The Laurels Of Bedford
Inspection history, citations, penalties and survey trends for this long-term care facility in Battle Creek, Michigan.
- Location
- 270 N Bedford Road, Battle Creek, Michigan 49017
- CMS Provider Number
- 235299
- Inspections on file
- 29
- Latest survey
- January 28, 2026
- Citations (last 12 mo.)
- 14
Citation history
Health deficiencies cited at The Laurels Of Bedford during CMS and state inspections, most recent first.
Surveyors found that two shower rooms were not maintained according to infection control standards, including soiled linens and resident clothing left on the floor, unlabeled personal care items such as shampoo and combs with hair present, and an unused brief stored on a sink. In another shower room, surveyors observed a pile of hair on the shower floor, missing tiles that prevented surfaces from being fully cleanable, unlabeled shampoo and body cleanser bottles, and an uncovered toilet plunger resting on the floor beside the toilet. The DON confirmed that these conditions did not meet infection control practices and that resident items should be labeled and soiled linens kept off the floor.
Two residents with significant medical conditions and documented need for assistance with bathing did not consistently receive their scheduled twice-weekly showers or baths. One resident with dementia and multiple chronic conditions was scheduled for showers on specific days during day shift but, according to point of care task (PCT) records, often received only one shower per week over several weeks. Another cognitively intact resident with post-stroke paralysis and other comorbidities was scheduled for evening shift showers twice weekly, yet PCT documentation showed entire weeks with no showers or only one provided, with limited refusal documentation. Both residents reported they did not always receive twice-weekly bathing, and the DON confirmed the missed showers upon review of the records and could not explain the failures.
A facility failed to report and investigate an incident where a resident with behavioral issues struck another resident on her recently operated arm, causing pain. The incident was not documented properly, and the investigation was incomplete, with no report to the state. The care plan for the aggressive resident was not updated following the incident, highlighting a lapse in protocol adherence.
A facility failed to investigate and document an incident where a resident with a recent fracture was reportedly hit by another resident with behavioral issues. The incident was not properly documented or reported to the state, and the care plan for the resident with behavioral issues was not updated to prevent future occurrences. This lack of thorough investigation and follow-up highlights the facility's inadequate response to the incident.
The facility's insufficient staffing in Dietary Services affected 107 residents, causing delays in meal preparation and delivery. Observations revealed that additional staff from another facility were assisting with meal services, and the Dietary Manager confirmed understaffing. Residents reported receiving meals significantly later than scheduled, with some meals arriving hours late. The facility occasionally ordered pizza from an outside vendor to compensate for the delays.
The facility failed to maintain cleanliness and proper sanitation in the food service area, affecting 107 residents. Observations revealed soiled kitchen flooring, inadequate dish machine sanitization, and improper food storage practices. Equipment such as the Juice Machine and ovens were found with food residue, and the ventilation grill was heavily soiled. Additionally, the kitchen floor was dirty, and the dry storage room had improperly stored items.
The facility failed to provide palatable food at safe temperatures, affecting 107 residents. Observations showed food was often served below required temperatures, and residents reported meals as cold and unappetizing. Food was transported in non-insulated carts, contributing to the issue, and some meals did not meet dietary preferences or restrictions.
The facility failed to maintain cleanliness and proper maintenance, affecting 107 residents. Observations revealed soiled fans, leaking fixtures, stained ceiling tiles, and damaged surfaces in various areas, including resident rooms and common areas. The facility's policies on housekeeping and maintenance were not effectively implemented, as evidenced by the lack of specific entries in the work order system for the observed issues.
A facility failed to ensure complete advance directive documentation for a resident with complex medical conditions. The resident's Code Status document, signed by a guardian, lacked a date for one witness's signature and was missing a second witness's signature. The social worker responsible could not explain the incomplete documentation, which did not comply with the facility's policy requiring two witness signatures.
A facility failed to complete a PASARR for a resident with mental health diagnoses after the 30-day exemption period and did not notify the state mental health authority. The resident was marked as a hospital exemption discharge, but no updated PASARR or referral was made after the exemption lapsed, as confirmed by the social worker.
A facility failed to properly communicate and document hospice services for a resident with severe cognitive impairment and multiple diagnoses, leading to a lack of coordinated care. Despite a physician's order for hospice services, the resident's plan of care and Kardex lacked details on the specific services and their frequency. Interviews with staff revealed a lack of clarity and documentation, and the hospice agency's absence from care conferences further highlighted the deficiency.
Inadequate Infection Control Practices in Resident Shower Rooms
Penalty
Summary
Surveyors identified a deficiency in the facility’s infection prevention and control practices related to the condition and use of two resident shower rooms. In the shower room across from a specified resident room, observations showed soiled linen on the floor next to a cabinet, three empty and unlabeled shampoo bottles on the shower assist bar, an unused brief placed on the back of the sink, and a black comb with hair present that was not labeled with any resident’s name and was stored on top of the paper dispenser. On a subsequent observation of the same shower room with the DON, surveyors again noted soiled resident clothing and towels on the floor, a soiled towel on the shower stretcher, an unused brief on the back of the sink, and the same unlabeled black comb with hair on top of the paper dispenser. The DON stated that soiled linen and resident clothing should not be placed on the floor, that resident personal items should be labeled, and that these conditions did not meet infection control standards of practice. In the shower room across from the coffee shop, surveyors observed a hand-sized pile of dark-colored hair on the shower floor near the drain, missing corner tile in the shower, and missing tile near the toilet paper dispenser. On a later observation of this same shower room with the DON, surveyors found a used bottle of shampoo and a bottle of body cleanser on the assist bar without resident names, an uncovered toilet bowl plunger resting directly on the floor beside the toilet, and the same areas of missing tile. The DON explained that the missing tile prevented the shower and area near the toilet from having a cleanable surface and that the toilet plunger should have been placed in a bag rather than sitting on the floor.
Failure to Provide Scheduled Showers/Baths to Dependent Residents
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to provide scheduled showers or baths to dependent residents in accordance with their assessed needs and shower schedules. One resident was admitted with multiple medical conditions including aortic valve stenosis, osteoporosis, right foot drop, depression, anxiety, dementia, and other chronic issues. Her MDS dated 12/20/2025 showed moderate cognitive impairment (BIMS 11/15) and a need for partial/moderate assistance with showering/bathing. Facility shower schedules and point of care task (PCT) documentation indicated she was to receive showers every Monday and Thursday on day shift. However, PCT records showed that during multiple weeks in November 2025, December 2025, and January 2026, she received only one shower per week instead of two. The resident’s family member reported she was not receiving showers twice weekly, and the resident herself stated she did not always receive a bath/shower twice a week, though she could not specify the days or times. Another resident, admitted with right-sided paralysis following a stroke, bilateral knee osteoarthritis, depression, abnormal posture, right hand contracture, hypertension, hyperlipidemia, cocaine abuse, nicotine dependence, and chronic kidney disease, was cognitively intact per an MDS BIMS score of 15/15 dated 01/05/2026. The same MDS indicated he required substantial/maximal assistance with showering/bathing. The facility’s shower schedule and PCT documentation showed he was to receive showers every Monday and Thursday on evening shift. Review of his PCT records revealed missed showers during several weeks in November 2025, December 2025, and January 2026, including weeks where no showers were documented or only one of the two scheduled showers was provided, with only a single refusal documented for one missed shower. During interview, this resident reported he did not always receive a bath/shower twice per week. The DON confirmed, after reviewing PCT documentation, that both residents had not received showers as scheduled and could not explain why showers were not completed twice weekly as planned.
Failure to Report and Investigate Resident-to-Resident Altercation
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to implement policies and procedures for reporting a reasonable suspicion of a crime, as required by section 1150B of the Act 42CFR483. This deficiency was identified during a review of an incident involving two residents, where one resident, with a history of behavioral issues, struck another resident on her recently operated left arm. The incident was not reported to the state, and the investigation was incomplete, with several areas left blank and lacking documentation of the incident's details and outcomes. The affected resident, who had a moderate cognitive impairment and required assistance with daily activities, reported being hit by another resident while in her wheelchair. The incident caused her pain, and an X-ray was ordered due to the recent surgery on her left arm. Despite the resident's complaint and the subsequent medical assessment, the incident was not properly documented in the nursing progress notes, and the investigation was not completed or reported to the state authorities. The resident who struck the other had a history of behavioral problems, including aggression towards staff and other residents. His care plan noted these issues, but it was not updated following the incident. The facility's failure to document the incident properly, investigate it thoroughly, and report it to the state reflects a significant lapse in adhering to required protocols for handling and reporting suspected abuse or neglect within the facility.
Failure to Investigate and Document Resident-to-Resident Abuse
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to thoroughly investigate allegations of abuse involving two residents, resulting in known allegations of abuse going uninvestigated and the potential for further abuse without intervention or protection. One resident, who had a history of falling and a recent fracture, reported being hit on her injured arm by another resident. Despite the resident's complaint of pain and the incident being reported to staff, the incident was not properly documented or reported to the state, and the investigation was incomplete. The incident report completed by an LPN did not include critical details such as the results of an X-ray ordered for the injured resident's shoulder. Interviews with staff revealed inconsistencies in the handling of the incident, with some staff members acknowledging the need for new interventions to prevent recurrence, while others did not document the incident in the resident's care plan. The facility's failure to document and report the incident properly indicates a lack of thorough investigation and follow-up. The resident who allegedly caused the incident had a history of behavioral issues, including aggression towards staff and other residents. Despite this, the care plan for the resident was not updated following the incident, nor were new interventions implemented to address the behavior. The lack of documentation and failure to update the care plan for the resident with behavioral issues further highlights the facility's inadequate response to the incident and the potential risk to other residents.
Insufficient Dietary Staffing Leads to Meal Delays
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to provide sufficient staffing in the Dietary Services department, affecting 107 residents and leading to delays in meal preparation and delivery. During a comprehensive tour of the food service area, it was observed that additional staff from another regional corporate facility were assisting with breakfast meal preparation and delivery. The Dietary Manager confirmed that the facility was understaffed, missing one dietary staff member and two dietary aides, which contributed to the delays. Several residents reported receiving their meals significantly later than scheduled. One resident, who was cognitively intact, reported receiving breakfast after 10:00 AM, despite it being scheduled for 8:30 AM. Another resident, also cognitively intact, reported frequent delays in meal service, with breakfast sometimes arriving as late as 11:00 AM and lunch at 2:30 PM. Additionally, it was noted that the facility occasionally resorted to ordering pizza from an outside vendor to provide meals to residents, indicating a persistent issue with meal service timeliness.
Deficiencies in Food Service Sanitation and Equipment Maintenance
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to maintain cleanliness and proper sanitation in the food service area, affecting 107 residents. Observations revealed that the flooring surfaces in the kitchen were soiled with accumulated dust, dirt, and grease. The wall/floor junctures, corners, and entrance door frame cavities were also observed to be dirty. Additionally, the emergency eye wash station receptacle and the entrance door exterior surface between the Main Dining Room and Food Production Kitchen were found to be soiled with dust and grime. The mechanical dish machine was observed to have a wash temperature gauge reading of 136 degrees Fahrenheit and a final rinse temperature gauge reading of 176 degrees Fahrenheit, with a PSI gauge reading of 0 psi during the final rinse cycle. Although the thermal verification tape indicated proper sanitization, the flow pressure did not meet the required standards. Furthermore, a water supply valve was leaking above the ice machine in-line filter, and the Crown steamer copper drain line connection was leaking water onto the floor near an electrical supply line. The service sink faucet was also loose-to-mount. Food storage practices were inadequate, with an open gallon of milk lacking an effective open or out date mark. The Juice Machine, South Bend convection oven, Vulcan hot box, and Amana microwave oven were all observed to be soiled with food residue. The return-air-exhaust ventilation grill was heavily soiled with dust and dirt deposits. Additionally, the kitchen floor was observed to be soiled with a black substance, and water was present under the tray line table. The walk-in freezer contained a boxed pie crust with a frozen clear substance on the outside, and the dry storage room had multiple boxes on the floor, including torte shells and open boxes of cups and napkins, with the floor visibly soiled.
Deficiency in Food Temperature and Quality
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to provide palatable food products for seven reviewed residents, affecting a total of 107 residents. Observations and interviews revealed that food was often served at temperatures below the required standards set by the 2017 FDA Model Food Code. For instance, the temperature of chicken teriyaki was recorded at 120.8 degrees Fahrenheit, which is below the required 135 degrees Fahrenheit. Additionally, residents reported that their meals were frequently served lukewarm or cold, with some expressing dissatisfaction with the taste and quality of the food. The report highlights specific instances where food was transported in non-insulated carts, which likely contributed to the inadequate temperatures upon arrival at the residents' rooms. Residents consistently reported that their meals were not only cold but also unappetizing, with some meals not meeting dietary preferences or restrictions. For example, a resident on a mechanical soft diet received a dinner roll instead of a spring roll, and another resident received bread and green vegetables despite dietary guidance to exclude these items. Interviews with residents further confirmed the issue, with several residents expressing dissatisfaction with the temperature and quality of their meals. One resident mentioned that the food was "stone cold," while another described it as "yuck." The facility's policies on food handling and tray accuracy were reviewed, revealing that there were procedures in place to ensure proper food temperatures and tray accuracy, but these were not effectively implemented, leading to the deficiencies observed.
Facility Maintenance and Cleanliness Deficiencies
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to effectively clean and maintain the physical plant, impacting 107 residents. During an environmental tour, several areas were found to be inadequately maintained. In the beauty shop, a desk fan was observed with accumulated dust and dirt. In the 100 Hall shower room, return-air-ventilation grills were heavily soiled, and the ambulance entrance/exit door had a worn door sweep, creating an open space. The 200 Hall restroom had a leaking commode base standpipe supply line, and the main dining room had stained ceiling tiles. The center nursing station's floor fan was also soiled. In the 300 Hall, the janitor closet's mop sink basin and return-air-exhaust ventilation grill were heavily soiled. The tub room had a leaking hot water supply handle, and the shower room's ventilation grill was soiled. Sampled resident rooms revealed various issues, including loose paper towel dispensers, soiled fans, non-functional light assemblies, and soiled bedding. Several rooms had damaged drywall surfaces, loose vinyl coving strips, and etched restroom entrance door surfaces. Additionally, some restroom hand sink basins were draining slowly. The facility's housekeeping and maintenance policies were reviewed, revealing a lack of specific entries related to the observed maintenance concerns in the Direct Supply TELS Work Orders for the last 60 days. The housekeeping policy emphasized thorough scrubbing and routine cleaning of horizontal surfaces, while the maintenance policy aimed to assure proper maintenance of the physical plant. However, the observations indicated that these policies were not effectively implemented, leading to the deficiencies noted during the survey.
Incomplete Advance Directive Documentation
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure accurate advance directive information was in place for a resident who was admitted with multiple complex medical conditions, including Huntington's Disease, dementia, and epilepsy. The resident, who had a court-appointed guardian, had a Resident Code Status document that was incomplete. The document, dated January 15, 2024, was signed by the guardian but lacked the required date for one witness's signature and was missing a second witness's signature entirely. During an interview, the social worker responsible for coordinating advance directives admitted that it was her responsibility to ensure the Resident Code Status document was completed in its entirety, including signatures and dates from two witnesses. However, she could not explain why the document for this resident was incomplete. The facility's policy on advance directives required a Code Status Form to be completed by the resident and signed by two witnesses and a physician, which was not adhered to in this case.
Failure to Complete PASARR After 30-Day Exemption
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure a Preadmission/Annual Resident Review (PAS/ARR) was completed for a resident after the 30-day exemption period and did not notify the State mental health authority. The resident was admitted with diagnoses including major depressive disorder, anxiety, bipolar disorder, post-traumatic stress disorder, and schizophrenia. The Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment indicated the resident was cognitively intact. The PASARR Level I screening marked the resident as a hospital exemption discharge, indicating a likely need for less than 30 days of nursing services. However, after the 30-day exemption period lapsed, the facility did not complete an updated PASARR or refer the case to the state mental health authority, as confirmed by the social worker who lacked documentation of these actions.
Deficiency in Hospice Service Coordination and Documentation
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure proper communication and documentation of hospice services for a resident, resulting in a lack of coordination of comprehensive care. The resident, who was admitted with multiple diagnoses including protein-calorie malnutrition, palliative care needs, and severe cognitive impairment, was observed denying receipt of hospice services. Despite a physician's order for hospice evaluation and treatment, the resident's plan of care lacked details on the specific hospice services and their frequency. The Kardex also failed to include this information, indicating a gap in communication and documentation. Interviews with facility staff, including an LPN, Nurse Manager, and DON, revealed a lack of clarity and documentation regarding the hospice services provided to the resident. The LPN was unaware of the specific services or their frequency, and the Nurse Manager could not provide a hospice calendar or explain the absence of service details in the plan of care. Additionally, the Care Conference Minutes did not show attendance by the hospice agency, further highlighting the deficiency in coordination and communication of hospice services for the resident.
Latest citations in Michigan
The facility failed to implement its abuse prohibition policy and to ensure immediate reporting of suspected abuse, misappropriation, and injury of unknown origin. A resident with dementia and insomnia reported receiving diphenhydramine for several weeks from a nurse despite having only a one-time order, while an LPN and the supply clerk observed missing diphenhydramine stock and expressed concern it was being given without orders but did not report this to the administrator. Another cognitively intact resident with anxiety reported that two video games were missing and believed they were stolen, but the allegation was only shared with an unidentified staff member and was never reported to the administrator or state agency. In a separate case, a severely cognitively impaired resident was found with a large right forearm bruise of unknown origin that was first noted on a prior shift, not immediately reported to leadership, and subsequently reported to the state agency outside the required 2-hour timeframe.
The facility failed to timely and accurately report multiple allegations of abuse, neglect, and mistreatment to the State Agency. In one case, a resident with dementia and a history of falls sustained a hip fracture after being struck by a medication cart; a CNA who witnessed the event reported to administration that an LPN had pushed the cart recklessly, but her concerns were not investigated or reported as potential mistreatment. In another case, a resident with dementia and insomnia reported receiving diphenhydramine for sleep from a male nurse despite having only a one-time order, and an LPN reported concerns that a nurse was giving diphenhydramine without orders after finding opened bottles in the memory care medication room, yet this allegation was not reported. In a third case, a cognitively impaired resident alleged that a night-shift nurse grabbed and twisted her arm during incontinence care, with a bruise observed by an LPN; although the administrator was notified that morning, the incident was reported to the state more than two hours after the allegation and with an inaccurately late discovery time documented in the reporting system.
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to thoroughly investigate two separate allegations of potential abuse and mistreatment. In one case, a resident with dementia and a known fall risk sustained a hip fracture after contact with a medication cart; documentation and multiple staff interviews conflicted about who witnessed the event and whether the cart struck the resident, yet the administrator relied primarily on an LPN’s account, conducted only a brief inquiry, and did not interview all identified witnesses. In the second case, a resident with vascular dementia reported receiving diphenhydramine for sleep from a male nurse despite having no order, and an LPN described finding opened and replaced bottles of diphenhydramine in the memory care medication room and statements suggesting it was being used to make residents sleep, but the facility’s investigation did not include interviewing this LPN and no incident report was submitted to the state agency.
A resident with severe cognitive impairment, bowel and bladder incontinence, and identified risks for falls and impaired skin integrity requested a brief change via call light. An activity assistant answered, turned off the call light, and left without providing care or notifying nursing staff. For over 30 minutes no staff returned, and when a CNA later entered only to deliver a meal tray, the resident was found with a soiled brief, visibly soiled linens, and dried stool on the buttocks, appearing distressed and repeatedly calling out about her diaper. The CNA, who had not been informed of the earlier request, then provided incontinence care. These events occurred despite facility policies requiring timely incontinence care and that call lights remain on until the resident’s request is met.
A resident with severe cognitive impairment, dementia, bipolar disorder, anxiety, PTSD, and profound hearing loss had care plans directing staff to use calm, individualized communication and behavioral approaches, allow time, avoid rushing, and re-approach when she became combative or refused care. Over the course of a night, multiple CNAs reported that she repeatedly refused incontinence care and became combative when approached, leading them to back off and re-approach later. Despite this history and the care plan guidance, an LPN and CNA later entered her room while she was half-asleep, pulled back her covers, and proceeded to change her wet brief as she tried to hit and kick; the LPN held her hands/arms while the CNA completed the change. The next day, staff observed that the resident was frightened, reported that a male staff member had grabbed her arm, and noted bruising on her forearm. These actions did not follow the resident’s behavior management and communication interventions and resulted in agitation, distress, resistance to care, and bruising.
A resident with severe cognitive impairment and a history of combative behavior repeatedly refused incontinence care and became physically aggressive when staff attempted to change a saturated brief. An LPN briefly held the resident’s arms to prevent being struck while a CNA completed the brief change, after which the resident allowed care. The next day, the resident reported that a male staff member had grabbed her arm, and an LPN observed bruising and fear but did not document these findings. Neither the pattern of care refusals and combativeness nor the subsequent bruising and related complaint were recorded in the EMR, despite facility policies requiring documentation of such behaviors and events, resulting in an incomplete and inaccurate medical record.
Two residents experienced development and worsening of coccyx and heel pressure ulcers due to the facility’s failure to implement and document ordered preventive and treatment interventions. One resident with severe cognitive impairment and mobility dependence had MASD, a non-blanchable heel, and orders for Triad paste and heel boots that were never documented as applied, no pressure-reducing surfaces or turning program on the MDS, and no skin notes for several days until an LPN discovered an undocumented coccyx ulcer under a foam dressing; later wound assessment showed an unstageable coccyx ulcer and a heel DTI acquired in the facility. Another resident admitted with a small coccyx open area and DVT had an order for barrier cream and a skin risk care plan, but there was no documentation of barrier cream use, the care plan was not updated when a stage 2 ulcer was identified, and multiple subsequent wound treatment orders (Triad paste, oil emulsion/alginate, Manuka Honey, Santyl, Dakin’s) were administered less frequently than prescribed, with delayed initial wound assessment and progression to a larger stage 3 coccyx ulcer requiring hospital transfer. The facility’s own wound and skin management policy requiring routine preventive care, daily CNA skin checks, and nurse skin assessments on bath days was not consistently followed as evidenced by missing documentation and treatment gaps.
Multiple cognitively impaired, high fall-risk residents experienced recurrent falls and serious injuries when staff failed to provide adequate supervision, safe transfers, and proper equipment use. One resident with dementia and prior hip fracture had several unwitnessed falls in the bedroom and near the nurses’ station, with investigations limited to adding non-skid strips, a fall mat, and low bed positioning rather than addressing recent illness, weakness, or sedation, and some interventions were not added to the care plan. Another resident with dementia, stroke, AFIB, and frequent falls, assessed by hospital PT as needing two-person assist, was care planned for only one-person contact guard and was repeatedly observed ambulating independently with an unsteady gait while staff did not assist or redirect; falls with head trauma and intracranial hemorrhage occurred, and staff held inconsistent understandings of required assistance and were not consistently interviewed after the events. Additional residents were pushed in wheelchairs without footrests, causing their feet to drag, despite available footrests and facility expectations, and one severely cognitively impaired resident’s fall investigation and care plan update regarding bed height were delayed and documented after discharge, with incomplete root-cause analysis.
A resident with morbid obesity, moderate cognitive impairment, and dependence on staff for toileting hygiene fell from a bariatric bed during incontinence care when staff did not ensure the resident was centered in the bed or adequately supervised while turning. The resident reported being instructed to cross one leg over the other and turn, then sliding off the bed when they flung their leg over, with only one staff member actively changing them. Facility records and CNA interviews showed the resident was close to the bed’s edge, staff positioning was inadequate, and required witness statements were not obtained in accordance with the facility’s fall reduction policy.
A resident with severe cognitive impairment and multiple medical conditions was transferred to a hospital in the afternoon for behavioral symptoms, as documented in nursing progress and discharge notes. However, the March MAR shows that an LPN documented administration of bedtime doses of magnesium oxide, metoprolol tartrate, and Seroquel later that evening, within the facility’s established bedtime medication window, even though the resident was no longer in the building. The DON confirmed the discrepancy between the transfer documentation and the recorded medication administration, indicating that medications were charted as given after the resident had been discharged.
Failure to Implement Abuse Policy and Immediately Report Suspected Abuse, Misappropriation, and Injury of Unknown Origin
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to ensure staff implemented the abuse prohibition policy and procedures, resulting in multiple incidents of potential abuse, neglect, and misappropriation not being reported immediately to the abuse coordinator/administrator. For one resident with vascular dementia and insomnia, the record showed only a single one-time order for diphenhydramine 25 mg (two tablets) by mouth, with no ongoing order. Despite this, the resident reported that a male nurse had been giving him diphenhydramine for at least a few weeks to help him sleep, and that another nurse later told him the medication was not recommended for people with dementia because it could worsen cognitive skills. The resident stated he did not want any more of the medication because he did not want his memory to worsen. Staff interviews further described concerns that diphenhydramine was being administered without a physician’s order and that these concerns were not reported as required. One LPN reported she was concerned another LPN was giving residents in the memory care unit diphenhydramine without orders, after a male resident repeatedly requested the medication and stated that “the other nurse” gave it to him. The same LPN found an opened bottle of diphenhydramine in the memory care medication room, noted that a significant amount was missing while no residents on that unit had orders for it, and reported that the other LPN had commented, “We’ll be ok tonight. I made sure everyone is going to sleep tonight.” She removed the open bottle, but a new bottle appeared the following night. She then instructed the supply clerk to stop stocking diphenhydramine in that medication room due to her concern that it was being given without orders. Neither the LPN nor the supply clerk reported these concerns to the administrator, despite the facility’s abuse policy requiring immediate reporting of suspected abuse or adverse events. The deficiency also includes failure to report an allegation of misappropriation of resident property and failure to immediately report an injury of unknown origin. A cognitively intact resident with generalized anxiety disorder reported that two video games valued at $160 were missing and believed they had been stolen. He stated he told an unidentified staff member, who responded that the games were not on his inventory list and would not be replaced. The resident did not report the issue to the administrator because he believed nothing could be done, and the administrator later confirmed that staff had never informed him of this allegation and that it was never reported to the state agency or investigated. In a separate incident, a resident with severe cognitive impairment, dementia, bipolar disorder, and generalized anxiety disorder was found to have a large bruise of unknown origin on the right forearm, extending from the wrist to the top of the forearm and covering most of the dorsal surface. The former DON learned of the bruise only after seeing it documented in CNA alert charting the day after it was first identified, and an incident report indicated the bruise was first noted on night shift the previous day. The CNA reported that she was told about the bruise by off‑going staff the following morning and then alerted the DON. The provider documented a new right dorsal forearm bruise of unknown mechanism, and the facility-reported incident was not submitted to the state agency within the required 2-hour timeframe, despite the facility’s policy requiring immediate reporting of suspected abuse, neglect, misappropriation, and adverse events.
Failure to Timely and Accurately Report Allegations of Abuse, Neglect, and Mistreatment
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to timely and accurately report allegations of abuse, neglect, or mistreatment to the State Agency for three residents. For one resident with dementia and a history of falls, staff documentation showed that a nurse pushing a medication cart collided with the resident, causing a fall and an acute right femoral neck fracture. A post-fall evaluation identified environmental factors, specifically that a cart pushed in the hall tripped the resident, and listed a CNA as a witness who later denied being present. Another CNA, who was not listed as a witness, reported she actually witnessed the event and described the nurse rapidly approaching from behind with the cart, appearing not to have control of it, and striking the back of the resident’s leg, causing the fall. This CNA stated she promptly called and texted the administrator and later spoke with the administrator and former DON, telling them she believed the resident was injured due to the nurse’s reckless actions, but she was never interviewed and her concerns were disregarded. The administrator reported he understood the event as the resident being startled and backing into the cart, did not view it as concerning, and did not report or further investigate the situation as potential mistreatment. No facility-reported incident related to this event was found in the State Agency database. The second component of the deficiency concerns an allegation that a nurse was giving diphenhydramine to residents on a memory care unit without physician orders. A resident with vascular dementia and insomnia reported that a male nurse had been giving him diphenhydramine for at least a few weeks to help him sleep, and that another nurse later told him the medication was not recommended for people with dementia because it could worsen cognition. Review of physician orders showed only a one-time order for diphenhydramine for this resident, with no ongoing orders. Another LPN reported she was concerned that a male LPN was giving residents diphenhydramine without orders after a male resident repeatedly requested it and stated another nurse gave it to him, and after she found an opened bottle of diphenhydramine in the memory care medication room with no corresponding resident orders. She also reported that the male LPN had commented that he had made sure everyone would sleep that night. She removed the open bottle and later found a new bottle stocked, then asked the supply clerk to stop stocking it, but did not report her concerns to the administrator because she felt she lacked proof. The administrator later acknowledged awareness of a general concern about diphenhydramine in the medication room but denied being told that a specific nurse was allegedly using it to make residents sleep, and the State Agency database showed no facility-reported incident for this allegation at the time of review. The third component involves an allegation of staff-to-resident abuse that was not reported to the State Agency within the required two-hour timeframe and was inaccurately documented as to the time of discovery. A resident with severe cognitive impairment, multiple chronic conditions, and a history of falls and anxiety told her assigned LPN early in the morning that a night-shift nurse had grabbed and twisted her arm while a CNA provided incontinence care, despite her saying she was not wet. The LPN observed a bruise on the resident’s left arm, described the resident as frightened and not usually afraid, and reported that she notified the administrator immediately by phone and was instructed to monitor the bruise while the administrator would report the allegation and handle the investigation. An incident report documented the resident’s allegation, the observed bruise, and stated that nursing immediately reported to the administrator and that a report was filed with the state. However, the MI-FRI system showed the incident was submitted later that morning, more than two hours after the allegation was made, and recorded the discovery time as significantly later than when the LPN stated she first learned of it. The administrator confirmed he was notified of the allegation that morning, acknowledged that abuse allegations should be reported within two hours, and stated there were issues with the reporting system but could not provide a record of when he first attempted to submit the report.
Failure to Thoroughly Investigate Potential Abuse and Misuse of Medication
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to identify and thoroughly investigate potential abuse in two separate situations involving two residents. For the first resident, who had dementia with anxiety and was care planned as being at risk for fall-related injury due to poor safety awareness, the resident sustained a right femoral neck fracture after contact with a medication cart. Facility documentation in the fall report and post-fall evaluation stated that a nurse pushing a medication cart collided with the resident, that the fall was witnessed, and that the cart pushed in the hall tripped the resident. The post-fall evaluation listed a CNA as a staff/witness present and a laundry aide as the primary assistant interviewed for the three hours prior to the fall, and identified environmental factors as the root cause. However, interviews revealed discrepancies and incomplete investigation. The CNA listed as a witness reported she was not present at the time of the fall and only saw the resident later that evening, contradicting the post-fall documentation. The laundry aide reported she was in the hallway at the time of the fall, saw the resident walking next to a CNA, and observed the LPN, the medication cart, and the CNA all together when the resident fell, but stated she did not know if the cart hit the resident and that she was never interviewed by the administrator about what she saw. A former CNA reported she directly witnessed the fall, describing that she was pushing another resident in a wheelchair while the injured resident walked beside her, and that an LPN approached rapidly from behind with the medication cart, appeared not to have control of it, and that the cart struck the back of the resident’s leg, causing the fall. This CNA also reported she had told the administrator and DON by phone that she believed the resident was injured due to the LPN’s reckless actions, but that her concerns were disregarded and she was never interviewed. The LPN involved stated that both she and the resident were in motion and that the resident backed into the cart, causing loss of balance and a fall, and confirmed the resident’s hip fracture. The administrator’s written summary reflected only the LPN’s account, characterizing the event as an accident and documenting that the resident backed up and clipped the corner of the cart. In interview, the administrator described his investigation as brief, stated that when an LPN calls and tells him exactly what happened there was little need for further investigation, and could not confirm speaking to other witnesses such as the laundry aide. He acknowledged that the CNA had mentioned a concern that the nurse may not have accurately reported what happened but did not elaborate or explore whether any earlier interaction might have contributed to the incident. These actions and omissions demonstrate that the facility did not conduct a thorough investigation into a potential abuse or mistreatment situation involving a fall with major injury. The second situation involved an allegation of improper administration of diphenhydramine to residents without physician orders. One resident with vascular dementia, moderate cognitive impairment, and a history of insomnia reported that a male nurse had been giving him diphenhydramine for at least a few weeks to help him sleep, and that another nurse later told him the medication was not recommended for people with dementia because it could worsen cognitive skills. The resident stated he had used the medication nightly before admission but now did not want anything that could make his memory worse. A nurse practitioner confirmed that none of the residents on the memory care unit had orders for diphenhydramine and that its use in dementia patients increased fall risk and had a sedating effect. An LPN reported concerns that another LPN was giving residents diphenhydramine without physician orders. She stated that a male resident repeatedly requested the medication and told her that another nurse gave it to him, and that she found an opened bottle of diphenhydramine in the memory care medication room with a significant amount missing despite no residents having orders for it. She also reported that the other LPN told her he had made sure everyone was going to sleep that night, and that after she removed the open bottle, a new bottle appeared the following night. She did not report this to the administrator at the time because she felt she lacked proof. The administrator later stated he was aware of an allegation of misuse of diphenhydramine and that an investigation was underway, but the soft file showed only 9 of 27 licensed nurses had been interviewed and there was no record that this LPN, who had direct knowledge of the concern, was interviewed. The administrator stated that the LPN had expressed only general concerns about finding diphenhydramine in the medication room and denied that she had reported an allegation that another nurse was giving it to residents without orders to make them sleep. Review of the state agency’s facility-reported incidents database showed that no investigation related to the accusation of a nurse giving residents diphenhydramine without an order had been submitted. These facts show the facility did not fully identify, investigate, and report an allegation of potential abuse and misuse of medication as required by its abuse prohibition policy.
Failure to Provide Timely Incontinence Care and Proper Call Light Response
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to provide timely incontinence care and to appropriately respond to a resident’s call light request. The resident was a female with multiple diagnoses including heart failure, PTSD, bipolar disorder, dementia, anxiety, obstructive lung disease, arthritis, a history of falls, and hearing loss, and had a BIMS score of 5 indicating severe cognitive impairment. Her MDS indicated she was frequently incontinent of urine and always incontinent of bowel, and her care plans identified risks for falls and impaired skin integrity, with interventions to remind her to use the call light and to complete hygiene care expeditiously. On the survey date at 11:02 AM, the resident was observed in bed with her call light activated. An activity assistant responded, and the resident requested a brief change. The assistant turned off the call light without providing care and left to find nursing staff, but did not locate anyone or communicate the resident’s request. At 11:32 AM, the resident was still in bed and no staff had returned to provide the requested brief change, 30 minutes after the call light had been answered and deactivated. The activity assistant later confirmed she had not yet found staff or informed nursing of the resident’s need. At 11:44 AM, a CNA entered only to deliver the lunch tray and was not aware of the earlier request. At that time, the resident removed a soiled brief and threw it on the floor; she was incontinent of bowel, with visibly soiled linens and dried bowel movement on both buttocks that required additional soaking and washing to remove. The resident appeared distressed, moved frequently in bed, repeatedly said “diaper,” and stated that her “butt hurts,” and became agitated and aggressive during care. The interim DON stated that staff should leave the call light on if the need cannot be immediately addressed. Facility policies on routine resident care and call lights required timely incontinence care and that call lights remain on until the resident’s request is met, which was not followed in this incident.
Failure to Honor Dementia Resident’s Refusal and Use Individualized Behavior Approaches During Incontinence Care
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to provide care that maintained the highest practicable physical and mental well-being for a resident with dementia, cognitive deficits, and behavioral symptoms. The resident was an elderly female with multiple diagnoses including heart failure, insomnia, PTSD, bipolar disorder, dementia, anxiety, obstructive lung disease, arthritis, a history of falls, and hearing loss. Her MDS showed a BIMS score of 5, indicating severe cognitive impairment. Her care plans identified impaired communication related to hearing loss, impaired cognition related to dementia, and potential for mood fluctuations related to bipolar disorder, major depression, anxiety, and dementia. The care plans directed staff to use specific communication techniques, allow adequate time to respond, avoid rushing, use simple words and cues, limit choices, use task segmentation, and approach her in a calm, quiet manner with appropriate body language. In the period leading up to the incident, multiple CNAs reported that the resident had a history of being combative and resistant to incontinence care, sometimes attempting to hit, kick, or swing at staff when approached. Staff who were familiar with her reported that when she refused care or became combative, they would give her space, re-approach later, or have a different caregiver attempt care, and that her reactions were influenced by how staff approached her. On the evening and night in question, CNAs reported that the resident repeatedly refused incontinence care and became combative when they attempted to change her brief. One CNA stated that she informed the oncoming shift CNA and an LPN that the resident had refused care and that her brief had not been changed during the evening due to these refusals. That CNA reported that the LPN stated the resident had to be changed regardless of whether she wanted to be. Later during the night shift, an LPN and a CNA entered the resident’s room around 3:00 AM to attempt incontinence care. The LPN reported that the resident was “half-asleep” when they began to change her wet brief. According to the CNA, when the LPN pulled back the covers, the resident began trying to hit and kick. The LPN held the resident’s hands or arms to prevent being struck while the CNA changed the resident’s wet brief. The CNA reported that after a few moments the resident stopped resisting and allowed the care to be completed. Subsequently, the day-shift LPN observed that the resident was frightened, reported that a male staff member had grabbed her arm, and noted a bruise on the resident’s left arm. Another CNA later observed oval-shaped bruising on one of the resident’s forearms. Staff interviews and the facility’s behavior management policy emphasized that behaviors should be recognized as communication, that causes and triggers such as fatigue and sensory deficits should be considered, and that individualized, non-pharmacological interventions and behavior management strategies should be used. Despite existing care plan interventions and policy expectations, staff proceeded with incontinence care while the resident was half-asleep and actively resisting, and the LPN physically held her arms, leading to the resident’s agitation, distress, resistance to care, and bruising. The facility’s behavior management policy stated that behaviors are a form of communication and that staff should attempt to identify causes and triggers, including fatigue, lack of sleep, and sensory deficits such as hearing loss. The policy also required the IDT to implement care plans with specific non-pharmacological interventions and behavior management strategies for residents with dementia or mental illness. In this case, the resident’s known history of combative behavior, her severe cognitive impairment, profound hearing loss, and the time of night were all relevant factors. Nonetheless, staff actions during the incident did not align with the care plan directives to avoid rushing, to use calm approaches, and to re-approach later when the resident was resistant. Instead, the decision to proceed with incontinence care while the resident was half-asleep and combative, and to physically hold her arms, directly contributed to the resident’s distress and the observed bruising on her arm. The deficiency is further supported by staff accounts that the resident’s behaviors could often be managed by giving her space, re-approaching at a later time, or using different caregivers, and that she was not good at communicating her needs vocally and had impaired hearing. The day-shift LPN described the resident as usually not afraid, but on this occasion she was frightened and requested that the LPN not allow the male nurse into her room, stating he had grabbed her arm. The assistant director of nursing and social worker both acknowledged the resident’s history of combative behaviors and resistance to care, and that these behaviors were related to her mental health diagnoses and dementia. The combination of proceeding with care despite active resistance, failing to fully utilize the individualized behavioral and communication strategies in the care plan, and physically restraining the resident’s arms during care constituted the failure to provide appropriate treatment and services to a resident with dementia, resulting in agitation, distress, resistance to care, and bruising.
Failure to Document Resident Care Refusals, Combative Behaviors, and Resulting Bruising
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to maintain a complete and accurate medical record for one resident with significant cognitive and behavioral issues. The resident was an elderly female with diagnoses including heart failure, insomnia, PTSD, bipolar disorder, dementia, anxiety, obstructive lung disease, arthritis, a history of falls, and hearing loss. An MDS assessment showed a BIMS score of 5/15, indicating severe cognitive impairment. On the night in question, a CNA reported that the resident repeatedly refused incontinence care and became combative when staff attempted to change her brief, which had not been changed since around dinner time the prior evening due to her refusals and combative behavior. During the early morning hours, the CNA and an LPN entered the resident’s room to again attempt incontinence care. According to the CNA, when the LPN pulled back the covers, the resident tried to hit and kick. The LPN held the resident’s hands so staff would not be struck while the CNA changed the resident’s wet brief. After a short time, the resident stopped resisting and allowed care to be completed. The LPN later confirmed that he had been notified by CNAs that the resident was combative and refusing care, that he went to assist with incontinence care, that the resident was “half-asleep” when they began, and that he held her hands/arms briefly to prevent being hit. He acknowledged that he did not document the pattern of incontinence care refusals or the combative behaviors in the electronic medical record. The following day, the resident told her assigned day-shift LPN not to let the male LPN into her room because he had grabbed her arm. The day-shift LPN observed a bruise on the resident’s left arm and described the resident as frightened and not usually afraid. She reported that the administrator directed her to monitor the bruise, but she did not document the bruise or her observations because she was unsure what the administrator wanted her to do. The unit manager, ADON, and social worker all reported that the resident had a history of combative behaviors and resistance to care, and they each stated that refusals of care and combative behaviors should be documented by CNAs and nursing staff in the electronic medical record. Review of the resident’s progress notes showed no documentation of care refusals or combativeness on the relevant dates, despite facility policies requiring complete documentation of behaviors, refusals, and deviations from standard care. This lack of documentation resulted in an incomplete and inaccurate medical record for the resident. Facility policies on Behavior Management and Documentation Expectations required staff to document behaviors, including new and escalating behaviors, and all pertinent information related to events, resident condition, and deviations from standard treatment in the medical record. The policies specified that staff should use the electronic medical record system to record behaviors and the effectiveness of interventions, and that all facts and pertinent information related to events and resident condition must be documented. In this case, the repeated refusals of incontinence care, the resident’s combative behavior, the use of physical holding during care, and the subsequent observation of bruising and fear were not documented in the resident’s record, contrary to these policies. This omission formed the basis of the cited deficiency for failing to ensure a complete and accurate medical record.
Failure to Implement Ordered Pressure Ulcer Prevention and Treatment for Two Residents
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to implement ordered pressure ulcer prevention and treatment interventions, resulting in the development and worsening of pressure ulcers in two residents. One resident was re-admitted with diagnoses including cervical spine surgery, diabetes, and metabolic encephalopathy. An admission skin assessment documented no ulcers or skin treatments, but a subsequent assessment identified MASD in the groin and scrotum, a non-blanchable and discolored left heel, and an order for protective heel boots and Triad paste to the coccyx. There was no documentation that the Triad paste or heel boots were ever applied. The resident’s MDS later showed severe cognitive impairment, extensive assistance needs for mobility, and one unstageable DTI, with no pressure-reducing bed or chair and no turning/repositioning program documented. A care plan for risk of skin breakdown was initiated with interventions such as floating heels, pressure-reducing mattress and cushion, and assistance with turning and repositioning, but there were no progress notes or skin assessments for this resident’s skin from mid-December until late December. On a later date, an LPN discovered a foam dressing on the resident’s coccyx during incontinence care and, upon removal, observed an area with eschar and additional open areas along the bilateral buttock region at the tailbone. There were no measurements or detailed descriptions of these wounds at that time, and a treatment order for Manuka Honey to the coccyx was documented as being administered only twice despite being ordered three times weekly. The LPN who found the dressing stated they had not known of any wound prior to that and confirmed there were no prior notes or treatment orders for the coccyx. The DON confirmed there were no skin assessments or treatment orders for the coccyx until that date and that this lack of documentation was not consistent with facility protocol. Another LPN later admitted to having applied the foam patch to the coccyx two days earlier after noticing an ulcer, but stated they became too busy and failed to chart the finding or notify the physician, acknowledging this was not in line with protocol. An initial wound care note several days later documented an unstageable coccyx pressure ulcer with extensive eschar and a DTI on the left heel, and an RN confirmed these pressure ulcers were acquired in the facility and that there had been a delay in prevention and treatment. The second resident admitted with multiple diagnoses including osteoarthritis of the left knee and DVT. Shortly after admission, an RN documented a dime-sized open area on the coccyx, and an order was written for barrier cream as needed after incontinence care, along with a care plan for risk of skin breakdown that included frequent turning and repositioning, use of barrier cream, and pressure-reducing surfaces. There was no documentation that the barrier cream was applied to the coccyx wound. The resident’s MDS later indicated intact cognition, extensive assistance needs for mobility, and one stage 2 pressure ulcer, but the care plan was not revised to reflect actual skin breakdown. No additional progress notes or assessments for the coccyx ulcer were documented until nine days after admission, when a specific Triad paste treatment was ordered. MAR review showed that this treatment was given only three times instead of the prescribed six times over three days, and the order was then discontinued. Subsequent treatment orders for this resident’s coccyx ulcer were repeatedly changed, including orders for oil emulsion and alginate dressings three times weekly and Triad paste to the periwound area, but MARs showed that these treatments were administered less frequently than ordered before being discontinued. An initial wound care note two weeks after admission documented a stage 3 coccyx wound with necrotic tissue and specific measurements. Later, a Manuka Honey and alginate regimen three times weekly was ordered, but again MARs showed missed treatments. A subsequent daily Santyl and alginate regimen was documented as administered on most but not all ordered days, with no PRN treatments documented, and then changed to a Dakin’s solution plus Santyl and alginate regimen. A later wound care note documented a larger stage 3 coccyx pressure ulcer with increased dimensions and depth, and the resident was transferred to the hospital for worsening of the pressure ulcer. An RN acknowledged that the resident admitted with a small open area on the coccyx that progressed to a larger stage 3 ulcer, confirmed that no skin treatments were documented until nine days after admission, and noted gaps in the MAR where ordered treatments were not administered. The facility’s Wound and Skin Management Policy required prevention of avoidable pressure ulcers, necessary treatment and services, routine preventive care including turning, pressure reduction devices, good skin care, and daily CNA skin assessments with prompt reporting of new breakdowns, as well as nurse validation and skin assessment on bath/shower days, which were not consistently carried out as documented in these cases.
Failure to Prevent Falls, Ensure Safe Transfers, and Conduct Adequate Fall Investigations
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to prevent avoidable falls, to provide adequate supervision, and to conduct thorough root-cause analyses for multiple residents with known fall risks and cognitive impairment. One resident with vascular dementia, severe cognitive impairment, unsteadiness, and a history of hip fracture experienced several falls in his room and near the nurses’ station. Documentation showed he was found face down with his shoulder pinned under a roommate’s bed after returning from a cystoscopy with a Foley catheter and recent gross bleeding, and later was admitted to the hospital for sepsis, UTI, metabolic encephalopathy, rhabdomyolysis, and COVID. Subsequent falls included being found on the floor in front of his bed with shoes on and later on the floor next to a roommate’s bed with a laceration and a right hip fracture. The facility’s fall investigations repeatedly cited environmental changes such as adding non-skid strips, a fall mat, and low bed position, but did not address underlying causes such as recent illness, weakness, sedation, or his pattern of recurrent falls in the bedroom. The DON acknowledged that increased supervision or more frequent checks would have been more appropriate, and non-skid strips were not consistently added to the care plan. Another resident with dementia, frequent falls, stroke, syncope, AFIB, and severe cognitive impairment had multiple falls and head injuries, including a posterior head hematoma and later a subdural and subarachnoid hemorrhage. On admission, the baseline care plan required a two-person pivot transfer, and hospital PT had assessed the resident as needing maximum two-person assist for transfers and ambulation. However, the care plan was later documented as requiring only contact guard assist by one person for ambulation without devices, and staff interviews revealed inconsistent understanding of what “contact guard” meant, with some staff treating it as stand-by assist with no hands-on contact. The resident was observed independently ambulating in the room and hall with very unsteady gait, repeatedly pacing and grabbing side rails and carts, while staff did not attempt to assist or redirect. Falls occurred during care by a private home health aide and later when the resident independently transferred and fell in the doorway, with staff reporting that the resident frequently ambulated independently when staff were occupied. The facility’s interventions focused on adding a floor mat and low bed, while the root-cause documentation cited poor safety awareness, restlessness, and misunderstanding of limitations, and there was a delay in IDT follow-up documentation and incomplete provision of witness statements. Additional deficiencies involved unsafe wheelchair use and incomplete fall investigation for other residents. One cognitively impaired resident who required partial to moderate assistance for ADLs and used a walker was observed being pushed in a wheelchair without footrests, with the CNA stating there were not enough footrests, despite the regional PT showing multiple totes full of footrests and stating CNAs could obtain them without therapy assistance; the DON confirmed the expectation that footrests be used when pushing residents. Another resident with dementia, repeated falls, and dependence for ADLs was also pushed in a wheelchair with feet dragging on the floor and no footrests, with the CNA again citing a shortage of footrests. A further resident with severe cognitive impairment and multiple medical conditions had a fall where she was found on the floor next to the bed with the bed not in the lowest position and the call light within reach but not used; the root cause was documented as possibly rolling out of bed. A later fall for this resident resulted in significant facial and head injuries, but the investigation note and care plan intervention of keeping the bed in the lowest position were created after the resident had already been discharged to the hospital, and the facility’s investigation documentation lacked timely, complete root-cause analysis and contemporaneous care plan updates. Across these cases, the survey findings describe repeated failures to align care and supervision with residents’ assessed needs and documented care plans, inconsistent or delayed fall investigations, and reliance on protective environmental measures that did not address the actual causes of recurrent falls. Residents with high fall risk, severe cognitive impairment, and documented need for significant assistance were allowed to ambulate independently or be transported unsafely in wheelchairs without footrests, and staff interviews revealed confusion about required levels of assistance and lack of follow-up questioning of key witnesses after serious falls. The facility did not consistently incorporate identified risks such as recent illness, sedation, restlessness, and poor safety awareness into individualized, effective fall-prevention interventions or into the care plans in a timely manner.
Failure to Safely Position and Supervise Resident During Incontinence Care Resulting in Fall
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to provide safe positioning assistance and adequate supervision during incontinence care, resulting in a fall from bed for resident R103. R103, who resides in a bariatric bed and reported being unable to walk or stand but able to move about in bed, stated that they fell out of bed a few days prior while staff were providing incontinence care one side at a time. R103 described being instructed to cross one leg over the other and turn, and reported that they did not realize how close they were to the edge of the bed; when they flung their leg over, they slid off the bed onto the floor. R103 reported that only one staff member was changing them at the time, and that a mechanical lift plus three staff were needed to return them to bed. Record review showed that R103 had diagnoses including acute respiratory failure with hypoxia, morbid obesity, and age-related physical debility, with a Minimum Data Set documenting moderate cognitive impairment and dependence on staff for toileting hygiene. A nurse progress note documented that on the morning of the fall, the CNA reported the resident had rolled out of bed during care, and the nurse found the resident on the floor on their left side with the bed in a low position. The fall incident report similarly recorded that the resident rolled out of bed during care and that, per CNA F’s statement, the resident was asked to turn onto their side and continued rolling, inadvertently rolling out of bed. The root cause analysis documented that the interdisciplinary team determined the resident was not positioned in the center of the bed when staff entered to complete care rounds, and that both CNAs were attempting to reposition the resident to the center of the bed when the resident rolled out of bed. Interviews with CNAs involved revealed inconsistencies and gaps in supervision and positioning practices. CNA G stated that despite the resident’s size, the resident was very mobile and considered a two-person assist for safety, and reported that they were in the process of changing the resident when the fall occurred. CNA G initially claimed that both CNAs were on opposite sides of the bed such that there was no room for the resident to fall, but later said they did not know where CNA F was positioned and then stated they did not remember. CNA F reported that the resident was somewhat close to the edge of the bed, not centered, and that during turning for incontinence care the resident threw their top leg over the other and fell off the bed on the opposite side, while CNA G was at the foot of the bed rather than at the center on the opposite side. The Director of Nursing confirmed that witness statements from the CNAs were not obtained as required by the facility’s fall reduction policy and acknowledged that if staff had been positioned close to the bed and used a draw sheet to move the resident to the middle of the bed prior to care, the fall could have been prevented.
Inaccurate MAR Documentation for Medications After Resident Transfer
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to maintain an accurate medical record regarding medication administration for a resident with severe cognitive impairment and multiple diagnoses, including acute respiratory failure with hypoxia, hypertension, and bipolar disorder. The resident was admitted in late September and discharged in early March. On the day of discharge, nursing documentation shows that the resident was transferred to a local hospital in the mid-afternoon due to behavioral symptoms, with a discharge note at 3:33 PM and a nursing progress note at 3:38 PM confirming that EMTs responded to a 911 call, the resident’s guardian consented to transfer, and the physician and DON were notified. The resident was transported to the hospital via stretcher and was no longer in the facility after that time. Despite the resident’s transfer out of the building that afternoon, the March Medication Administration Record (MAR) documented that bedtime doses of magnesium oxide 400 mg BID for hypomagnesemia, metoprolol tartrate 100 mg BID for tachycardia, and Seroquel 25 mg BID for bipolar disorder were administered by an LPN at bedtime that same day. The LPN assigned to the second shift stated that bedtime medications were to be given at 9 PM, with a one-hour window before or after, but could not recall whether the resident was in the building around that time. The DON confirmed that the facility’s bedtime medication administration window was between 7 PM and 10 PM and, upon reviewing the MAR and progress notes, questioned how the medications could have been administered when the resident had already been transferred to the hospital, indicating that someone documented administration of medications after the resident had been discharged from the facility.
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.
