Christian Health Center Corbin
Inspection history, citations, penalties and survey trends for this long-term care facility in Corbin, Kentucky.
- Location
- 116 South Commonwealth Avenue, Corbin, Kentucky 40702
- CMS Provider Number
- 185232
- Inspections on file
- 19
- Latest survey
- January 19, 2026
- Citations (last 12 mo.)
- 4 (3 serious)
Citation history
Health deficiencies cited at Christian Health Center Corbin during CMS and state inspections, most recent first.
A resident with schizophrenia, dementia, and a documented history of sexually inappropriate and aggressive behavior repeatedly exhibited impulsive sexual contact, aggression toward staff and other residents, and attempts to enter others’ rooms over several months. Psychiatric notes, behavior notes, and staff reports described ongoing touching of female caregivers, pushing another resident toward her room, and entering residents’ rooms, yet MDS assessments documented no behaviors and the care plan and CNA Kardex did not include behavioral problems, supervision needs, or protective interventions. Another resident with severe cognitive impairment and anxiety, who had not been assessed or documented as able to consent to sexual contact, expressed fear and discomfort about this resident, crying and stating she did not feel safe. An LPN later found the aggressive resident in this resident’s room, positioned over her in bed, holding her hands down and pushing her back while attempting to get on top of her. Afterward, the cognitively impaired resident showed ongoing emotional distress and fear of that man entering her room again. Facility leadership, including the ED, DON, and social services, did not initially identify the event as abuse or report it, asserting without evidence that the severely cognitively impaired resident could consent to being touched, despite facility policy defining sexual abuse as nonconsensual contact and requiring documented capacity assessments.
The facility failed to immediately report multiple allegations and incidents of potential abuse and injuries of unknown origin to external authorities as required by policy and federal regulations. In one incident, an LPN observed a male resident with a history of sexual behaviors physically restraining a severely cognitively impaired female resident in her bed, causing her emotional distress, but leadership told the LPN not to escalate the concern and did not report the allegation to law enforcement or the SSA. Leadership, including the ED, DON, and social services, repeatedly decided that this and other events—such as a resident’s allegation that her roommate pushed her down and several severely cognitively impaired residents found with unexplained bruises to the thigh, knee, face, and upper arm—did not meet their internal definition of abuse and therefore were not reported, despite policy requiring all alleged abuse and injuries of unknown origin to be reported within two hours. The ED and a corporate representative acknowledged that the facility and corporate team would investigate first and determine what constituted abuse before reporting, rather than immediately reporting all allegations as required.
Facility leadership failed to ensure effective administration in care planning, abuse prevention, and mandatory reporting. A resident with schizophrenia had documented escalating aggressive and sexually inappropriate behaviors over several months, but nursing leadership did not identify these behaviors on the MDS, did not trigger the behavioral care area, and did not develop a behavioral care plan until after a serious incident. An LPN later observed this resident physically restraining and attempting to get on top of a severely cognitively impaired female resident in her bed and reported it to the DON and SSD/Assistant ED, but they dismissed the concern, did not classify it as abuse, and believed the cognitively impaired resident could consent to being touched. The ED, acting as abuse coordinator, along with the DON and SSD/Assistant ED, did not report this allegation to state agencies or law enforcement within required time frames, and similar delays or failures occurred with other allegations of resident‑to‑resident abuse and injuries of unknown origin, contributing to an Immediate Jeopardy finding under F835.
The facility failed to conduct and document thorough investigations into multiple alleged abuse incidents and injuries of unknown origin. In several cases, a resident reported being pushed by a roommate, and other residents were found with bruises on the knee, inner and outer thigh, eye/cheek, and upper arm, but required elements such as complete skin assessments and written statements from direct care staff and witnesses were missing. The DON and leadership relied on brief notes and verbal interviews to conclude causes such as self-rubbing, prior aggressive behavior, or injury during a gown change, without obtaining the comprehensive documentation and assessments mandated by the facility’s abuse policy.
A resident with hemiplegia, hemiparesis, and dementia was found with an open bottle of prescribed Nystatin Powder at the bedside and reported self-applying the medication without an interdisciplinary team assessment for safe self-administration. Staff admitted to routinely leaving medications at the bedside, and records showed no documentation of required evaluations, despite the resident being cognitively intact.
A resident with moderate cognitive impairment was placed with a wander guard without consent, despite being assessed as a minimal elopement risk. The resident, who had previously signed himself in and out of the facility, expressed dissatisfaction with the device, stating he was not a prisoner. Staff confirmed the resident's capability to leave safely, and the DON and MD acknowledged the resident's right to refuse the wander guard.
Failure to Address Known Sexual and Aggressive Behaviors Resulting in Resident Abuse
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to protect a severely cognitively impaired resident from abuse by another resident despite months of documented sexually inappropriate and aggressive behaviors. The resident identified as the aggressor had schizophrenia, anxiety, depression, and dementia, and psychiatric evaluations as early as mid‑August documented a known history of sexually inappropriate behavior, aggression, psychosis, delusions, paranoia, irritability, and agitation. Staff and psychiatric notes repeatedly described ongoing sexually inappropriate behavior, increased aggression toward staff and other residents, physical contact with other residents, and attempts to enter other residents’ rooms, with redirection often ineffective. Despite this, the facility’s MDS assessments in August and October documented no behavioral symptoms, the behavior care area did not trigger, and the comprehensive care plan did not include a behavioral problem or interventions for these behaviors. Additional facility documentation showed that staff were aware of repeated incidents involving the aggressive resident’s sexually inappropriate contact with staff and targeting of others. Behavioral nursing notes described the resident pushing a female resident down the hallway toward her room, grabbing a CNA’s arm and trying to put his arms around her, and later grabbing CNAs’ legs and buttocks during care. A speech therapist reported that the resident leaned over her and kissed her face in his room. Behavior Review Committee notes in November recorded episodes of touching female caregivers inappropriately and identified triggers, but recommended only reminders, redirection, and encouragement of activities, without evidence of increased supervision, modified staff assignments, or other protective interventions. These behaviors and risks were not incorporated into the resident’s care plan or CNA Kardex, and the DON later acknowledged that behavioral care plans and Kardex entries were not updated and that she had assumed, without verification, that the Unit Manager was doing so. The resident who was abused was severely cognitively impaired with dementia and anxiety disorder and had not been assessed or documented as able to consent to sexual contact, contrary to facility policy. Nursing notes shortly before the incident recorded that this resident and her family were fearful of the aggressive resident, with the resident crying, expressing fear that men were outside her door to harm her, and specifically identifying the aggressive resident as someone who made her feel uncomfortable and scared. On the day of the incident, staff and a family member observed the aggressive resident pacing the hallway, repeatedly standing in his doorway and looking into the cognitively impaired resident’s room. An LPN was alerted that he was attempting to enter the room and then observed him inside, positioned over the resident in bed, holding her hands down with one hand and pushing her shoulder back into the bed with the other while attempting to get on top of her. Afterward, the cognitively impaired resident exhibited ongoing emotional distress, crying, fear of that man coming into her room again, and a desire to leave the facility, with repeated social services and nursing documentation of anxiety, fear of individuals entering her room, and need for frequent reassurance. Despite these events and the facility’s own abuse policy defining sexual abuse as nonconsensual sexual contact and requiring assessment of capacity to consent, the administrative team did not initially treat the incident as abuse. The SSD/Assistant ED and ED stated they believed the severely cognitively impaired resident could consent to being touched and to the male resident entering her room, but they could provide no supporting assessment or documentation. The SSD/Assistant ED described the facility’s practice as gathering information and then deciding as a team whether to report to the state, and reported that the ED, SSD, and DON decided this incident did not need to be reported because they did not feel it met the definition of abuse. The ED, who served as abuse coordinator, stated there had not been recent incidents requiring reporting because the leadership team had not determined that abuse had occurred. The DON similarly stated she had not identified the incident as abuse based on her belief that the severely cognitively impaired resident could consent to being touched. The surveyors determined that the facility failed to promptly recognize, assess, and intervene to address known behaviors and failed to develop and implement a comprehensive behavioral care plan to protect other residents, resulting in abuse and psychosocial harm.
Failure to Immediately Report Alleged Abuse and Injuries of Unknown Origin
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to immediately report multiple allegations and incidents of potential abuse, including injuries of unknown origin, to external authorities such as law enforcement and the State Survey Agency (SSA), as required by federal regulations and the facility’s own Abuse Reporting and Prevention policy. The policy required all staff to immediately report any observation, suspicion, or information related to possible abuse to facility leadership, and required the Executive Director (ED) or designee to report all alleged abuse to state agencies within two hours. Abuse was defined broadly to include physical, mental, and sexual abuse, neglect, involuntary seclusion, and mistreatment, including abuse perpetrated by other residents. The policy also specified that any willful act in a resident‑to‑resident physical altercation that resulted in physical injury, mental anguish, and/or pain was reportable. One key incident occurred when an LPN observed a male resident with a history of sexual behaviors physically restraining a severely cognitively impaired female resident in her bed. The LPN saw the male resident positioned over the female resident, holding her hands down with one hand and pushing her left shoulder back into the bed with the other while attempting to get on top of her. The LPN reported this to the Social Services Director/Assistant ED and the DON, but was told the situation was speculation and not to “make a mountain out of a molehill.” Facility documentation and SSA records showed no evidence that this allegation was reported to law enforcement or the SSA. The SSD/Assistant ED, ED, and DON later stated they had decided the incident did not need to be reported because they did not believe it met the definition of abuse and believed the severely cognitively impaired resident could consent to being touched, although they could provide no evidence to support this belief. The ED, who was the abuse coordinator, acknowledged the policy required reporting within two hours if abuse was suspected but stated that recent incidents, including this one, had not been reported because leadership did not determine that abuse had occurred. Additional unreported events included a resident’s allegation that her roommate pushed her to the floor, which was reported by a laundry aide to nursing staff but not reported to the SSA. Several residents with severe cognitive impairment were found with bruises or injuries of unknown origin: one resident had dark purple bruising to the inner thigh extending to the knee and a small outer thigh bruise without an identified cause; another had a pale yellow bruise to the outer knee with no clear link to a prior incident where she had hit her hand, not her knee; another had a bruise to the right eye/cheek area; and another had a bruise to the left upper arm. In each of these cases, the DON documented awareness of the injuries and conducted some level of internal review or investigation, but there was no evidence in facility or SSA records that these injuries of unknown origin were immediately reported to the SSA at the time they were first identified. The SSD/Assistant ED stated that she, the ED, and the DON reviewed these incidents and decided they did not need to be reported because they did not feel they met the definition of abuse. The DON also stated she was not aware she was supposed to report allegations or suspicions of alleged abuse immediately to state agencies, and the ED confirmed that the facility’s practice was to investigate and substantiate incidents before reporting, contrary to policy and federal requirements that all alleged violations, including injuries of unknown origin, be reported immediately. The surveyors determined that this pattern of failing to immediately report allegations and incidents of potential abuse, including the witnessed incident of a resident physically restraining another resident in bed and multiple injuries of unknown origin, constituted noncompliance with 42 CFR §483.12 (F609 – Freedom from Abuse, Neglect, and Exploitation). The failure to report the 01/05/2026 incident involving the male and female residents was identified as Immediate Jeopardy at scope and severity J and also constituted Substandard Quality of Care under 42 CFR §483.12. The facility’s leadership, including the ED, DON, SSD/Assistant ED, and a corporate representative, acknowledged that they often decided internally, sometimes with corporate input, whether an occurrence met their definition of abuse before reporting, and that in these cases they had concluded the events were not reportable, despite policy and regulatory requirements to immediately report all allegations and injuries of unknown origin.
Failure in Administration, Care Planning, Abuse Prevention, and Reporting
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to administer operations effectively to meet residents’ needs in the areas of care planning, protection from abuse, and immediate reporting of alleged abuse. The facility admitted a resident with schizophrenia who, according to multiple psychiatric evaluations and behavioral nursing notes beginning in mid‑August 2025, exhibited escalating aggressive and sexually inappropriate behaviors and was identified as being at risk for sexually acting out. Despite this documented pattern of behavior during the look‑back period for the resident’s annual MDS assessment dated late August 2025, the facility did not identify behavioral symptoms toward others on the MDS, and the behavioral care area did not trigger for care planning. The comprehensive care plan created from that assessment did not include a problem or interventions related to behaviors, and no behavioral care plan was developed until January 9, 2026, after a serious incident had already occurred. During this period without a behavioral care plan, the resident continued to display aggressive behavior, mood instability, irritability, and psychotic symptoms, as documented in subsequent psychiatric evaluations, behavioral notes, and Behavior Review Committee documentation through November 2025. The Unit Manager later confirmed that the resident did not have a behavioral care plan prior to the January 5, 2026 incident and stated that both she and the DON should have been updating the care plan but did not. The Unit Manager reported that the DON had asked her not to document resident behaviors and that when she did document them, the documentation was changed, which contributed to the absence of a behavioral care plan. The DON acknowledged that behavioral care plans were expected to be reviewed and revised when incidents were reported, that it was important to have a behavioral care plan in place so staff would be aware of behavioral risks, and that the resident’s behaviors were not documented in the Kardex. The DON stated she assumed the Unit Manager was updating the care plan and Kardex but did not review them and did not know how the resident lacked a behavioral care plan until four days after the incident and two days after the state survey agency began its investigation. On January 5, 2026, an LPN entered the room of a severely cognitively impaired female resident and observed the male resident positioned over her, with one leg on the bed, holding her hands down with one hand and pushing her back into the bed with the other while attempting to get on top of her. The LPN reported this to the SSD/Assistant ED and the DON and was told the situation was speculation and not to make a mountain out of a molehill. Subsequent documentation for the female resident, including behavior notes, a psychiatric evaluation, and social services notes, showed that after the incident she was very upset and crying, fearful, uncomfortable, did not want to remain at the facility, and exhibited increased anxiety and worsening emotional symptoms. The SSD/Assistant ED stated that she, the ED, and the DON decided the witnessed incident did not meet the definition of abuse and believed that the severely cognitively impaired resident could consent to being touched. The ED, who served as the abuse coordinator, similarly stated that she, the DON, and SSD/Assistant ED had not determined that abuse had occurred and believed the cognitively impaired resident could consent to the male resident coming into her room and touching her, but could provide no evidence to support this belief. The DON also stated she did not identify the incident as abuse because she believed the severely cognitively impaired resident could consent to being touched. The facility also failed to immediately report this allegation of abuse and other allegations or injuries of unknown origin as required. The LPN’s report of the January 5, 2026 incident to the DON and SSD/Assistant ED was not reported to outside agencies, including law enforcement or the state survey agency. The SSD/Assistant ED stated that facility practice was to gather information, discuss as a team, and then decide whether to report to the Office of Inspector General, and that the leadership team decided the incident did not need to be reported because they did not feel it met the definition of abuse, again citing the belief that the cognitively impaired resident could consent. The ED acknowledged that policy required suspected abuse to be reported within two hours but stated they decided the incident was not reportable for the same reason. The DON initially expressed uncertainty about whether the incident should have been reported and, after reviewing the Abuse and Reporting Policy, stated that a leadership member should have reported it and confirmed that incidents involving alleged sexual misconduct between residents should be reported. Further review of facility investigations showed additional failures to immediately report allegations of abuse or injuries of unknown origin that did not rise to the level of immediate jeopardy. These included resident‑to‑resident abuse on December 26, 2025, and injuries of unknown origin for several residents on dates in 2025 and early 2026. The DON stated she was not aware she was supposed to report allegations or suspicions of alleged abuse immediately to state agencies. The ED stated there had not been any recent incidents requiring reporting and that she, the SSD/Assistant ED, and the DON made decisions not to report incidents, and that she often reached out to corporate for direction. A corporate Director of Clinical Reimbursement confirmed that allegations of abuse should be reported within two hours but was aware the facility would investigate first before reporting, and indicated that in the case of the incident between the two residents, corporate determined it was not a reportable allegation and characterized it as “just touching.” These combined failures in care planning, abuse prevention, and mandatory reporting led surveyors to identify immediate jeopardy under 42 CFR §483.70 (F835).
Failure to Thoroughly Investigate Alleged Abuse and Injuries of Unknown Origin
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to conduct thorough investigations into multiple allegations of abuse and injuries of unknown origin, as required by its Abuse Reporting and Prevention policy. The policy, reviewed in July 2025, required that any report of abuse or injury of undetermined origin trigger a full investigation by the Executive Director (ED) or designee, including immediate resident examination for injury, obtaining written statements from all persons with knowledge of the incident, and conducting pertinent interviews with residents, staff on duty, and others present. Surveyors found that these steps were not consistently followed for several residents with alleged abuse or unexplained injuries. In one case, a laundry aide found a resident on the floor between the bed and recliner; the resident stated her roommate had pushed her, and the aide reported this to the nurse. A notepad “investigation” by the DON documented the allegation, the roommate’s denial, and a staff reenactment concluding the event could not have occurred as described, but there was no written statement from the laundry aide and no evidence of skin assessments for either resident. Another resident was found with a pale yellow bruise on the left outer knee; the DON’s handwritten note linked this to an incident 10 days earlier when the resident was aggressive and hit her hand on a table, with RN documentation that the resident had been kicking her legs but without witnessing contact with any object. There were no witness statements, no interviews with other staff who had provided care around the time of the injury, and no documented skin assessment, yet the cause of the bruise was attributed to the earlier incident without sufficient supporting facts or exploration of other possible causes. Additional residents with injuries of unknown origin also lacked thorough investigations. One resident was noted by an LPN to have dark purple bruising on the inner left thigh down to the knee and a small bruise on the outer thigh, with the resident unable to state the cause; the incident report contained no skin assessment and no staff statements. Another resident had a bruise to the right eye/cheek area; the DON’s notepad entry stated staff interviews were conducted and concluded the resident caused it by rubbing his face, but there were no written witness statements or complete skin assessment documented. A further resident with contractures was reported to have a bruise on the left upper arm; the DON documented staff interviews and concluded the bruise occurred during a gown change with no suspicion of abuse, yet there were no written statements from direct care staff and no evidence of a skin assessment. Interviews with the SSD/Assistant ED, ED, and DON confirmed that investigations were based on interviews and team discussion, and the DON stated that once they determined how injuries happened, they did not pursue further investigation, despite the lack of documentation required by facility policy.
Failure to Assess Resident for Safe Self-Administration of Medications
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to evaluate a resident for the ability to safely self-administer medications, as required by its own policy. An open bottle of prescribed Nystatin Powder was observed on the resident's bed, and the resident reported self-applying the medication throughout the day. There was no documentation or assessment by the interdisciplinary team to determine if the resident was clinically appropriate to self-administer medications. The facility's policy requires such an assessment upon admission, quarterly, and with any change of condition, but no such evaluation was found in the resident's records. The resident, who had a diagnosis of hemiplegia, hemiparesis, and dementia, was assessed as cognitively intact with a BIMS score of 15. Despite this, staff interviews confirmed that no self-administration evaluation had been completed, and medications were not kept in a locked area as required. Nursing staff admitted to routinely leaving medications at the bedside for the resident to take at her discretion, contrary to facility policy and without proper assessment. The administrator confirmed that residents were not supposed to have medications at the bedside and that no residents had been approved for self-administration.
Resident's Rights Violated by Unauthorized Wander Guard Placement
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to honor a resident's right to self-determination and communication by placing a wander guard on a resident without consent. The resident, who was admitted with diagnoses including metabolic encephalopathy and moderate cognitive impairment, was assessed as having a minimal risk for elopement. Despite this, the facility applied a wander guard bracelet on the resident, which was against the resident's wishes and without proper assessment or consent. Interviews with the resident and staff revealed that the resident had previously signed himself in and out of the facility without issues and was capable of making decisions regarding his movements. The resident expressed dissatisfaction with the wander guard, stating he was not a prisoner and had the right to leave the facility. Staff, including LPNs and CNAs, confirmed that the resident had safely left the facility on multiple occasions and was capable of living outside the facility. The Director of Nursing and the Medical Director acknowledged that the resident had the right to refuse the wander guard and that the facility should have consulted the medical team before applying it. The facility's actions were not aligned with the resident's rights, as the resident was not considered an elopement risk and had the cognitive ability to make decisions about his care and movements.
Latest citations in Kentucky
The facility failed to maintain a safe, clean, and well‑maintained environment as required by its own policy, with surveyors observing loose kitchen handrails, damaged doors and wood paneling, exposed concrete and stained flooring in resident rooms and bathrooms, bubbling and chipped paint, rusted door frames, water‑stained ceiling tiles, scuffed walls and baseboards, damaged tiles, and deteriorated outdoor structures such as a raised garden bed. Additional issues included a broken cabinet and taped wall corner guard in shower rooms, an unsecured wall clock, a missing floor tile, dried paint splatter, rusted heating/cooling units with chipped paint, and a pool table with a missing corner guard. A resident reported a heating/air unit in her room with a missing bottom panel exposing dust and debris. Staff interviews revealed that some items had been broken for years, concerns about the safety of the handrails had not resulted in repairs, housekeeping did not consistently log issues for maintenance, and there was no formal system to track and ensure completion of maintenance work orders, as acknowledged by the DON, the Maintenance Director, and the Administrator.
The facility failed to ensure food and beverages were served at safe and appetizing temperatures, as required by its Food Preparation and Service policy. Multiple test tray assessments documented hot items such as meats, vegetables, and starches being served within the temperature danger zone, and cold items such as desserts, milk, juice, and sandwiches above the required cold-holding temperature. A resident with DM2, major depressive disorder, and anxiety, who was cognitively intact, reported receiving cold food all the time, and residents in a Resident Council meeting also reported cold food at mealtimes. During a test tray observation, surveyors found hot entrée and vegetable items to be room temperature or cold and beverages warm. Despite these findings, dietary leadership and the RD stated that hot food was always hot and that temperatures taken during audits were accurate, while the DON and Administrator expressed expectations that hot food be hot and cold food be cold.
Surveyors found that nourishment refrigerators and freezers on several units were soiled with dried food debris, and multiple opened grape jelly containers were left undated and unrefrigerated despite labeling that required refrigeration after opening. Facility policies required refrigerators and freezers to be kept clean, free of debris, and that refrigerated or frozen foods be covered, labeled, and dated. Staff interviews showed that Dietary was responsible for cleaning nourishment refrigerators, that refrigerators were cleaned on a set schedule with spills expected to be wiped up by staff, and that opened jelly should have been dated and refrigerated. These practices had the potential to affect all current residents.
The facility failed to maintain a safe, clean, and homelike environment and to ensure adequate supplies for resident care. Over several months, grievances and Resident Council minutes documented repeated concerns about lack of needed supplies, use of wrong-size briefs, and the prolonged closure of a small dining room. Multiple STNAs reported frequent shortages of briefs, linens, washcloths, peri-care products, and other supplies, sometimes leading staff to cut towels into washcloths and to use ill-fitting brief sizes for residents. Environmental observations revealed inaccessible and damaged dining areas with buckled and broken floor tiles, missing and stained ceiling tiles, and a resident bathroom with uneven flooring, persistent staining, a cracked shower light cover containing a dead insect, and a soap dispenser installed above a non-functional outlet. Additional rooms and hallways had exposed wall cracks, sagging ceiling tiles, lifting and separating floor tiles, and buckled flooring attributed to leaks, while maintenance and housekeeping leaders acknowledged awareness of many of these issues but had not ensured timely correction.
The facility failed to develop and implement comprehensive, person-centered care plans for multiple residents, and staff did not consistently follow existing care plan interventions. Several residents with PEG tubes, a dialysis catheter, and a colostomy either lacked appropriate EBP care plan focuses at admission or did not have EBP practices implemented as written, including missing door signage and failure to follow tube-feeding protocols. In addition, two residents with PTSD and other mental health diagnoses had active PTSD documented in assessments and psychiatric notes, but their care plans did not address PTSD-related triggers, symptoms, or trauma-informed interventions, despite staff acknowledging these omissions and the importance of accurate, complete care planning.
A deficiency was cited after surveyors found that multiple residents receiving enteral nutrition did not receive care consistent with facility policy, physician orders, or manufacturer guidance. Tube feeding bags were often hung without dates or times, tubing connectors were left uncapped between uses, and pumps and IV poles were visibly soiled with dried formula. A resident with a G-tube and severe cognitive impairment twice developed abdominal wall cellulitis identified by an adult day care center, with no prior documentation of infection signs by facility staff despite orders to monitor the site each shift. Other residents had medications administered via PEG or G-tubes without verification of tube placement, feedings started late or allowed to run past ordered stop times, and feeding systems spiked and primed hours before use with open, uncovered connectors. Staff interviews confirmed that protective caps were not supplied, that they were behind on tasks, and that they were aware these practices could introduce contamination, leading to the cited deficiency in enteral feeding management.
The facility failed to implement and maintain effective infection prevention and control practices, including missing Enhanced Barrier Precautions (EBP) signage for multiple residents with devices such as feeding tubes, colostomies, dialysis catheters, and indwelling urinary catheters, despite care plans and orders indicating EBP. Several residents receiving tube feedings had bottles and tubing hanging without dates or times and without protective end caps when not in use, contrary to staff statements that feedings should be dated, timed, and properly capped. Staff also did not consistently disinfect shared equipment and surfaces between residents, including a medication cart used for blood glucose checks, a blood pressure cuff used on more than one resident, and a mechanical lift that was returned to the hallway without cleaning after use, despite facility expectations and policies requiring cleaning between each resident.
The facility failed to maintain an effective pest control program, as gnats, roaches, mice, and other pests were repeatedly observed and reported in resident rooms, bathrooms, dining areas, and the kitchen. Surveyors noted gnats around urine-filled urinals on a bedside table, in the kitchen near an open freezer, and on dirty dishware in a unit dining room, as well as a cracked bathroom light fixture containing a dead moth. Exterior doors near the kitchen, courtyard, and parking lot were repeatedly propped open with objects, contrary to expectations stated by the DON, Dietary Manager, and Maintenance Director, allowing pests to enter. A resident reported seeing a mouse and cockroaches in his room, with a mouse glue trap observed there, while another resident reported a mouse in her window and mouse droppings in both the window and on a meal tray. STNAs described ongoing problems with gnats and large roaches and stated that routine pest control spraying and glue traps had not resolved the issues.
A resident with COPD, chronic pain, and pneumonia was placed on palliative and hospice care and ordered oral morphine concentrate for end-of-life pain management. The NP intended a dose of 0.25 ml of 100 mg/5 ml morphine (5 mg), but an LPN entered the order in the EMR as 20 mg/5 ml at 0.25 ml (1 mg), creating a concentration discrepancy. Pharmacy dispensed 100 mg/5 ml morphine labeled to give 0.25 ml (5 mg), yet staff did not detect the mismatch between the EMR and the bottle. A hospice nurse, relying on the incorrect 20 mg/5 ml EMR order, obtained a new order to increase the dose to 1.25 ml to equal 5 mg and documented this on a hospice visit record. A CMT then administered the 100 mg/5 ml concentrate at 0.25 ml once and 1.25 ml three times, each 1.25 ml dose equaling 25 mg instead of 5 mg. Despite concerns from the UM and ADON about the unusually high 1.25 ml dose, clarification was delayed, and the resident was later pronounced dead. Interviews and policies showed staff were expected to follow the five rights of medication administration and reconcile labels with EMR orders, but multiple failures to verify the correct concentration and dose led to repeated morphine overdoses and a significant medication error.
A resident on hospice with COPD and chronic pain received morphine concentrate after a verbal order from an NP was incorrectly entered by an LPN as a lower‑strength solution. A hospice nurse later increased the volume of the morphine dose based on the incorrect concentration in the electronic order rather than the pharmacy order or medication label, resulting in administration of doses five times higher than intended on multiple occasions. The resident died later that day, and hospice staff, the coroner, and police became involved, with police confirming concerns about excessive dosing and seizing the morphine. Despite a facility policy requiring prompt reporting of abuse allegations and any reasonable suspicion of a crime to state agencies, the DON and Administrator did not report the incident, with the Administrator stating she relied on police to make the report.
Failure to Maintain Safe, Clean, and Well-Maintained Environment
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to maintain a safe, clean, and well‑maintained environment as required by its “Home-like Environment” policy, which states residents have a right to a safe, clean, and homelike setting. Surveyors observed multiple unresolved maintenance and housekeeping issues throughout the building and grounds. These included loose and insecure handrails leading into the kitchen, a damaged kitchen entry door with scratches and a missing piece, damaged and chipped wood paneling at the nurses’ station, and multiple areas of damaged flooring in resident rooms where heating/cooling units had been removed, exposing concrete and stained flooring around toilets and sinks. Additional observations included bubbling and chipping wall paint, rusted door frames, discolored and water‑stained ceiling tiles, and scuffed walls and baseboards in hallways and the dining room. Further observations showed environmental issues in resident-use and common areas, including a water hose lying in flowerbeds at the facility entrance, a Styrofoam cup on the ground outside a resident’s window, scratched glass doors to the smoking area, damaged floor tiles at the exit to the smoking area, a cabinet in a resident shower room with a missing handle, and a wall corner guard held in place with multiple strips of tape. Another shower room had a wall clock not mounted properly, resting on cloth hooks. Additional findings included a missing floor tile in a resident room exposing concrete, dried paint splatter at entries to several resident rooms, rust and chipped paint on a heating/cooling unit and adjacent exit door, a pool table in the dining room with a missing corner guard and exposed edges, and a raised garden bed with structural deterioration and a failing, rotted base partially detached and laying on the ground. Interviews confirmed that these conditions had been ongoing and not consistently addressed through the facility’s maintenance processes. A resident reported that the heating/air unit in her room was missing the bottom part, exposing dust and debris on the floor, and stated she would clean it herself if able. A CNA reported the broken cabinet in the shower room had been in that condition for many years and that repairs were not consistently completed after being reported via logbooks. The Housekeeping Manager acknowledged awareness of scuff marks on walls and baseboards but had not entered them into the maintenance logbook. The Dietary Manager stated she had concerns about the safety of the kitchen handrails, which she believed could pose a fall risk, and that maintenance had not repaired them. The Maintenance Director stated there were no outstanding work orders in the logbook, acknowledged that monthly painting had not been done for March, and noted the damaged raised garden bed had not been repaired or removed. The DON and Administrator both acknowledged there was no formal system to track and ensure completion of maintenance work orders, and the Administrator was aware of the unsecured kitchen handrails but was not aware if repairs had ever been completed.
Failure to Maintain Safe and Palatable Food Temperatures
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to provide food and drink at safe and appetizing temperatures in accordance with its own Food Preparation and Service policy. The policy, dated 2001, defined the temperature danger zone as above 41°F and below 135°F, and required potentially hazardous foods to be maintained at or below 41°F or at or above 135°F. Multiple Providence Pavilion Test Tray Assessment documents for various meals showed hot foods such as baked ravioli, baked chicken, rice pilaf, carrots, rosemary chicken, mushroom rice, au gratin cauliflower, broccoli, mashed potatoes, beef stroganoff, and carrots being served at temperatures between 118°F and 132°F, which were within the policy’s stated danger zone. Cold items such as apple bar, milk, cold ham and cheese sandwich, pudding, juice, and lemonade were recorded at temperatures between 42°F and 61°F, also within the danger zone. During a test tray observation, surveyors tasted the beef stroganoff, broccoli, and lemonade and described them as room temperature, cold, and warm, respectively. Resident feedback corroborated these findings. One resident, admitted with diagnoses including type 2 diabetes mellitus, major depressive disorder, and anxiety, and assessed as cognitively intact with a BIMS score of 14/15, stated she received cold food all the time. Residents attending a Resident Council meeting also reported receiving cold food at mealtimes. Despite these reports and documented tray temperatures in the danger zone, the Dietary Manager stated she preferred hot food served at 130°F and reported that steam tables were turned on one-half hour before meal service. The RD reported that she conducted sanitation walkthroughs and test trays and stated that hot food was always hot and that recorded temperatures showed this, and further indicated that department heads passed trays and took temperatures during test tray audits. The DON and Administrator both stated their expectations that residents receive food at proper temperatures, with hot food hot and cold food cold, but the documented observations and resident interviews showed that this was not consistently occurring.
Improper Food Storage and Unsanitary Nourishment Refrigerators
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to store, prepare, and serve food in accordance with professional standards and its own policies for food safety. Surveyors observed that nourishment refrigerators and freezers on multiple units, including the Honor, Pavilion, and Purpose Units, were soiled with dried food debris on shelves and throughout the compartments. On the Honor Unit, an opened grape jelly container was found sitting on top of the refrigerator, undated and not stored inside the refrigerator, despite the product label directing refrigeration after opening. In the kitchen, two additional opened and undated grape jelly containers were observed left out of the refrigerator. Review of facility policies from 2001 showed that refrigerators and freezers were to be kept clean, free of debris, and disinfected with sanitizing solution on a scheduled basis, and that all foods stored in the refrigerator or freezer were to be covered, labeled, and dated with a use-by date. Staff interviews further clarified practices and expectations related to the deficiency. A state tested nurse aide stated that Dietary was responsible for cleaning the unit nourishment refrigerators. The Dietary Manager reported that nourishment refrigerators were cleaned twice weekly and that any spills should be cleaned up by staff, and acknowledged that the jelly was kept out to make peanut butter and jelly sandwiches, but should have been dated when opened and kept refrigerated. The DON stated her expectation that nourishment refrigerators be clean, and the Administrator stated her expectation that staff wipe up any spills and maintain the cleanliness of nourishment and resident refrigerators. The deficient practices had the potential to affect all 80 current residents.
Failure to Maintain Safe, Clean, and Homelike Environment and Adequate Care Supplies
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to provide residents with a safe, clean, comfortable, and homelike environment, including adequate supplies for daily care. The facility’s own policy on a homelike environment requires a safe, clean, comfortable setting that emphasizes residents’ independence and personal needs and preferences. Review of grievance logs and Resident Council minutes over several months showed repeated resident concerns about not having needed supplies and the prolonged inaccessibility of the small dining room. Grievances documented that residents lacked needed supplies and that the small dining room remained unusable, while Resident Council minutes reflected residents’ desire for the small dining room to be usable by Thanksgiving and ongoing concerns about not receiving needed supplies and aides using the wrong size briefs. Multiple staff interviews confirmed ongoing supply shortages affecting resident care. One STNA reported that the facility frequently did not have enough supplies, including hand sanitizers, soaps, clean linens, and briefs, and that this had been an issue for a few months. She stated that when briefs ran out, staff reported to nursing, who contacted central supply, and if unavailable, the Administrator was called to purchase supplies locally. Another STNA reported housekeeping budget cuts and stated the facility had run out of washcloths and disposable bed pads, leading staff to cut up towels to use as washcloths for peri-care. She also reported that a previous central supply staff member told STNAs the facility budgeted briefs to be changed once every six hours, which she felt was not sufficient for some residents, and that residents sometimes had to use larger or smaller brief sizes and complained about this. A third STNA stated the facility ran out of supplies on the unit, sometimes leaving no linens for night shift, and that peri-care supplies and specific brief sizes sometimes ran low, requiring use of different sizes. Environmental observations and staff interviews showed multiple areas of the building that were not maintained in a safe, clean, or homelike condition. The small dining/activity room off the main hall was observed with tables and chairs blocking entryways and a wavy, buckled wood-grain tile floor, and the room remained inaccessible to residents. In the Honor dining room, surveyors observed a large section of broken and mismatched wood-grain tiles with gaps between them and a missing ceiling tile. The bathroom in one resident room had an uneven floor, staining on the raised toilet seat, rust-colored stains running from a soap dispenser down past a non-functional wall outlet and onto the baseboard, and a cracked shower light cover containing a dead moth. The Housekeeping Manager acknowledged the staining had been present for two to three months, that attempts to remove it were unsuccessful, that the bathroom was not homelike, and that the floor needed to be replaced. Additional structural issues were observed in resident areas and common spaces. In another resident room, the wall with the window had an exposed crack with visible sheetrock, and ceiling tiles above the door included one missing tile and six stained and sagging tiles; an LPN stated there had been a leak and that maintenance was aware, but no repairs had been made. The Maintenance Director stated the leak was caused by the HVAC system and that repairs had not yet been completed. In the Providence hallway, blue border floor tiles were lifting and separating along the length of the hallway, with large scuff marks and dull, soiled center tiles; the Housekeeping Manager stated staff could not strip and wax the floor due to the tile’s condition, and the Regional Maintenance Director stated the facility was in the process of obtaining quotes to replace the floor. In another resident room, the floor appeared buckled and wavy, which the Maintenance Director attributed to a water leak in a wall coil assist located in the ceiling, and he stated there were plans to repair the flooring in multiple rooms. Interviews with maintenance and management staff showed awareness of many of these environmental issues but also revealed gaps in monitoring and timely correction. The Maintenance Assistant reported doing monthly room rounds for lights, extension cords, plugs, and handrails but was unaware of the bathroom issues in the identified room and had not noticed the damaged tiles in the Honor dining room or how long the small dining room had been closed. The Maintenance Director stated the small dining room floor damage was due to a water leak from an ice machine and believed it occurred months earlier, and he acknowledged that the non-live outlet in the bathroom would need to be removed and covered. The Housekeeping Manager stated she was aware of damaged and ill-fitting tiles in the Honor dining room and that floors in several areas, including the small dining room, needed replacement. The DON and Administrator both stated their expectations that the facility be kept clean, safe, and homelike, with all spaces utilized for residents and floors kept even, clean, dry, and free from clutter, but the observed conditions and staff reports demonstrated that these expectations were not being met.
Failure to Develop and Implement Comprehensive Person-Centered Care Plans
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to develop and implement comprehensive, person-centered care plans with measurable objectives and timeframes for multiple residents, and failure of staff to follow existing care plan interventions. For two residents with PEG tubes and one resident with a dialysis catheter, the facility did not fully develop care plans at admission to reflect their diagnoses and required Enhanced Barrier Precautions (EBP). One resident was admitted with a PEG tube in August 2025, but EBP related to the PEG tube was not added to the care plan until March 2026, and there was no EBP signage on the door during observation. Another resident admitted with end stage renal disease and a dialysis catheter had no care plan focus for the dialysis catheter or EBP, despite having an order for EBP and being admitted with the catheter; there was also no EBP signage observed on the door. For a resident with diverticulitis and colostomy status, the care plan did include EBP, and there were orders for EBP and colostomy care every shift; however, there was no EBP signage on the door, and the MDS nurse stated she had been told that residents with colostomies did not require EBP, even though EBP remained on the care plan and staff were expected to follow care plan interventions. Another resident with cerebral palsy, epilepsy, and gastrostomy status had a care plan directing staff to check PEG tube placement and gastric contents/residual volume prior to medication administration per facility protocol, but observation showed an LPN administering medications via the PEG tube without checking for placement before pushing the medication. Two residents with PTSD diagnoses did not have their mental health needs fully addressed in their care plans. One resident admitted in 2023 with PTSD and other mental health diagnoses had a quarterly MDS showing a mood severity score of 18, with difficulty sleeping, little interest in activities, and feeling depressed or hopeless nearly every day, and psychiatry notes documented PTSD and schizoaffective disorder related to past trauma and ongoing nightmares; however, the care plan contained no focus for PTSD. Another resident admitted in 2016 with PTSD and borderline personality disorder had an active PTSD diagnosis on the MDS, but the comprehensive care plan did not address PTSD, including triggers, symptoms, or trauma-informed interventions. The Social Services Director, MDS nurse, DON, and Administrator all acknowledged that the PTSD diagnosis and related care plan focus had been overlooked and that care plans were expected to be fully developed and implemented so staff would know how to properly care for residents.
Failure to Maintain Safe, Timely, and Sanitary Enteral Feeding Practices
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to provide appropriate treatment and services to prevent complications related to enteral nutrition for six residents with feeding tubes. Surveyors found that tube feeding systems were frequently hung without being dated or timed, and tubing connector tips were left uncapped between uses, despite facility policy and manufacturer guidance requiring protection of components that contact formula. Multiple residents had feeding containers spiked and primed but not infusing, with the open ends of tubing left exposed and no protective caps available. Staff interviews confirmed that caps were not provided by the facility, and nurses acknowledged that uncovered connectors could introduce germs and place residents at risk for infection. For one resident with a gastrostomy tube and severe cognitive impairment, the care plan and orders required monitoring the G-tube site for infection every shift and checking tube placement and gastric residuals. The resident was sent twice from an adult day care center to the Emergency Department and diagnosed with abdominal wall cellulitis on both occasions, after the day care staff identified abnormal G-tube findings, including leakage and inability to flush the tube. The facility’s clinical record contained no documentation that staff had identified or recorded signs or symptoms of infection before the resident left for day care on either occasion, and the Physician Assistant reported she had not been notified of excessive leakage that could contribute to recurrent cellulitis. During observation, this resident’s G-tube site was reddened with yellowish-green drainage, the feeding container had been spiked the previous day and was being reused, the connector was left uncovered, and the pump and IV pole had dried formula residue. Other residents with PEG or G-tubes also experienced deficiencies in enteral feeding management. Several residents had tube feedings hanging and infusing without dates or times on the bags, and tubing sets were observed primed and hanging with open, uncapped ends. One resident received medications via PEG tube without the nurse checking tube placement beforehand, despite a care plan intervention to check placement and gastric contents per protocol. Another resident’s feeding was labeled to start later in the day but was already spiked and primed hours in advance, with the connector left uncovered and the pump and IV pole soiled with dried feeding residue. For a resident ordered to receive tube feeding from late afternoon to early morning, the feeding was started approximately two hours late and then observed still infusing well past the ordered stop time; the resident was later found in bed with a large amount of emesis on the gown and linens, and the LPN stated she had been running behind and had not turned off the feeding. Throughout these observations, the DON, PA, RD, and product representative all confirmed that connectors should be covered, feedings should follow ordered schedules, and systems should not remain hanging beyond recommended timeframes, but the facility’s practices did not align with these expectations. Across multiple days of observation, the surveyors repeatedly noted that enteral feeding pumps and IV poles for several residents were coated with dried feeding residue on the exterior surfaces, along the poles, and at the bases, indicating that equipment used for tube feeding was not maintained in a clean and sanitary condition. Facility policies on enteral nutrition and G-tube site care required staff to monitor for signs of infection, maintain cleanliness of the tube site, assess for redness, swelling, pain, or drainage, and report signs of infection to a supervisor and physician. The policies also emphasized confirming tube placement prior to initiating feedings to reduce aspiration risk and recognizing complications such as aspiration, tube misplacement, skin breakdown, and gastrointestinal symptoms. Despite these written policies and the manufacturer’s guidance on closed versus open systems, hang times, labeling, and handling to prevent contamination, staff actions and inactions—including failure to document and report abnormal G-tube findings, failure to verify tube placement before medication administration, failure to adhere to ordered feeding schedules, and failure to keep connectors capped and equipment clean—led to the cited deficiency for all six residents receiving enteral nutrition.
Failure to Implement Effective Infection Prevention and Control Practices
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to establish and maintain an effective infection prevention and control program, as evidenced by multiple observations of noncompliance with policies, CDC guidance, and basic infection control practices. Surveyors observed that residents on Enhanced Barrier Precautions (EBP) did not have required signage posted on their room doors, despite care plans and orders indicating the need for EBP. Residents with devices such as a PEG tube, colostomy, dialysis catheter, and indwelling urinary catheter were under EBP, but their rooms lacked appropriate signage. Staff interviews confirmed that EBP should have been initiated and care planned upon admission for these residents and that signage should have been posted, but this was not done or was delayed. The deficiency also includes improper management of enteral nutrition systems for several residents receiving tube feedings. Surveyors observed tube feeding bottles and tubing hanging on poles without dates or times indicating when they were opened or hung, and with tubing primed but without protective end caps when not in use. Staff, including LPNs and the PA, acknowledged that tube feedings should be dated and timed, that they are only good for a limited period once hung, and that the absence of end caps could allow germs or bacteria to be introduced into the feeding system. The DON and Administrator stated their expectations that tube feedings be dated, timed, and capped, and that undated or uncapped systems should be replaced, but the observed practice did not align with these expectations. Additional deficiencies were identified in the cleaning and disinfection of shared equipment and surfaces between resident use. A nurse performing blood glucose checks placed used supplies and a glucometer on the medication cart surface, cleaned the glucometer, but did not disinfect the cart surface before preparing supplies for another resident on the same surface. Another nurse used a blood pressure cuff on two different residents without cleaning it between uses, stating she normally would use disinfectant wipes but forgot and did not have wipes in her cart. In a separate incident, staff used a mechanical lift to transfer a resident back to bed and then placed the lift in the hallway without cleaning it after use. Staff and leadership interviews confirmed that shared equipment and surfaces should be disinfected between residents to prevent cross-contamination, but this was not consistently done. Collectively, these observations show that the facility did not follow its own infection prevention and control policies related to EBP implementation and signage, safe handling of tube feedings, and cleaning and disinfection of shared equipment and surfaces. The facility’s policies required surveillance of staff adherence to infection control practices, proper use of standard precautions, and cleaning and reprocessing of reusable equipment between residents, but surveyors found repeated instances where these requirements were not met for multiple sampled residents.
Failure to Maintain Effective Pest Control and Environmental Practices
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to maintain an effective pest control program to ensure the environment was free of pests and rodents, despite having a pest control contract and invoices showing routine service. Surveyors observed gnats in multiple areas of the facility on several days, including around urinals in a resident room, in the kitchen near an open double reach-in freezer, and on dishware in a unit dining room sink and tray. A cracked overhead bathroom light fixture in another room contained a large dead moth. Staff and residents reported seeing gnats, roaches, and mice in the facility, and invoices confirmed that pest control services were being provided for various pests including mice, rats, spiders, water bugs, silverfish, and roaches. Multiple observations showed that exterior doors were repeatedly propped open, allowing pests to enter the building. The kitchen delivery and emergency door was held open with a milk crate, creating a gap between the doors, and the kitchen back door was again observed held open with a milk crate on another day. Two side doors leading to the courtyard and toward the kitchen were observed open with wind blowing into the building, and a side door facing the parking lot was held open with two chairs, despite posted signs instructing that the door not be used. The Director of Maintenance, Dietary Manager, and DON each stated that these doors were expected to remain closed except during specific uses, and acknowledged that open doors allowed pests to enter and potentially contaminate food. Residents and staff provided additional accounts of pest activity. One resident reported seeing a mouse come from under a chair in his room, as well as cockroaches on the walls disappearing into ceiling tiles and gnats; a mouse glue trap was observed behind a chair in that room, and the resident stated he had reported the issue and pest control had sprayed. Another resident reported finding a mouse between the screen and window in her room, later seeing mouse droppings in the window, and receiving a meal tray with mouse droppings. STNAs reported seeing large roaches in hallways, ongoing problems with flies and gnats in dining rooms, and complaints from residents and families about gnats, while also stating that pest control spraying did not seem effective. The DON acknowledged that one resident did not like staff touching his belongings, which contributed to urinals with urine being left on a bedside table with gnats flying around them, and stated the facility should be kept clean and as nice as possible for residents.
Fatal Morphine Overdose Due to Unreconciled Concentration and Dose Errors
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure a resident was free from significant medication errors when staff administered multiple overdoses of concentrated oral morphine. The resident had COPD, chronic pain, osteoarthritis, and was placed on palliative care, later transitioning to hospice after a decline that included pneumonia, decreased oxygen saturation, shallow breathing, and lethargy. On the morning of the incident, the facility NP gave a verbal order for morphine concentrate 100 mg/5 ml at 0.25 ml (5 mg) every hour as needed, and also sent a written order to the pharmacy for this concentration and dose. However, when the LPN entered the order into the electronic medical record, she documented morphine 20 mg/5 ml with a dose of 0.25 ml (1 mg), creating a discrepancy between the NP’s intended concentration and the order recorded in the system. The pharmacy dispensed morphine sulfate 100 mg/5 ml concentrate with label directions to give 0.25 ml (5 mg) every hour as needed, consistent with the NP’s written order. When the medication arrived, the receiving LPN stated she compared the bottle to the pharmacy order and the computer but did not identify any difference between the 100 mg/5 ml label and the 20 mg/5 ml order in the EMR. Later, a hospice nurse arrived, reviewed the MAR that showed morphine 20 mg/5 ml at 0.25 ml (1 mg), and observed the first dose of 0.25 ml being administered by a CMT. Seeing continued discomfort, the hospice nurse obtained a verbal order from the hospice physician to increase the dose to 1.25 ml to equal 5 mg, basing this calculation on the 20 mg/5 ml concentration shown in the Physician Order Report and not on the actual 100 mg/5 ml concentration on the bottle or the NP’s written pharmacy order. Following the hospice nurse’s written order on the Nursing Home Visit Record to increase the dose to 1.25 ml, the CMT administered the concentrated morphine 100 mg/5 ml at 0.25 ml once and then at 1.25 ml on three subsequent occasions that afternoon, each 1.25 ml dose equaling 25 mg instead of the intended 5 mg. The CMT reported that she questioned the 1.25 ml dose because she had never given that much before, but proceeded after the hospice nurse confirmed it was correct based on the MAR. The Unit Manager and ADON both expressed concern about the 1.25 ml dose and recognized it seemed like a large amount, but clarification with hospice was delayed until late in the day. The pharmacy later confirmed that, based on the 100 mg/5 ml concentration delivered, the resident received 25 mg instead of 5 mg on three administrations within approximately three hours, a fivefold overdose each time. The resident was pronounced dead that evening, and law enforcement and the coroner were notified after hospice staff and facility staff identified a potential morphine overdose and documented that three doses had been given at five times the ordered concentration. Interviews with multiple RNs, the DON, Medical Director, and Administrator confirmed that facility expectations and policies required staff to perform the five rights of medication administration, visually compare the medication label to the EMR order and narcotic sheet, and seek clarification from the provider or pharmacy if any discrepancy or concern arose. Despite these policies, staff involved in ordering, receiving, verifying, and administering the morphine did not reconcile the differing concentrations (20 mg/5 ml vs. 100 mg/5 ml) between the EMR, the hospice documentation, and the pharmacy label. The hospice nurse based the dose increase solely on the EMR order, the receiving LPN did not detect the mismatch between the EMR and the bottle, and the CMT and nursing leadership did not stop administration or obtain timely clarification when the 1.25 ml dose appeared unusually high. These combined actions and inactions resulted in repeated administration of morphine at five times the intended dose and constituted a significant medication error. The facility’s own policies on medication administration, physician orders, and medication labeling required nurses to question inappropriate doses, verify label accuracy, and consult the provider or pharmacy when directions changed or appeared inconsistent. Staff interviews indicated that these expectations were known, including the need to reconcile the drug in hand with the EMR order and narcotic record before administration. Nonetheless, the morphine order was incorrectly entered into the EMR, the discrepancy between the EMR and the pharmacy label was not recognized at receipt or prior to administration, and the hospice nurse’s dose adjustment was calculated from the incorrect EMR concentration rather than the actual bottle concentration. The failure of multiple staff members to follow established verification processes and to resolve evident concerns about the dose led directly to the resident receiving three excessive doses of morphine concentrate and underpinned the cited deficiency for significant medication errors under 42 CFR 483.45 (F760).
Failure to Report Suspected Abuse/Neglect and Medication Error Involving Morphine Overdose
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to report an alleged violation involving potential abuse/neglect and a reasonable suspicion of a crime to state agencies as required by facility policy and regulation. The facility’s Abuse, Neglect and Misappropriation of Property policy required that any abuse allegation be reported to the state within two hours and that any reasonable suspicion of a crime with serious bodily injury be reported to the state and police. For one resident, R1, who had diagnoses including COPD, chronic pain, and osteoarthritis and who was placed on hospice care at family request, there was a medication error involving morphine dosing on the day of the resident’s death. Despite this event and subsequent involvement of law enforcement and the coroner, the facility Administrator and DON did not report the incident to the state agencies, with the Administrator stating she relied on the police to report it. On the morning of 03/12/2026, the facility NP gave a verbal order for morphine concentrate 0.25 ml every hour as needed, which she clarified as morphine concentrate 100 mg/5 ml, 0.25 ml (5 mg) every hour as needed, and she placed a written order to the pharmacy accordingly. LPN1, however, documented the order in the Physician Order Report as morphine 20 mg/5 ml, 0.25 ml (1 mg) as needed for pain. Later, a hospice nurse (HN1) wrote a hand‑written Nursing Home Visit Record increasing the morphine dose to 1.25 ml to equal 5 mg as needed, basing this on the 20 mg/5 ml concentration shown in the Physician Order Report and not on the NP’s written order to the pharmacy or the actual medication label, which both indicated 100 mg/5 ml. The morphine supplied for R1 was morphine sulfate 100 mg/5 ml concentrate, labeled to give 0.25 ml (5 mg) every hour as needed, and the Controlled Drug Record showed that on 03/12/2026, R1 received 0.25 ml at 11:30 AM and 1.25 ml at 1:46 PM, 3:11 PM, and 4:49 PM, meaning the resident was administered five times the ordered dose on three occasions. During this period, the UM and ADON expressed concern about the increased morphine dose of 1.25 ml, with the ADON instructing the UM to call hospice for clarification because the amount seemed like a lot. The UM reported she did not obtain clarification until later in the shift, and hospice documentation reflected a call at 5:10 PM questioning the order. R1 was pronounced dead at 5:53 PM that day. After the death, hospice staff raised concerns about the amount of morphine administered, reported difficulty obtaining the narcotic log, and one hospice nurse (HN2) stated she was told that the prior hospice paperwork had been shredded. The coroner and police became involved; the police retrieved the morphine, reviewed medications, and had a recorded call from the UM acknowledging that three doses had been given at five times the ordered amount. When interviewed, the DON stated that incidents to be reported to OIG would include any type of abuse and that such allegations should be brought to the Administrator, but she believed the incident was reported by police. The Administrator confirmed she did not report the allegations regarding R1 to state agencies because she knew the police were going to report the incident, even though the Medical Director acknowledged that the incident probably should have been reported. The facility’s failure, therefore, centered on not reporting the alleged violation involving potential abuse/neglect and a reasonable suspicion of a crime related to the morphine dosing error and resident death, despite clear internal policy requiring timely reporting to state agencies and, when applicable, to law enforcement. The report documents that the facility relied on law enforcement to make any required report instead of submitting its own report to the state agencies. This omission occurred in the context of conflicting morphine orders, administration of doses higher than intended based on the actual concentration, concerns raised by hospice staff and facility leadership, and subsequent involvement of the coroner and police.
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.
