Cura Of Willmar
Inspection history, citations, penalties and survey trends for this long-term care facility in Willmar, Minnesota.
- Location
- 1801 Willmar Avenue Southwest, Willmar, Minnesota 56201
- CMS Provider Number
- 245410
- Inspections on file
- 26
- Latest survey
- March 25, 2026
- Citations (last 12 mo.)
- 10
Citation history
Health deficiencies cited at Cura Of Willmar during CMS and state inspections, most recent first.
A resident with stroke-related hemiplegia, ESRD, diabetes, legal blindness, and a care plan requiring assist of two for transfers was transferred to the toilet by one staff member and left there with a call light. The resident reported sliding or tipping off the toilet while attempting to wipe, landing on the floor, and being lifted under the arms by two unidentified female staff and returned to bed without a nursing assessment. Throughout the day, the resident complained of left leg and hip pain, which was documented by PT and nursing, and repeatedly reported that he had fallen from the toilet, while multiple NAs denied witnessing or assisting with the fall and gave inconsistent accounts. Despite a facility policy requiring immediate reporting of all actual, suspected, or resident-reported falls to a nurse, the fall was not promptly reported or assessed at the time it occurred, and the resident was moved from the floor back to bed without evaluation, with a later ED visit revealing a left intertrochanteric femur fracture requiring surgery.
The facility failed to maintain a working wander alert system, resulting in two residents with cognitive impairments being able to exit the building on separate occasions. Despite alarms sounding, the doors did not lock as intended, and staff reported the malfunction had persisted for several weeks. Maintenance and testing procedures were inadequate, and the system was not properly checked according to manufacturer guidelines.
A resident with chronic diastolic congestive heart failure did not receive PRN Metolazone as ordered for significant weight gain on multiple occasions. Facility staff, including an LPN and RN, were unaware of the PRN order linked to the resident's daily weight task, leading to a failure in administering the medication. The DON confirmed the importance of following physician's orders, which was not done in this instance.
A facility failed to perform proper hand hygiene after caring for a resident on contact enteric precautions due to a C. Diff. infection. The resident had a history of end-stage renal disease, diabetes, and pressure ulcers, and required assistance for transfers. A nursing assistant did not wash or sanitize her hands after assisting with the resident's transfer and handling a meal tray. The DON confirmed the need for handwashing with soap and water, as hand sanitizer is ineffective against C. Diff.
A resident with moderately impaired cognition and multiple diagnoses was not offered the PCV20 vaccination as recommended by the CDC. Despite the facility's policy to verify immunizations upon admission and educate residents on vaccination benefits, the resident's record lacked evidence of shared clinical decision-making or an offer for the PCV20, highlighting a deficiency in following immunization guidelines.
A facility failed to educate and administer a COVID-19 booster to a resident with moderately impaired cognition and chronic conditions. The resident's last booster was in March 2023, with no further documentation or education provided. The DON admitted the oversight, acknowledging the lapse in following the facility's immunization policy.
Failure to Report and Assess Resident-Reported Fall From Toilet Resulting in Hip Fracture
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to protect a resident from neglect when staff did not follow required fall reporting and assessment procedures after the resident fell from a toilet. The resident had multiple diagnoses including stroke, ESRD, diabetes, CVA with left-sided hemiplegia/hemiparesis, was legally blind, required assistance of two staff for transfers and toileting per the care plan, and used a wheelchair or walker for mobility. The admission MDS indicated the resident was cognitively intact, frequently incontinent, dependent for transfers, and had a prior fall history. The care plan and Kardex specified assistance of two staff for ambulation, transfers, and toileting due to left-sided weakness and fall risk. On the day of the incident, an activity assistant/nursing assistant (AA-A) reported that the resident requested to use the bathroom. AA-A stated she asked staff what level of assistance the resident required and was told he was assist of one with a transfer belt to the toilet. AA-A transferred the resident from bed to the toilet with assist of one, left him on the toilet with his call light, and reported she was told that other staff would transfer him off the toilet and back to bed while she went on break. Later, the resident reported that while sitting on the toilet he attempted to wipe himself, slid or tipped off the toilet, and fell forward onto the floor, landing on his left side. The resident, who was blind, stated that two female staff came into the room, lifted him under his arms from the floor, and put him back into bed, but he could not identify who they were. Following the fall, the resident complained of left leg and knee pain, including during a physical therapy session where the PTA documented that the resident reported a fall from the toilet while staff reported no fall had occurred. The PTA noted left lower extremity knee, hip, and intertrochanteric band area pain with all movement and that attempts at transfer training were unsuccessful due to pain, and nursing was informed of these findings. Later that day, the resident continued to complain of worsening left leg pain, and during an evening nursing assessment he yelled out in pain with repositioning, with swelling noted to the left hip area. The resident again reported he had fallen off the toilet earlier. Nursing review of the earlier shift report showed that the resident had reported tipping off the toilet, but staff stated they had not witnessed a fall. The facility’s own fall communication policy required that all fall events, including resident-reported or suspected falls, be reported immediately to a nurse for prompt assessment, and that staff must never fail to notify the nurse if they are aware a fall occurred. Despite the resident’s report of a fall and subsequent pain, the fall was not promptly reported or assessed at the time it occurred, and the resident was moved from the floor back to bed without a nursing assessment, leading to delayed identification of a left hip fracture that required emergency evaluation and surgical repair. Interviews with multiple nursing assistants revealed inconsistent accounts and denials of witnessing or assisting with the fall, even though the resident and his family member consistently reported that he fell from the toilet and was assisted from the floor by two staff. One NA reported receiving a social media message instructing her to "stick to the story" about the fall and that another NA had put the resident back into bed, though the message disappeared and could not be produced. Another NA acknowledged getting the resident up earlier in the day and later sending a message asking if anyone had called about the fall, but denied assisting him from the floor. The LPN on duty stated that when she was informed the resident wanted Tylenol and went to his room, the resident told her he had fallen from the toilet, but after interviewing the NAs, none admitted seeing a fall, and the nurse thought the resident was confused and simply passed the information to the next shift at the end of her shift. The facility’s investigation concluded that the resident had been transferred to the toilet by one employee despite a care plan requiring assistance of two, that the resident fell from the toilet, and that he was moved back into bed without assessment, constituting neglect as defined by regulation.
Failure to Ensure Functioning Wander Alert System
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to develop and implement a process to ensure the wander alert system was functioning properly, affecting two residents who utilized wander alert devices. One resident, who had diagnoses including vascular dementia, Alzheimer's disease, and bilateral below-the-knee amputations, was identified as high risk for elopement and wore wander alert bracelets on both the left wrist and wheelchair. Despite these precautions, the resident was able to exit the facility on two separate occasions. In one incident, the wander guard did not work, allowing the resident to leave through the front entrance doors, which had not locked after being recently opened. In another incident, the resident was found outside in a culvert with the wheelchair on top of him after pushing and holding the exit door long enough for the emergency release to activate, despite wearing the wander alert device. Interviews with staff revealed ongoing issues with the door locking mechanism. Nursing assistants and an LPN reported that the doors would alarm when the resident was near but did not physically lock, and this issue had been occurring for several weeks. Staff stated that the malfunction had been reported to management, but the problem persisted. The administrator confirmed that the facility had been without a maintenance director for about two weeks and had relied on maintenance staff from another facility to inspect the doors. However, the inspections did not identify or resolve the underlying issue with the wander alert system and door locks. Further review of the facility's testing procedures and manufacturer recommendations indicated that the required weekly testing of the wander alert system was not being conducted as specified. The former maintenance director admitted to not testing whether the doors would unlock if a wander alert device was near and was unsure who to contact for technical issues. The regional director of operations and other staff used a handheld remote to test the doors, but this did not replicate the actual conditions under which the system failed. Documentation and interviews confirmed that the process for ensuring the wander alert system's functionality was inadequate, leading to repeated failures to prevent elopement.
Failure to Administer PRN Medication for Weight Gain
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to administer as-needed (PRN) medications according to a physician's order for a resident with chronic diastolic congestive heart failure. The resident, who had moderate cognitive impairment and required assistance with all activities of daily living, had a physician's order for Metolazone 5 mg to be given by mouth as needed for fluid retention or weight gain. However, the electronic health record (EHR) lacked documentation of the administration of this PRN medication on several occasions when the resident's weight increased significantly overnight. The resident's weight documentation indicated multiple instances of weight gain exceeding the parameters set by the physician's order, yet the PRN medication was not administered. Interviews with facility staff, including a licensed practical nurse (LPN), a registered nurse care coordinator (RN), and the director of nursing (DON), revealed a lack of awareness and communication regarding the PRN order linked to the resident's daily weight task. The RN care coordinator acknowledged that the PRN order was not linked to the daily weight task, which should have prompted the nursing staff to administer the medication. The director of nursing confirmed that the PRN medication should have been administered with the increased weight gain, emphasizing the importance of following physician's orders for the management of the resident's congestive heart failure. The consultant pharmacist also stated that the medication should have been administered according to the provider's order. The facility's Medication Guidelines policy indicated that medications should be administered accurately and in a timely manner by qualified personnel, but this was not adhered to in this case.
Failure to Perform Hand Hygiene After Resident Care
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to perform proper hand hygiene after high-contact direct care for a resident, identified as R114, who was on contact enteric precautions due to a Clostridium difficile (C. Diff.) infection. R114 had a history of end-stage renal disease, diabetes, pressure ulcers, and had recently been hospitalized for diabetic ketoacidosis and inflammation of the colon caused by C. Diff. The resident was frequently bowel incontinent, deconditioned, and dependent on staff for transfers and mobility. A sign indicating the need for transmission-based precautions was placed outside R114's room, instructing staff to wash hands or use hand sanitizer, don gown and gloves before entry, and wash hands upon leaving the room. During an observation, a nursing assistant (NA-A) failed to wash or sanitize her hands after assisting with R114's transfer and proceeded to handle a meal tray without performing hand hygiene. NA-A acknowledged the oversight during an interview, stating she was unaware of the specific precautions required for R114. The Director of Nursing (DON) confirmed that R114 was on contact enteric precautions due to C. Diff. and emphasized the importance of handwashing with soap and water, as hand sanitizer does not kill the C. Diff. organism. The facility's hand hygiene policy, dated January 2023, required washing hands with soap and water after contact with residents with infectious diarrhea, including C. Diff.
Failure to Offer Pneumococcal Vaccination
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure that a resident, identified as R55, was offered and/or provided the pneumococcal vaccination series as recommended by the CDC. R55, who had moderately impaired cognition and diagnoses of hypertension, peripheral vascular disease, and diabetes, was [AGE] years old. The resident's immunization record indicated that they had received a PPSV23 on 7/13/2017 and a PCV13 on 4/20/16. However, there was no evidence of shared clinical decision-making with the physician for a PCV20 at least five years after the last pneumococcal dose, nor was there evidence that R55 or their representative was offered or received a PCV20. During an interview, the DON, who also serves as the infection preventionist, confirmed that immunizations are verified upon admission through MIIC and resident medical records. The DON stated that residents and/or their representatives would be offered and educated on the risk/benefit of the PCV20, and consents are obtained if eligible. The DON also mentioned that the facility follows policies based on CDC recommendations for immunization guidelines. Despite these procedures, the DON verified that R55 had not been offered or provided education on PCV20, indicating a lapse in following the facility's policy on pneumococcal immunization.
Failure to Educate and Administer COVID-19 Booster
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure proper education and administration of the COVID-19 booster vaccination for one resident, identified as R55, who was reviewed for COVID-19 vaccination status. According to the report, R55 had moderately impaired cognition and diagnoses of hypertension, peripheral vascular disease, and diabetes. The resident's electronic medical record indicated that the last COVID-19 booster was administered on March 15, 2023. However, there was no documentation of any additional booster vaccination or evidence of education regarding the benefits and potential side effects of the booster. Furthermore, there was no indication of any contraindication to the COVID-19 vaccination in R55's records. During an interview, the Director of Nursing (DON), who also serves as the infection preventionist, acknowledged that the process of verifying immunizations and offering education on the COVID-19 booster was missed for R55. The DON explained that immunizations are typically verified upon admission through the Minnesota Immunization Information Connection and resident medical records. The facility's policy, dated October 2023, states that COVID-19 vaccinations should be offered to all staff and residents unless medically contraindicated or if the individual has already received all recommended doses. The DON admitted that the facility's process, which involves collaboration with the facility pharmacy and resident providers, was not followed in this instance.
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.
