on file
- 27
- Latest survey
- August 6, 2025
- Citations (last 12 mo.)
- 15
Citation history
Health deficiencies cited at Rosebud Village during CMS and state inspections, most recent first.
A QMA was observed removing and concealing controlled medications intended for two residents with significant pain management needs. In both cases, required documentation in the EMAR and controlled substance logs was missing or incomplete, resulting in unaccounted-for narcotic pain medications. The facility's policies for medication administration and documentation were not followed, leading to discrepancies in medication counts and records.
A resident with a history of cancer and dementia received PRN hydrocodone-acetaminophen on several occasions, but staff failed to document the administration in the EMAR and did not complete required pain assessments to evaluate medication effectiveness, as required by facility policy and the care plan.
The facility failed to ensure that residents had water or beverages of choice available, affecting four residents. Multiple observations revealed that residents were without fluids in their rooms, despite the facility's protocol requiring CNAs to provide fresh water once per shift. The deficiency was confirmed by the Director of Nursing.
The facility failed to provide scheduled activities, implement individualized care plans, and redirect a wandering resident. Observations revealed that scheduled group activities were not occurring, and staff were unaware of the contents of activity boxes for residents. Additionally, a resident with a history of wandering was not redirected, causing distress to other residents. Interviews confirmed the deficiencies and highlighted the need for staff education.
The facility failed to document and address a grievance regarding missing items for a resident with unspecified dementia. Despite the family reporting the missing dentures and tennis shoes to the Dementia Care Director, no grievance was filed, and no progress notes were entered into the resident's record.
The facility failed to prevent sexual abuse of two residents by another resident with a history of inappropriate behaviors and verbal abuse of a resident by an Activity Assistant. Despite known risks and interventions, the facility's measures were insufficient to prevent these incidents.
A resident with heart failure had compression stockings applied with wrinkles on multiple occasions, despite a physician's order and care plan intervention. The resident was unable to smooth out the wrinkles himself, and the facility lacked a specific policy for TED hose application, leading to the deficiency.
The facility failed to implement a fall intervention for a resident at moderate risk for falls, despite a recent fall and a care plan intervention to place a sign in the resident's room to encourage the use of a call light. Multiple observations and interviews confirmed the absence of the sign.
The facility failed to provide adaptive eating equipment, fortified juice, and whole milk to three residents, leading to deficiencies in their nutritional care. Observations and interviews revealed that the prescribed nutritional interventions were not followed, as evidenced by the lack of divided plates and fortified juice for two residents and the absence of whole milk for another resident.
A resident with Alzheimer's and dementia fell from a mechanical lift during a transfer, resulting in cervical and thoracic fractures. The incident involved two CNAs, one under 18, who connected the sling to the lift. During the transfer, a hook came undone, causing the resident to fall and sustain injuries. Immediate care was provided, and the resident was sent to the hospital for further evaluation.
Failure to Prevent Misappropriation of Resident Medications
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to prevent the misappropriation of residents' medications for two residents. For one resident with a history of squamous cell carcinoma and dementia, a Qualified Medication Aide (QMA) was observed by staff and on camera placing pills into a bottle and then into her pocket. Upon questioning by the Executive Director, the QMA produced a bottle containing multiple pills, including hydrocodone tablets that matched the resident's prescribed medication. Review of the controlled drug administration record showed that the resident was documented as having received hydrocodone-acetaminophen on several dates, but there was no corresponding documentation in the Electronic Medication Administration Record (EMAR) for those administrations. The Director of Nursing confirmed that the QMA was omitting documentation of the resident's PRN pain medication in the EMAR. For another resident with chronic pain and multiple comorbidities, a discrepancy was found in the controlled substance count for hydrocodone-acetaminophen. The Director of Nursing noted that one pill was missing from the controlled substance record, and although it could not be verified that the QMA had taken the narcotic, the count was incorrect. The EMAR indicated that the QMA had administered the medication to the resident, but the controlled substance log did not reflect this administration, resulting in a missing pill. The facility's policies required that all administrations of controlled substances be recorded both in the Medication Administration Record and in the controlled substance inventory at the time of administration. The abuse policy also prohibited misappropriation of resident property, including medications. In both cases, the QMA failed to follow these procedures, resulting in unaccounted-for controlled substances and lack of proper documentation.
Failure to Complete Pain Assessments After PRN Narcotic Administration
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to complete required pain assessments for a resident with a history of squamous cell carcinoma of the skin and dementia, who had a physician's order for hydrocodone-acetaminophen to be administered as needed for moderate to severe pain. Despite documented administration of this narcotic pain medication on multiple occasions, there was no corresponding documentation in the Electronic Medication Administration Record (EMAR) of the medication being given, nor were pain assessments completed to evaluate the effectiveness of the medication. The plan of care for the resident specifically included interventions to document the effectiveness of PRN pain medications, but these were not followed. Interviews with the Director of Nursing revealed that the facility's process required a Qualified Medication Aide (QMA) to report the need for PRN pain medication to a nurse, who would then authorize administration, ensure documentation in the EMAR, and complete a follow-up pain assessment. However, the QMA failed to document the administration in the EMAR, which prevented the nurse from being prompted to perform the required pain assessment. As a result, no pain assessments were completed for the resident on the dates when the medication was administered, contrary to facility policy and the resident's care plan.
Failure to Provide Adequate Hydration to Residents
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure that residents had water or beverages of choice available, affecting four residents. Resident 2, who was cognitively impaired and needed assistance with eating tasks, was found without any drink available in her room on multiple occasions. Despite a care plan intervention to encourage fluids, Resident 2 expressed feeling very thirsty and hungry during an observation. Similarly, Resident 54, who had multiple diagnoses including osteoarthritis and cognitive communication deficit, was observed multiple times without any fluids available in his room, including an empty medication cup on the bedside table during several observations. Resident C reported that the facility did not provide fresh water daily and was observed multiple times with a water pitcher that was half full and warm to the touch, indicating the water was not fresh. Resident 89, who had diagnoses including diabetes and dementia, was also observed multiple times without any fluids available in her room. The Director of Nursing confirmed that CNAs were responsible for ensuring residents were provided with fresh water once per shift, as per the facility's hydration management policy. However, this protocol was not followed, leading to the deficiency.
Failure to Implement Scheduled Activities and Individualized Care Plans
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to provide their scheduled activity program on the Cottage Unit, implement and educate staff regarding residents' individualized activity care plans, and redirect a resident with a history of wandering into other residents' rooms. Observations on multiple dates revealed that scheduled group activities were not occurring as planned. For instance, on 5/31/24, no group activities were observed despite the activity schedule indicating 'Dining Room Helpers' at 11:30 a.m. Similarly, on 6/4/24, scheduled activities such as 'Baking' and 'Paint & Polish' did not take place. Interviews with family members and staff confirmed the lack of consistent activity programming, attributed to a shortage of activity assistants and recent staff turnover. The Dementia Care Director (DCD) acknowledged the issue and mentioned that the activity program on the Cottage Unit was more routine and geared towards residents with dementia, but recent staffing challenges had impacted the delivery of these activities. Resident 6's activity care plan indicated she enjoyed independent activities such as watching television, reading, listening to music, and coloring. However, during an observation on 6/4/24, Resident 6 was found lying in bed with the television on but not audible, and she expressed a need for a magazine, which was not provided. Similarly, Resident 49's activity care plan included an independent activity box with fidget toys, a deck of cards, a blanket, and a stuffed animal. However, observations revealed that the activity box was incomplete, missing the blanket and stuffed animal. Staff were unaware of the contents that should be in the activity box, indicating a lack of proper education and implementation of the care plan. Additionally, Resident 49, who had a history of wandering into other residents' rooms, was observed entering Resident 92's room on multiple occasions without staff intervention. This caused distress to Resident 92, who loudly asked Resident 49 to leave. The care plan for Resident 49 included approaches to redirect him away from others' rooms and to use snacks as a distraction, but these measures were not observed being implemented. Interviews with the Director of Nursing (DON) and the Administrator confirmed the deficiencies and acknowledged the need for staff education on these issues.
Failure to Document and Address Grievance for Missing Items
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to fill out a grievance regarding missing items for Resident 92. Family Member 9 reported that Resident 92 was missing her bottom dentures and a pair of tennis shoes. These items were reported to the Dementia Care Director, who acknowledged being aware of the missing items but did not fill out a grievance form. The Dementia Care Director indicated that she was new and unaware of the policy regarding grievance documentation. The Executive Director confirmed that anyone, including residents, family, or staff members, could fill out a grievance and that the facility aims to address grievances promptly, typically within 72 hours. However, no grievance was filed for Resident 92, and no progress notes were entered into the resident's record for the month of May regarding the missing items. The clinical record review for Resident 92, who has a diagnosis of unspecified dementia, showed no documentation of the missing items. Additionally, a review of the resident grievance reports for May 2024 indicated no grievances were filed for Resident 92. The facility's Resident Concerns and Grievance policy states that grievances should be responded to promptly and reviewed by the Executive Director or Grievance Official. Despite this policy, the facility did not document or address the grievance related to Resident 92's missing items as required.
Failure to Prevent Sexual and Verbal Abuse
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to prevent sexual abuse of two residents, Resident C and Resident F, by Resident E. Resident E, who has a history of sexually inappropriate behaviors, grabbed Resident C's breast while she was sitting at the nursing station. Despite being placed on 1:1 supervision, Resident E had previously grabbed Resident F's breast in the common area. Both incidents were reported, and the residents were separated immediately. Resident C and Resident F did not show signs of psychosocial distress following the incidents, but the facility's failure to prevent these occurrences is evident. Resident E's clinical record indicates diagnoses including vascular dementia, psychotic disturbance, mood disturbance, depression, bipolar disorder, and a high risk for heterosexual behavior and sexual inappropriate behaviors. Despite these known risks, the facility's interventions, such as increased medication and frequent checks, were insufficient to prevent further incidents. The care plan for Resident E included measures like providing space between him and female residents, room changes, and medication adjustments, but these were not effectively implemented to prevent the abuse. Additionally, the facility failed to prevent verbal abuse of Resident B by an Activity Assistant (AA 3). Resident B, who has Alzheimer's disease, major depressive disorder, bipolar disorder, and anxiety, was verbally abused when AA 3 raised her voice and used inappropriate language towards him. Multiple staff members witnessed the incident, and the Administrator confirmed that AA 3 admitted to raising her voice and using a curse word. This incident highlights the facility's failure to maintain an environment free from verbal abuse, as required by their policy.
Failure to Properly Apply Compression Stockings
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure that a resident's compression stockings were applied without wrinkles, as observed in 3 out of 4 instances. Resident 94, who has a medical diagnosis of heart failure, had a physician's order to wear thigh-high bilateral lower extremity TED hose in the morning and remove them at night. Despite this order, observations on multiple occasions revealed that the resident's compression stockings were wrinkled at various points, including the knee joints and areas between the ankle and knee. The resident indicated that while he could smooth out the wrinkles at the top, he was unable to do so for the lower parts of his legs. Interviews with the resident confirmed that the wrinkles were a common occurrence and that he was unable to fix them himself. The Director of Nursing acknowledged that there was no specific policy for TED hose but stated that the expectation was for them to be applied without wrinkles to prevent skin impairments. Despite this expectation, the facility staff failed to ensure the compression stockings were applied correctly, leading to the observed deficiencies.
Failure to Implement Fall Intervention for Resident
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to implement a fall intervention for Resident 88, who was at moderate risk for falls and had a recent history of falling. The clinical record indicated that Resident 88 had a fall on 5/19/2024, and an intervention was put in place to have a sign in the resident's room to encourage the use of a call light for assistance. However, during multiple observations and interviews conducted on 5/20/2024, 5/31/2024, and 6/3/2024, it was noted that no such sign was present in Resident 88's room. Resident 88 himself confirmed that he had never seen the sign, and LPN 1 also indicated that she had never seen the sign in the resident's room. The facility's Fall Management Policy, provided by the Administrator, stated that comprehensive, resident-centered fall prevention plans must be implemented for each resident at risk for falls. Despite this policy, the facility did not follow through with the specific intervention for Resident 88, who had a medical diagnosis of malignant neoplasm of the kidney and was cognitively intact. This failure to implement the fall intervention as planned led to the deficiency noted in the report.
Failure to Provide Prescribed Nutritional Interventions
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to provide adaptive eating equipment, fortified juice, and whole milk to three residents, leading to deficiencies in their nutritional care. Resident 58, diagnosed with dementia, severe protein calorie malnutrition, and dysphagia, was observed without a divided plate and fortified juice during her lunch meal, despite physician orders and care plans specifying these requirements. Similarly, Resident 6, who also has dementia and dysphagia, was served her meal on a regular plate instead of a divided plate as per her care plan. The LPN was initially unaware of this requirement until reviewing the care plan during the observation. Resident 65, with diagnoses including dementia, severe protein calorie malnutrition, and dysphagia, did not receive whole milk with her meal as ordered by her physician. The LPN confirmed the omission upon reviewing the resident's meal ticket and electronic health record. The facility's policies on adaptive eating devices and supplements were not followed, resulting in these deficiencies. The lack of adherence to prescribed nutritional interventions was evident in the observations and interviews conducted during the survey.
Resident Falls from Mechanical Lift During Transfer
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure a fall from a mechanical lift did not occur during a transfer from the bed to the chair, resulting in cervical and thoracic fractures of the spine for a resident. The incident involved two CNAs, one of whom was under 18 years old and therefore not permitted to operate the mechanical lift. During the transfer, one of the hooks on the sling came undone, causing the resident to fall approximately 4 to 5 feet and land on his head, resulting in a laceration and fractures to his spine. The resident, who had diagnoses including Alzheimer's disease, dementia, and other conditions, was being transferred by two CNAs. One CNA, who was under 18, connected one of the hooks to the mechanical lift, while the other CNA connected the remaining hooks and operated the lift. During the transfer, the hook on the top left of the sling came undone, causing the resident to flip in midair and land on his head. Immediate care was provided, and the resident was sent to the hospital, where he was diagnosed with fractures and a scalp hematoma. Interviews with the staff involved and the Assistant Director of Nursing revealed that there was confusion regarding the policy on whether staff under 18 could assist with mechanical lifts. The facility's policy indicated that staff under 18 could assist but not operate the lift. The incident led to a review of the mechanical lift, staff training, and an inspection of all mechanical lifts in the facility. However, the root cause of the incident could not be definitively determined, with possibilities including equipment failure or human error.
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.
