Benedictine Care Community
Inspection history, citations, penalties and survey trends for this long-term care facility in Ada, Minnesota.
- Location
- 201 9th Street West, Ada, Minnesota 56510
- CMS Provider Number
- 245502
- Inspections on file
- 19
- Latest survey
- March 5, 2026
- Citations (last 12 mo.)
- 10 (1 serious)
Citation history
Health deficiencies cited at Benedictine Care Community during CMS and state inspections, most recent first.
A resident with intact cognition and no baseline hallucinations developed new hallucinations, emotional distress, vomiting, shaking, diarrhea, generalized pain, fatigue, and persistent fevers with tachycardia over several days. Despite documented vital sign abnormalities and atypical behaviors, nursing staff relied on scheduled acetaminophen, did not complete a thorough assessment, and did not notify the provider as required by facility policy. IDT discussions occurred but did not include review of progress notes or vital signs, and some staff attributed symptoms to influenza or the resident’s psychiatric history, delaying escalation. The resident was only sent to the ED after appearing pale and toxic with ongoing pain and shivering, where she was diagnosed with UTI, obstructing ureteral stone, sepsis with acute renal failure, and septic shock, confirming a failure to timely recognize and act on a significant change in condition.
Surveyors found that the RN designated as the infection preventionist had not completed the required specialized infection prevention and control training. Review of the RN’s training records showed no evidence of IP-specific education, and during interview the RN confirmed she had begun but not finished the required coursework. This was not consistent with the facility’s policy, which requires the IP to be qualified by education, training, certification, or experience and to have completed specialized infection prevention and control training.
A resident with intact cognition and a care plan noting risk for infection due to urinary incontinence developed new hallucinations, severe pain, vomiting, diarrhea, fatigue, refusal of medications, poor intake, and repeated fevers with tachycardia over several days. Despite abnormal vital signs and documented behavioral and neurological changes, staff did not notify the attending MD as required by facility policy and the care plan directive to update the provider as needed. The resident’s condition worsened until she appeared ill, shivering, pale with a grey hue, and reporting pain all over, prompting transfer by ambulance to the ED, where she was diagnosed with sepsis due to E. coli, UTI from an obstructing ureteral stone, acute kidney injury, and septic shock. The attending MD later confirmed she had not been informed of the change in condition and stated she should have been contacted when the resident developed a fever.
The facility did not ensure that all staff completed required annual abuse training and did not effectively track compliance with these requirements. A nursing assistant hired more than a year prior had no documented annual abuse training, and an RN had not completed abuse training since hire, as shown in their training records. The HR manager reported that unit managers were responsible for staff training completion, that corporate sent quarterly notices about required trainings, and that she provided reminders, but she did not monitor which staff had outstanding training. Facility policy required a designated super registrar to manage training tracking, completion of hire courses before independent work on the floor, and quarterly assignment of annual training requirements.
Two residents admitted with indwelling catheters did not receive care in accordance with physician orders when the facility lacked the ordered catheter sizes and appropriate supplies. For one resident with spinal cord injury and bladder dysfunction, staff used tape instead of a Foley clamp during a bath and later replaced a 20 Fr catheter with an 18 Fr catheter because the correct size was not in stock. For another resident with UTI, urinary retention, and chronic kidney disease, staff informed the family that a 14 Fr catheter with a 5 cc balloon was unavailable and inserted a 16 Fr catheter with a 10 cc balloon instead. An RN and the DON reported that admission staff should verify supply availability and that the DON was responsible for ordering supplies; the DON acknowledged that alternate catheter sizes were used without obtaining new physician orders, despite facility policy requiring physician orders to be followed as prescribed.
A resident who had recently undergone hip surgery did not receive timely assessment, monitoring, or documentation of changes in her surgical incision. When signs of infection such as redness, drainage, and pain developed, nursing staff failed to promptly notify the provider or document these changes, despite daily dressing orders. This led to the resident developing a severe infection and sepsis, requiring hospitalization, surgery, and IV antibiotics.
A resident with a recent hip surgery developed signs of infection at the surgical site, including purulent drainage, redness, swelling, and pain. Despite these changes, staff did not consistently document wound assessments or promptly notify the provider, resulting in a delay in medical intervention. The resident was later hospitalized with sepsis and required IV antibiotics and surgical intervention.
Residents lost the ability to perform ADLs without a documented medical reason, as the facility did not ensure that declines in ADL performance were clinically unavoidable or supported by medical documentation.
A resident did not receive appropriate care to maintain or improve ROM and mobility, resulting in a decline that was not attributed to a medical reason.
Grievance forms and procedures were not posted in prominent locations, and residents were unaware of how to file grievances. Staff interviews confirmed that forms were kept behind the nurses' station, requiring residents to ask staff for access, contrary to facility policy stating forms should be readily available.
The facility did not include agency staff hours in its PBJ submissions to CMS because agency staff were not punching in for their shifts, resulting in incomplete and inaccurate direct care staffing data for all residents. This was confirmed by review of timecards and PBJ reports showing low weekend staffing, and acknowledged by both the corporate submitter and administrator.
A resident with severe cognitive impairment and multiple chronic conditions was allowed to self-administer a nebulizer treatment without a completed SAM assessment or physician order. An LPN left the resident unattended during the treatment, contrary to facility policy and care plan directives, and the resident removed the mask and left the room while medication was still being dispensed. Staff interviews confirmed the lack of required assessment and supervision.
A resident with severe cognitive impairment and multiple diagnoses was not assisted with shaving despite visible facial hair and a documented need for staff support with personal hygiene. Observations and staff interviews confirmed the lack of recent assistance, contrary to the resident's care plan and facility policy.
Failure to Recognize and Respond to Resident’s Change in Condition Leading to Sepsis and Hospitalization
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to identify and act on a resident’s change in condition despite clear signs of acute illness and a care plan for potential infection. The resident had intact cognition per the annual MDS and no baseline hallucinations, delusions, or behaviors. Her care plan identified a self-care deficit and potential for infection related to urinary incontinence, with directions to update the provider as needed. Beginning several days before hospitalization, progress notes documented new hallucinations and emotional distress, including the resident yelling and crying about her babies being murdered and being taken from her, and an IDT discussion noting hallucinations and behavioral changes. These symptoms were atypical for this resident and represented a change from her baseline. Over the following days, the resident developed and sustained fevers and other signs of systemic illness. Vital signs showed temperatures of 101.7°F with a pulse of 140 bpm, later rising to 103.2°F and remaining elevated around 101–100°F over multiple readings, along with low-grade fevers on subsequent days. Progress notes documented vomiting, visible shaking, feeling cold, episodes of incontinent diarrhea, reports of pain “everywhere,” crying, tearfulness, fatigue, and refusal of medications and meals. Despite these findings, nursing staff treated the resident only with scheduled acetaminophen and did not conduct a documented comprehensive nursing assessment or notify the provider when the fevers and other symptoms emerged and persisted. The IDT discussed the resident’s fevers, fatigue, medication refusals, and verbal behaviors but did not review the progress notes or vital signs in detail, and no provider notification occurred at that time. Staff interviews further confirmed that the change in condition was not appropriately recognized or escalated. One RN stated she had not identified anything out of the ordinary beyond weakness and a presumed low-grade influenza, and that staff believed the resident might be recovering when a single temperature reading was normal. Another RN acknowledged that the resident’s change in condition occurred over a weekend when the IDT was not present and that the team did not review the progress notes or vital signs during the subsequent IDT meeting. A different RN reported that she did not assess the resident after the IDT discussion because the resident was asleep and her temperature had decreased slightly, and she felt that the resident’s bipolar diagnosis and prior behaviors had masked the change and interfered with judgment. The facility’s own policy required licensed nurses to evaluate significant changes in condition, obtain vital signs, and notify the provider of abnormal vital signs, behavioral or neurological changes, and worsening pain, but this process was not followed for this resident, resulting in delayed recognition and treatment of sepsis and subsequent hospitalization. Ultimately, the resident was sent to the ED only after she appeared pale with a grey hue, had dark circles under her eyes, was shivering, reported generalized pain, and continued to feel unwell. In the ED, she was found to be ill-appearing and toxic-appearing, with a high fever, tachycardia, hypotension, low GFR, and a diagnosis of sepsis with acute renal failure, septic shock, acute kidney injury, ureteral obstruction, and UTI. The attending MD later stated that the facility had not contacted her when the resident developed a fever and that earlier evaluation could have avoided the septic shock. The NP who saw the resident in the ED described her as barely responsive, with low blood pressure requiring IV fluids and vasopressors, and indicated that while the ureteral stone itself was not avoidable, the sepsis and unnecessary pain could have been prevented if the resident had been sent to the ED sooner. These facts support the finding that the facility failed to provide appropriate treatment and care according to orders, the resident’s preferences and goals, and its own change-in-condition policy.
Removal Plan
- Review policies and procedures related to change in condition and physician notification.
- Review all residents for a potential change in condition.
- Educate nursing staff on policies and procedures related to change of condition and resident monitoring, qualifying factors for a change of condition, assessment of resident symptoms without bias, and timely physician notification and treatment of resident symptoms.
Designated Infection Preventionist Lacked Required Specialized Training
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure that the designated infection preventionist (IP) completed the required specialized training for directing the infection prevention and control program. Surveyors’ review of the personnel training record for a registered nurse identified as the facility’s IP showed no evidence of training related to the IP role. In an interview, the RN confirmed she was the designated IP, stated she had started the required training, but acknowledged she had not had time to finish it. The facility’s policy titled “Infection Preventionist Role,” dated 8/2023, specified that the IP or designee is responsible for directing the infection prevention and control program and should have appropriate background and training, be qualified by education, training, certification or experience, and have completed specialized training in infection prevention and control. This lack of completed specialized IP training for the designated RN, as documented in records and confirmed in interview, was inconsistent with the facility’s own policy requirements for the infection preventionist role.
Failure to Notify Physician of Resident’s Significant Change in Condition Leading to Hospitalization for Sepsis
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to notify the physician of a resident’s significant change in condition despite multiple abnormal findings and behavioral changes. The resident had intact cognition, was care planned for potential infection related to urinary incontinence, and was described as alert, oriented, and independent in decision-making. Over several days, progress notes documented new hallucinations, delusions, crying, and verbal outbursts, including statements about murdering her babies and fears about her babies being taken away. The IDT discussed these behaviors and noted hallucinations. Concurrently, the resident reported vomiting all night, severe pain, and feeling unable to move. Vital signs showed repeated fevers, including temperatures over 101°F and up to 103.2°F, along with tachycardia over 100 bpm. The resident also experienced incontinent diarrhea, generalized pain, fatigue, refusal of medications, and poor oral intake. Despite these documented changes—abnormal vital signs, new behavioral and neurological symptoms, worsening pain, and functional decline—there was no evidence that staff notified the attending physician of the change in condition, even though the care plan directed staff to update the provider as needed and facility policy required provider notification for significant changes and abnormal findings. The IDT noted the resident’s fevers and behaviors and planned to assess and contact the provider “if necessary,” but the physician later confirmed that staff had not contacted her when the resident developed a fever and other symptoms. The resident was eventually noted to be shivering, pale with a grey hue, with dark circles under her eyes, reporting pain all over and not feeling well, at which point an ambulance was called and she was sent to the ED, where she was diagnosed with sepsis due to E. coli with acute organ dysfunction, septic shock, UTI secondary to an obstructing ureteral stone, and acute kidney injury. The physician and another MD interviewed both stated that they had not been notified of the change in condition and that they should have been contacted when the resident developed a fever.
Failure to Ensure and Track Completion of Annual Abuse Training for Staff
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure completion and tracking of required annual abuse training for staff, resulting in two of ten staff reviewed not having current abuse education. A nursing assistant hired on 11/7/25 had no record of completed annual abuse training as of a training record printed on 3/5/26. A registered nurse hired on 8/28/24 had not completed annual abuse training since the date of hire, according to a training record printed on 3/5/26. During an interview, the human resources manager stated that managers were responsible for ensuring their staff completed training, that the corporate office sent quarterly messages regarding required trainings, and that she reminded managers, but she did not track which staff had or had not completed required training. The facility’s Regulatory and Compliance Education policy dated 5/1/24 stated that each community should assign an associate to the super registrar role to manage tracking of the training system, that assigned hire courses should be completed before an associate works independently on the floor, and that annual requirements are established and assigned quarterly.
Failure to Follow Physician Orders for Catheter Supplies and Sizes
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to provide treatment and care according to physician orders by not having the correct catheter supplies available upon admission and by using alternate catheter sizes without physician orders for two residents with indwelling catheters. One resident with a spinal cord injury, neuromuscular bladder dysfunction, and depression was admitted with an order for catheter changes every four weeks and as needed, and a care plan identifying a urinary catheter for obstructive uropathy. Progress notes documented that staff did not have a Foley catheter clamp available when the resident requested a tub bath, so they used tape to kink and clamp the catheter. Later, when attempting to flush the catheter, staff found it plugged and discovered the correct catheter size was not in stock. The resident had a 20 French catheter with a 10 cc balloon in place, but staff replaced it with an 18 French catheter with a 10 cc balloon instead of the ordered size. A second resident admitted with diagnoses including UTI, urinary retention, and chronic kidney disease had a physician order for a one-time insertion of a 14 French catheter with a 5 cc balloon. Progress notes indicated that staff informed the family they did not have a 14 French catheter available and therefore replaced it with a 16 French catheter with a 10 cc balloon. Interviews with an RN and the DON revealed that the person entering admission orders was expected to check supply availability and that the DON was responsible for ensuring the correct catheter sizes were in stock. The DON acknowledged that the correct catheter size was not available for the first resident at admission, that a different size was used without obtaining a physician order, and that she was not aware the correct size was also unavailable for the second resident. Facility policy stated that all physician orders were to be followed as prescribed and that any orders not followed should be documented in the medical record during that shift; the facility’s policy on physician notification of changes in orders was requested but not provided.
Failure to Assess, Monitor, and Report Surgical Site Infection
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure that a resident received necessary medical attention and comprehensive assessment following a change in her left hip surgical incision. After undergoing surgery for a left subtrochanteric femur fracture, the resident's incision was initially documented as healing well, with no drainage or pain. However, after staple removal, there were periods where no documentation was made regarding the incision, and when changes such as redness, purulent drainage, and tenderness were observed, these were not promptly reported to the provider. Nursing staff did not consistently assess, monitor, or document the condition of the surgical site, despite orders for daily dressing changes and assessments. When signs of infection, including purulent drainage, erythema, and pain, were noted, there was a lack of timely communication with the provider. Nursing assistants reported changes to the nursing staff, but these concerns were not documented or escalated as required. The provider was not notified immediately when infection indicators appeared, and documentation of assessments and interventions was inconsistent. Interviews with staff confirmed that the expected protocol was not followed, and that the provider should have been contacted as soon as infection was suspected. As a result of these failures, the resident developed a post-surgical abscess and sepsis, requiring hospitalization, surgery, and the insertion of a PICC line for IV antibiotics. The hospital records indicated that the infection had progressed significantly by the time of transfer, and staff interviews acknowledged that earlier recognition and intervention could have prevented the escalation. Facility policies required daily assessment and documentation of wounds, as well as prompt provider notification for signs of infection, but these were not adhered to in this case.
Failure to Promptly Notify Provider of Post-Surgical Infection
Penalty
Summary
A deficiency occurred when facility staff failed to promptly notify a physician of a significant change in a resident's condition following hip surgery. The resident, who had a history of a left subtrochanteric femur fracture treated with open reduction and internal fixation, developed signs of infection at the surgical site, including purulent drainage, erythema, swelling, and pain. Documentation shows that from 8/27 through 8/31, there was no recorded assessment of the surgical incision, despite daily dressing changes being required. On 9/1, the resident exhibited clear signs of infection, such as purulent drainage and tenderness, but there was no evidence that a provider was notified at that time, nor was this action documented. Nursing staff and nursing assistants observed and reported changes in the resident's incision, including increased redness, drainage, and pain, to the nurse on multiple occasions. However, these observations were not consistently documented, and the provider was not contacted promptly. Interviews with staff confirmed that the expected protocol was to notify a provider immediately when signs of infection were present, such as purulent drainage, redness, and pain. The provider was not contacted until several days after the initial signs of infection appeared, and only after the resident's condition had further declined, resulting in the need for hospital transfer. The resident was ultimately hospitalized with a diagnosis of sepsis due to a post-surgical abscess, requiring intravenous antibiotics and surgical intervention. Facility policy required daily assessment and documentation of wounds, as well as immediate provider notification upon identification of infection signs. The failure to assess and document the surgical site daily, combined with the delay in notifying the provider of significant changes, directly contributed to the deficiency identified in the report.
Failure to Prevent Unjustified Decline in ADL Abilities
Penalty
Summary
Residents experienced a loss in their ability to perform activities of daily living (ADLs) without a documented medical reason. The facility failed to ensure that residents maintained their highest practicable level of functioning in ADLs, as required, unless a decline was clinically unavoidable due to a medical condition. This deficiency was identified through surveyor observation and review of resident records, which did not provide evidence of a medical justification for the decline in ADL performance.
Failure to Maintain or Improve Resident Range of Motion
Penalty
Summary
A deficiency was identified regarding the facility's failure to provide appropriate care to maintain and/or improve a resident's range of motion (ROM), limited ROM, and/or mobility. The facility did not ensure that care and services were provided to prevent a decline in the resident's physical abilities, except in cases where such decline was due to a documented medical reason. This resulted in the resident experiencing a decline in ROM or mobility that was not medically justified.
Grievance Forms Not Accessible to Residents
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure that grievance forms and procedures were posted in prominent locations throughout the building, making it difficult for residents and their representatives to file grievances, including anonymously. During a resident council meeting, five residents reported being unaware of how to file a grievance form. Subsequent observation by the surveyor confirmed that grievance forms were not visible or accessible in common areas of the facility. Interviews with facility staff, including the social worker and administrator, revealed that grievance forms were kept behind the nurses' station, requiring residents to request them from staff rather than accessing them independently. The facility's posted grievance procedure encouraged residents to notify the nurse in charge or contact specific facility leaders if concerns could not be resolved, and the policy stated that concern forms should be readily available. However, these forms were not accessible as described, and residents were not informed of their location or how to use them.
Failure to Accurately Report Agency Staffing Data in PBJ Submissions
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to submit complete and accurate direct care staffing information to CMS for the first quarter reviewed. Specifically, agency staff were not punching in for their shifts, resulting in their hours not being included in the Payroll Based Journal (PBJ) submissions. This omission was confirmed through a review of agency staff timecards and the PBJ report, which identified excessively low weekend staffing. The corporate submitter responsible for PBJ submissions acknowledged that she was unaware of the low weekend staffing trigger and confirmed that agency staff who did not punch in were excluded from the PBJ data sent to CMS. The administrator also verified that agency staff had not been punching in during the first quarter, which led to incomplete staffing data being reported. The facility's policy required that all direct care staffing information, including agency and contracted staff, be submitted to CMS according to the specified schedule. The failure to ensure agency staff were properly recorded resulted in inaccurate staffing information being reported for all 39 residents in the facility.
Failure to Assess and Supervise Self-Administration of Nebulizer Medication
Penalty
Summary
A resident with severe cognitive impairment and diagnoses including Alzheimer's disease, diabetes mellitus, and hypertension was observed self-administering a nebulizer treatment without having been assessed for the ability to safely self-administer medications. The resident required extensive assistance with bed mobility, transfers, toileting, and personal hygiene, and there was no completed self-administration of medications (SAM) assessment or physician order permitting self-administration in the resident's electronic health record. The care plan directed staff to administer all medications as ordered by the physician. During observation, an LPN prepared and placed the nebulizer mask on the resident and then left the room, leaving the resident unattended. The resident subsequently removed the mask with medication still being dispensed and left the room, leaving the nebulizer mask on the bed. Interviews with the LPN, RN, and DON confirmed that no SAM assessment had been completed and that staff were expected to remain with the resident during nebulizer administration in the absence of such an assessment or physician order. Facility policy required nurses to assess each resident's mental and physical abilities before permitting self-administration of medications.
Failure to Provide Assistance with Personal Hygiene for Dependent Resident
Penalty
Summary
A deficiency was identified when a resident with severe cognitive impairment and diagnoses including dementia, diabetes mellitus, and hypertension was not provided with necessary assistance for personal hygiene, specifically shaving facial hair. The resident's care plan and assessments indicated a need for staff assistance with grooming and personal hygiene due to deficits related to dementia and physical limitations. Observations on two consecutive days revealed the resident had several half-inch long gray facial hairs on her chin, upper lip, and around her mouth. Interviews with a family member confirmed the resident's preference to be shaved when facial hair was visible. Further interviews with facility staff, including a nursing assistant and a registered nurse, confirmed that the resident required staff assistance for shaving and had not been recently assisted. The nursing assistant was unsure of the last time the resident had been shaved, and both the registered nurse and the director of nursing stated their expectation that the resident should have been shaved as soon as facial hair was present. Facility policy required that residents unable to perform activities of daily living independently receive necessary services to maintain good personal hygiene, in accordance with their care plans.
Latest citations in Minnesota
A resident with dry eye syndrome and degenerative eye disease had orders for cyclosporine ophthalmic emulsion and Refresh Tears, both scheduled at the same time. Medication records and direct observation showed a TMA instilled cyclosporine drops in both eyes and immediately followed with Refresh Tears in both eyes without waiting between medications. This practice conflicted with referenced professional guidance recommending several minutes between multiple eye drops and with the medical provider’s recommendation to wait fifteen minutes between the two ophthalmic medications. No facility policy on ophthalmic medication administration was provided when requested.
A resident with severe cognitive impairment, impaired mobility, and high fall risk was care planned to have wheelchair footrests in place at all times, with staff ensuring proper positioning and monitoring for leaning during transport. A NA transported the resident in a manual wheelchair from the shower without the footrests, and while going through the doorway the wheelchair struck the door frame, causing the resident, who was leaning forward, to fall out. The resident sustained a T12 fracture, head injury with concussion, abrasions and contusions, and multiple right-hand lacerations requiring sutures, and the DON confirmed the care plan had not been followed.
A high‑risk, immobile resident with MS and prior heel DTI developed an avoidable unstageable coccygeal pressure ulcer after staff failed to consistently assess and document skin status, did not transfer or timely provide ordered pressure‑relieving mattresses, and did not reliably perform q2h repositioning. The resident was repeatedly left on a bedpan for prolonged periods despite early reports of this issue, and the toileting care plan was not revised to a bedside commode until after the coccygeal wound had significantly worsened. Wound assessments lacked complete measurements and staging, changes in wound size and color were not promptly recognized as deterioration or reported to providers, and recommended interventions from a wound NP (including an air mattress and offloading) were not promptly implemented. As a result, the coccygeal ulcer rapidly progressed to a large, necrotic, malodorous wound requiring hospital transfer and surgical debridement.
A resident with spastic hemiplegia, muscle weakness, and moderate cognitive impairment was observed using bilateral bed grab bars for bed mobility and transfers, but the care plan did not address grab bar or side rail use. Review of the EMR showed no completed bed mobility device or side rail assessment to determine the necessity or safety of the grab bars, and no documentation that risks and benefits were discussed or that informed consent was obtained. An LPN and the ADON stated that a bed mobility device assessment is required before grab bars are installed and confirmed that no such assessment existed for this resident.
A resident with bilateral heel pressure ulcers and multiple comorbidities received wound care during which an RN removed dressings from both heels, cleansed both wounds, and wiped each heel without changing gloves or performing hand hygiene between wounds or after disposing of soiled dressings. This practice conflicted with the facility’s written wound care procedure, which requires glove removal and hand hygiene after dressing removal and after wound cleansing. In interviews, the RN, NP, and DON/IP acknowledged that hand hygiene and glove changes are expected between dirty and clean tasks and between separate wounds to prevent infection.
A resident with MS, neurogenic bladder, mobility limitations, and existing pressure injuries was identified as dependent for toileting hygiene and at risk for pressure ulcers, yet the care plan lacked an individualized toileting/incontinence plan and a defined repositioning schedule. Despite a new coccyx pressure ulcer and documentation that interventions such as increased repositioning and incontinent care were needed, the care plan was not revised for a period of time to reflect these changes. During this time, the resident sometimes fell asleep on a bedpan and remained on it until staff removed it, and staff were not initially informed that the bedpan should no longer be used. The DON later acknowledged that the care plan revisions for turning, repositioning, and toileting were delayed until after the resident’s coccyx ulcer had significantly worsened.
A resident with diabetes, Crohn’s disease, bowel incontinence, and a history of MASD on the right gluteus developed an open, painful lesion on the right gluteal area that was documented over time without complete wound characteristics, clear etiology, or timely provider notification. Wound care orders were written for a stage 3 pressure ulcer on the left buttocks, while staff reported the wound was only on the right side and applied the left‑sided orders to the right gluteal wound in the absence of specific right‑side treatment orders. The DON acknowledged discomfort with staging the wound, lack of early physician notification, and confusion over wound classification, despite a facility policy requiring comprehensive wound assessment, consistent measurement, and provider notification when treatment orders are absent.
A resident with diabetes, chronic leg ulcer, kidney transplant, and a documented gluteal wound was care-planned for Enhanced Barrier Precautions (EBP), with posted instructions requiring gown and gloves for high-contact care such as transfers and wound care. During a telehealth wound assessment, the DON donned a gown and initially performed hand hygiene but then applied gloves without hand hygiene, removed a soiled dressing from the resident’s gluteal area, discarded it, removed gloves, and applied new gloves again without performing hand hygiene between glove changes. On another occasion, during use of a sit-to-stand lift, an NA wore gown and gloves, but the DON handled the lift harness, the resident’s clothing, and assisted with the transfer and repositioning while wearing a gown but no gloves, despite EBP requirements for transfers. The DON stated EBP was only needed for catheter or wound care and not for transfers, contradicting the posted EBP instructions and facility policy.
A resident with severe dementia, psychiatric disorders, and high dependence for ADLs was verbally abused during evening care when a NA, frustrated with the resident’s crying and resistance, loudly ridiculed her as acting like a two-year-old, threatened to hit her back if struck, told her she would be sent to a locked unit, and questioned who would want to care for her when she cried like a baby. Multiple staff witnessed the loud, stern, and intimidating tone and reported it to an LPN, who recognized it as verbal abuse but did not immediately remove the NA from duty or promptly report the allegation per policy, allowing the NA to continue working on the unit. Following this incident, the resident demonstrated increased crying, combativeness, resistance to care, wandering, self-isolation, and refusal of food, fluids, and medications above baseline, with documentation of significant emotional distress and subsequent ED evaluation for aggressive behaviors and poor intake.
A resident with dementia, bilateral above‑knee amputations, vascular disease, and severe protein‑calorie malnutrition developed a wound on an amputation stump that had a dressing dated several days before any documentation or treatment orders appeared in the record. Although bath audits and nursing notes initially reported no skin issues, a later assessment described a full‑thickness stage 4 ulcer/diabetic ulcer on the stump with exposed bone, erythema/edema, slough, and moderate serosanguineous drainage. Nursing staff interviews showed no one could identify who first discovered the wound or applied the initial dressing, and there was no evidence that the wound was assessed, the provider notified, or standing orders implemented when it was first present, despite facility expectations that new wounds be promptly evaluated and reported.
Failure to Follow Professional Standards for Ophthalmic Medication Administration
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to follow professional standards of practice for administering ophthalmic medications to a resident with dry eye syndrome and degenerative eye disease. The resident was cognitively intact, required assistance with ADLs, and had physician orders for cyclosporine ophthalmic emulsion 0.05% one drop in both eyes twice daily and Refresh Tears ophthalmic solution one drop in both eyes four times daily for dry eyes. The administration summary showed that both eye medications were scheduled for the same time and were documented as being given at the same time on multiple dates. During a medication pass observation, a trained medication aide administered the ordered oral medications, then applied gloves and instilled one drop of cyclosporine in each eye, immediately followed by one drop of Refresh Tears in each eye, without any waiting period between the two medications. The surveyors referenced guidance from the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma, and Immunology stating that when more than one eye drop is ordered, three to four minutes should be allowed between drops in the same eye, and five to fifteen minutes should be allowed between different eye medications to prevent dilution. Interviews with the DON, pharmacy consultant, and medical provider confirmed that best practice and the provider’s recommendation were to wait between administration of cyclosporine and Refresh Tears, with the medical provider specifying a fifteen-minute interval. The facility did not provide a policy on ophthalmic medications when requested. The observed practice and documented administration times demonstrated that staff did not follow these professional standards or the medical provider’s recommended interval between the two eye medications.
Failure to Follow Wheelchair Transport Care Plan Leads to Fall With Injuries
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to implement care-planned fall prevention interventions for a resident at high risk for falls, resulting in a fall with injury. The resident had diagnoses including aphasia, dysphagia, muscle weakness, traumatic brain injury, and impaired mobility, with severe cognitive impairment documented on the MDS and dependence on staff for transfers and wheelchair transport. A care plan addressing wheelchair transport safety and positioning directed staff to ensure the resident was fully positioned and supported in the wheelchair prior to transport, verify footrests were in place prior to transport, and monitor for leaning, sliding, or unsafe positioning. An additional care-planned approach required wheelchair pedals to be on at all times. On the date of the incident, a nursing assistant transported the resident in a manual wheelchair from the shower room to the resident’s room without the foot pedals in place, contrary to the care plan. While being wheeled through the doorway, the wheelchair struck the door frame, causing the chair to stop and the resident, who had begun leaning forward, to fall out of the wheelchair onto the floor. Progress notes and ED documentation identified that the resident sustained a T12 vertebral fracture, a head injury with concussion, an abrasion and contusion to the head, a bruise to the left knee, and multiple lacerations to the right hand requiring sutures. The nursing assistant later acknowledged awareness that the foot pedals should have been on but did not apply them because the transport was only from the shower to the room. The DON confirmed that the resident’s care plan had not been followed when the fall occurred.
Failure to Implement and Update Pressure Ulcer Prevention and Treatment Led to Avoidable Unstageable Coccygeal Ulcer
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to adequately assess, monitor, and implement individualized pressure ulcer prevention and treatment interventions for multiple high‑risk residents, resulting in an avoidable, unstageable coccygeal pressure ulcer for one resident that required surgical debridement and hospitalization. The resident had primary progressive multiple sclerosis, hereditary spastic paraplegia, obesity, and pre‑existing pressure‑related deep tissue injury to the left heel, and was identified as high risk for pressure ulcers on the Braden Scale due to constant moisture, chairfast status, very limited mobility, inadequate nutrition, and friction/shear risk. Hospital records on readmission documented irritant contact dermatitis of the bilateral gluteal cleft with specific cleansing and barrier cream orders, and facility documentation showed the resident could not reposition in bed or chair and required assist of two and a full‑body mechanical lift for transfers. Despite this, the admission/readmission skin assessment and weekly skin checks lacked measurements and detailed wound characteristics for the heel ulcer and gluteal dermatitis, and the care plan did not include comprehensive, individualized interventions beyond generic repositioning and wound care orders. After a new coccyx pressure ulcer was identified and documented as a stage 2 lesion, the facility failed to promptly and accurately update the care plan and implement recommended pressure‑relieving interventions. The wound nurse practitioner on 3/5 ordered coccyx wound care, an air mattress, pressure offloading, and a dietician consult, but the care plan was not revised and there was no evidence that an air mattress was placed on the bed for nearly two weeks. The environmental services director later confirmed that when the resident was moved to a new room, the gel mattress was not transferred, and the air mattress requested on 3/17 was not actually placed until the following day, despite being marked as completed. During this period, TAR documentation showed gaps in the every‑2‑hour repositioning order, and staff interviews revealed that CNAs were unaware of which residents were on repositioning programs, were not consistently repositioning residents, and had not received recent education on pressure ulcer prevention. The DON and RN case manager acknowledged that the coccyx wound increased in size and changed color between assessments, that the bed lacked the ordered gel mattress, and that the physician was not notified of the wound’s deterioration at that time. The facility also failed to timely modify toileting and incontinence care practices despite knowledge that the resident was being left on a bedpan for extended periods. The DON reported hearing before an IDT meeting that the resident had fallen asleep on a bedpan for an undetermined amount of time, but the care plan was not revised to discontinue bedpan use and implement a bedside commode until after the coccyx wound had significantly worsened. CNAs confirmed that the resident sometimes fell asleep on the bedpan and that they were not informed she should no longer use it until after the sore had worsened. Subsequent wound assessments documented rapid progression of the coccyx wound from a small stage 2 ulcer to a large, malodorous, necrotic wound with eschar, slough, erythema, and purulent drainage, ultimately classified as an unstageable pressure ulcer. The DON, NP, PA, and medical director all indicated that the lack of a pressure‑relieving mattress, failure to adjust pressure‑reducing interventions, and prolonged time on a bedpan likely contributed to the development and deterioration of the resident’s pressure ulcer, which was determined to be avoidable and resulted in hospitalization and surgical debridement. Additional documentation and interviews showed systemic assessment and communication failures related to pressure ulcer management. Weekly skin checks and wound assessments often omitted complete measurements, staging, and wound characteristics, and changes in wound size and appearance were not consistently recognized as deterioration or communicated to providers. The DON acknowledged that a 3/12 assessment showing increased wound size and purple discoloration should have been identified as a deep tissue injury and reported to the physician, but this did not occur. When nursing later documented foul odor, increased pain, and expanding necrotic tissue, telemedicine and PA responses deferred in‑person evaluation and ED transfer despite earlier recommendations that the resident be sent to the ED if an in‑person provider could not assess the wound. The NP ultimately found a large, malodorous, purulent wound with expanding eschar and ordered transfer to the hospital, where imaging and surgical findings confirmed a large necrotic sacral wound requiring extensive debridement. Throughout this sequence, the facility did not consistently follow its own pressure ulcer protocols, did not ensure ordered pressure‑relieving equipment was in place, and did not promptly revise care plans or interventions in response to known risk factors and documented wound changes. The report also notes that other residents reviewed for pressure ulcers were affected by similar failures in monitoring and individualized intervention, though detailed narratives focus primarily on this resident. Staff interviews revealed that CNAs relied on paper care guides that did not clearly identify residents on repositioning programs or at risk for skin breakdown, and that they were unaware of some residents’ special mattress orders or toileting restrictions. The DON and medical director stated that residents at risk for pressure ulcers should have immediate pressure‑relieving interventions and that existing ulcers require ongoing evaluation to prevent deterioration, but the documented practices for this resident did not align with those expectations. These combined actions and inactions—insufficient assessment detail, delayed or missing care plan revisions, failure to implement ordered support surfaces and repositioning, and delayed response to wound deterioration—constituted the deficiency in providing appropriate pressure ulcer care and preventing new ulcers from developing.
Failure to Assess, Care Plan, and Obtain Consent for Bed Grab Bar Use
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to follow required procedures before installing and using bed grab bars for a resident. The resident had diagnoses including spastic hemiplegia affecting the left side and muscle weakness, and an admission MDS indicating moderate cognitive impairment. During observation, the resident was seen in a power chair with bilateral grab bars on the bed and reported using them to roll in bed and for transfers. The resident’s care plan, dated 1/23/26, documented a need for assistance with bed mobility and independence with transfers but did not mention or address the use of grab bars or side rails. Review of the electronic medical record showed no completed grab bar/side rail or bed mobility device assessment to determine the necessity of the grab bars or whether the resident could safely use them. There was also no evidence that the resident or the resident’s representative had been educated on the risks of having a grab bar on the bed or that informed consent had been obtained. In interviews, an LPN and the ADON both stated that a bed mobility device assessment was required to determine need and safety prior to installing grab bars, and both confirmed that no such assessment was present in the resident’s record.
Failure to Perform Hand Hygiene and Change Gloves During Wound Care
Penalty
Summary
Surveyors observed that a registered nurse (RN) and a nurse practitioner (NP) did not follow the facility’s established infection control practices during wound care for one resident. During a wound treatment, the RN wore gloves while removing the dressing from the resident’s left heel, then removed the dressing from the right heel, sprayed both wounds with wound cleanser, wiped the left heel with gauze, and then used a clean gauze pad to wipe the right heel. The RN did not remove her gloves or perform hand hygiene after disposing of the soiled dressings or between cleaning the left and right heel wounds, contrary to the facility’s written wound care procedure, which requires glove removal and hand hygiene after removing the previous dressing and again after cleaning the wound. The resident’s admission MDS documented diagnoses including multiple rib fractures, heart failure, dementia, anxiety, and the presence of a pressure ulcer, and indicated the resident was cognitively intact and required staff assistance with care and transfers. The resident’s care plan identified pressure ulcers on both heels requiring wound care. In interviews, the RN, NP, and the DON/infection prevention nurse each stated that gloves should be changed when moving from dirty to clean areas and that hand hygiene is expected after glove removal and between wounds to prevent infection, confirming that the observed practice did not align with facility policy or expected infection control standards.
Failure to Timely Revise Care Plan for Toileting and Skin Integrity
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to timely revise and individualize a resident’s care plan to address toileting and incontinence needs in relation to impaired skin integrity. The resident had diagnoses including primary progressive multiple sclerosis, hereditary spastic paraplegia, obesity, and a pressure-induced deep tissue injury to the left heel. A Significant Change MDS identified the resident as dependent for toileting hygiene, with lower extremity range-of-motion limitations, wheelchair use, dependence for transfers, occasional urinary incontinence, intact cognition, and at risk for pressure ulcers with existing unhealed pressure injuries and MASD. The resident’s skin-focused care plan, revised on various dates, included skin inspections, wound care orders, weekly skin checks, pressure ulcer care to the left heel, nutritional supplements, and a gel mattress, but did not include an individualized toileting or incontinence plan. On a weekly skin check dated 3/3/26, nursing staff identified a new Stage 2 pressure ulcer on the coccyx and contact dermatitis on both gluteal folds. An IDT Final Post Review Follow Up dated 3/10/26 (signed 3/23/26) documented that a new skin issue had occurred and that interventions after the incident included wound care treatment orders, increased repositioning, and increased incontinent care. However, the resident’s care plan from 3/3/26 through 3/16/26 did not show revisions reflecting increased incontinence care or a repositioning schedule, and the care plan was not updated to include these elements until 3/17/26. During this period, the care plan still lacked an individualized toileting plan despite the resident’s identified incontinence and new coccyx pressure ulcer. Progress notes on 3/17/26 documented that the resident’s coccyx wound had declined, with an evaluation describing a deteriorating wound characterized as a Kennedy terminal ulcer/End of Life, staged as a Stage 4 pressure ulcer, in-house acquired, with increased size, exudate, odor, pain, and surrounding erythema. On that same date, the skin focus care plan was revised to include prompt incontinence care and keeping the skin clean and dry, and the elimination focus care plan was revised to address incontinence due to neurogenic bladder with use of a bedside commode offered every 2–3 hours. A nursing assistant reported that when working with the resident, the resident would sometimes fall asleep on the bedpan and forget to ask staff to remove it, and that she was not aware the resident was not supposed to use the bedpan until after the sore had worsened. The DON stated that the resident’s care plan had not been revised earlier to include a turning and repositioning schedule or toileting changes, and that it should have been revised as soon as staff learned the resident was falling asleep on the bedpan, rather than waiting until after the pressure ulcer worsened.
Failure to Assess and Notify Provider for Right Gluteal Wound
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to comprehensively assess and appropriately manage a non‑pressure skin issue on a resident’s right gluteal area, and to notify the physician in a timely manner. The resident had diagnoses including diabetes, Crohn’s disease, and a kidney transplant, and the MDS indicated occasional bowel incontinence, no pressure ulcers, and no moisture‑associated skin damage at that time. Earlier documentation identified a resolved MASD to the right gluteus, and a progress note later described a sacral wound with creams applied, noting that sores were still open and painful during application, but without any measurements, wound characteristics, or evidence of physician notification. Subsequent wound assessments documented an open lesion on the right gluteus with specific measurements on multiple dates, but did not identify the wound type or other characteristics, and the record did not show physician notification or treatment orders for the right gluteal lesion. Provider orders in place initially addressed cleansing the buttocks and applying barrier cream, and later included a detailed wound care order for a stage 3 pressure ulcer documented on the left buttocks. However, the resident’s record did not contain a specific treatment order for the right gluteal wound, despite the ongoing documentation of an open lesion in that area. Interviews revealed confusion and inconsistency in wound identification and classification. The DON stated that the right gluteal wound was documented as an open lesion because she did not feel comfortable determining the wound type, and acknowledged that the physician should have been notified when the wound was first identified. The DON was unaware that the NP had documented the wound as being on the left buttocks and as a stage 3 pressure ulcer, while the RN reported that the wound had never been on the left buttocks and that she had been applying the left‑sided wound orders to the right gluteal area because there was no open area on the left. The resident reported a recurring painful area on the right buttocks and chronic stool leakage since prior anal fistula surgery. The facility’s own wound treatment policy required comprehensive assessment of wound etiology and characteristics, consistent measurement and documentation, and provider notification in the absence of treatment orders, which were not followed for this resident’s right gluteal wound. The deficiency centers on the lack of a comprehensive wound assessment for the right gluteal lesion, incomplete documentation of wound characteristics, failure to clearly determine and document the wound etiology, and failure to notify the physician and obtain appropriate treatment orders when the wound was identified and remained open. These actions and inactions resulted in a discrepancy between the documented wound location and type and the actual clinical presentation, as well as a period during which the right gluteal wound had no specific, clearly ordered treatment despite being open and painful.
Failure to Perform Hand Hygiene and Implement Enhanced Barrier Precautions During Wound Care and Transfers
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to ensure proper hand hygiene during wound care and to consistently implement Enhanced Barrier Precautions (EBP) for a resident requiring such measures. The resident had diagnoses including diabetes, a non-pressure chronic ulcer of the right lower leg, and a kidney transplant, and a wound assessment documented an open lesion on the right gluteal area. The resident’s care plan and a sign posted outside the room specified that EBP, including gown and gloves, were required for high-contact care activities such as dressing, bathing, transferring, providing hygiene, changing linens, changing briefs or assisting with toileting, catheter care, and wound care. During one observation, the DON performed hand hygiene and donned a gown before entering the resident’s room for a telehealth wound assessment. Inside the room, the DON went into the bathroom, applied gloves without performing hand hygiene, removed the resident’s brief, and removed a foam dressing from the right gluteal area that had stool on one corner. After discarding the soiled dressing, the DON removed gloves and then applied new gloves without performing hand hygiene between glove changes. When questioned, the DON stated that hand hygiene should be done when hands or gloves are visibly soiled and before and after removing or applying gloves, and acknowledged that hand hygiene had not been performed each time gloves were removed and reapplied. In a separate observation, the resident was transferred using a sit-to-stand mechanical lift while EBP requirements were not fully followed. An NA entered the room wearing a gown and gloves with the lift, and the DON applied the lift harness under the resident’s arms and cinched the waist strap, encountering the resident’s clothing, while not wearing gloves. After the transfer to bed, the DON pulled down the resident’s pants and removed the harness while touching the resident’s clothes. Following wound care by a CNP-WOC, the DON again assisted the resident by sitting the resident on the edge of the bed, applying the lift harness, and adjusting the resident’s pants and shirt while wearing a gown but no gloves. The DON stated that EBP was only needed for catheter or wound care and not for transfers, and only upon reading the posted EBP sign acknowledged that EBP was required for all high-contact resident care activities, including transfers.
Failure to Protect Resident From Verbal Abuse and Delay in Removing Alleged Perpetrator
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to protect a vulnerable resident from mental abuse and to respond appropriately to an allegation of abuse. The resident had severe cognitive impairment, Alzheimer’s disease, dementia, anxiety, depression, psychotic disorder, and significant functional dependence, including frequent incontinence and the need for extensive assistance with ADLs and transfers. Her care plan identified behavioral and mood issues such as wandering, yelling, combative behavior, and calling staff names, with interventions including calm approaches, emotional support, redirection, and monitoring for emotional distress and mood/behavior changes. She was identified as a vulnerable adult, with instructions to monitor for signs of emotional distress and to follow the facility’s abuse reporting policy. On the evening in question, while the resident was crying on the phone with her son and expressing a desire to leave, NA-A and NA-B entered to provide evening care using an EZ stand lift. After the resident ended the phone call, multiple staff reported that NA-A spoke to the resident in a loud, stern, and frustrated tone, telling her to stop crying and that she was acting like a two-year-old. When the resident swatted at NA-A, NA-A stated, “If you hit me, I’m going to hit you back,” and later told the resident she was “in trouble now.” Staff reported that NA-A told the resident she would be sent to a locked unit so she could not get out, and questioned who would want to care for her when she cried like a baby, and that nobody would want to keep working with her. NA-C described NA-A yelling commands such as “HOLD ON!” and “Stop crying! Where would you be if you were not here? Probably lying on the floor,” and felt NA-A was obviously upset and overwhelmed. These statements were made in the presence of the resident while she was already distressed and crying. Following this interaction, the resident exhibited crying, yelling, combativeness, resistance to care, wandering into other residents’ rooms, self-isolation, and refusal of food, fluids, and medications above her prior baseline, as documented in behavior charts, target behavior monitoring, and nursing progress notes. Staff documented that she cried most of the morning, was very restless, difficult to redirect, hit and pinched staff, called staff names, and refused care and meals. She required repeated redirection, 1:1 attention, and non-pharmacological interventions, and was ultimately sent to the ED for evaluation of combativeness and emotional distress, where she was treated for dementia with aggressive behavior and hypoglycemia related to poor intake. The report identifies that the resident’s actual response and the reasonable person concept showed serious psychosocial harm, including increased crying and combative behavior above baseline, fear/anxiety manifested as combativeness, resistance to care and social interaction, and self-isolation. The facility also failed to immediately remove the alleged perpetrator from resident care and to promptly report and investigate the allegation in accordance with its abuse policy. After NA-B and NA-C reported to LPN-A that NA-A had yelled at and threatened the resident, LPN-A acknowledged it as verbal abuse but did not initiate immediate protective measures or timely reporting. LPN-A stated she believed she had 24 hours to report because there was no injury, despite facility policy requiring reporting within two hours. NA-A remained on the unit and continued working until the end of her shift, including after staff had clearly communicated their concerns to LPN-A. TMA and NA staff described uncertainty about their authority to remove NA-A and reliance on the nurse to act, while the DON later informed LPN-A that NA-A should have been removed from the floor to prevent further danger to residents. The Immediate Jeopardy was determined to have begun when NA-A’s derogatory, intimidating, and threatening statements were made and continued while she remained on duty with access to the resident and other vulnerable residents.
Failure to Timely Assess and Treat Newly Discovered Stump Wound
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to provide timely treatment and care for a newly discovered wound on a resident’s above‑knee amputation stump. The resident was admitted with diagnoses including unspecified dementia with behavioral disturbances, vascular dementia, bilateral above‑knee amputations, vascular disease, reduced mobility, and severe protein‑calorie malnutrition, and had no documented ulcers or skin problems on admission or on the most recent MDS. A weekly bath audit on 3/17/26 documented only non‑tender lymph nodes on the right upper hip and did not identify any open areas. However, when the wound was later assessed, the dressing on the stump was dated 3/16/26, indicating that a wound and dressing existed at that time, even though no corresponding assessment, provider notification, or treatment orders were documented. On 3/23/26, nursing staff documented a new skin issue above the resident’s knee at the amputation site, describing a stage 4 pressure ulcer/injury with full‑thickness skin and tissue loss, exposed bone, erythema/edema, and moderate serosanguineous exudate. The wound measured 1.56 cm by 1.64 cm, with 20–29% granulation tissue and 80% slough. A progress note and skin issues assessment on that date confirmed the wound characteristics and staging, and the NP, after reviewing a picture, determined the wound to be a diabetic ulcer with peripheral vascular disease and severe protein‑calorie malnutrition as contributing factors. On that same date, the NP was notified, antibiotic therapy (doxycycline) was ordered for possible cellulitis, and specific wound care orders were initiated, with documentation on the MAR that these treatments were carried out beginning 3/23/26. Multiple interviews with nursing staff revealed that no one could identify who discovered the wound or who applied the initial dressing dated 3/16/26, and there was no documentation of a wound assessment, provider notification, or interim treatment between 3/16/26 and 3/22/26. Several RNs and LPNs who worked shifts from 3/16/26 through 3/20/26 stated they did not notice a wound on the stump and that, per their usual practice, they would have contacted the provider and initiated treatment if they had found one. One LPN recalled seeing a band‑aid with a date on the stump but could not recall the date, and another LPN stated she did not see the wound because she was not looking for one. The facility’s standing orders required staff to assess all wounds daily, change dressings every three days and as needed, treat with normal saline or non‑cytotoxic cleanser and appropriate dressings, and notify the provider the next business day when a new wound or injury was found. Despite these expectations, the wound identified by the dated dressing on 3/16/26 was not assessed, reported, or treated according to orders and facility policy until 3/23/26.
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.
