Good Samaritan Society - Albert Lea
Inspection history, citations, penalties and survey trends for this long-term care facility in Albert Lea, Minnesota.
- Location
- 75507 240th Street, Albert Lea, Minnesota 56007
- CMS Provider Number
- 245441
- Inspections on file
- 21
- Latest survey
- April 24, 2025
- Citations (last 12 mo.)
- 0
Citation history
Health deficiencies cited at Good Samaritan Society - Albert Lea during CMS and state inspections, most recent first.
The facility did not ensure the high-temperature dishwashing machine consistently reached the required wash and rinse temperatures, as observed by the dietary manager and confirmed by temperature logs and staff interviews. This failure occurred despite facility policy requiring compliance checks and staff notification when temperatures are out of range.
Staff failed to use required PPE, such as gowns or aprons, when sorting soiled laundry, and transported clean resident clothing in uncovered carts, leaving items exposed to dust and dirt. Facility policy required both PPE for soiled laundry handling and covered carts for clean laundry, but these practices were not followed.
A resident with severely impaired cognition and a high risk for falls was found sitting in a recliner with the call light out of reach, contrary to facility policy and the resident's care plan. Staff confirmed that call lights should be accessible unless otherwise documented, but no such documentation existed for this resident.
A resident with severe cognitive impairment and incontinence was left in urine-soaked sheets for several hours, with staff failing to offer toileting or change incontinence products as required by the care plan. Documentation showed long gaps without care, and staff did not consistently re-approach or document refusals, despite facility policy and expectations.
A male resident with severe cognitive impairment and a history of sexually inappropriate behaviors was not adequately supervised, leading to incidents of sexual abuse involving two female residents. The facility failed to update the care plan or implement effective measures to prevent these incidents, resulting in immediate jeopardy for the affected residents.
A facility failed to report an alleged abuse incident involving two residents with dementia in a timely manner. One resident was found in another's bed, possibly attempting to masturbate. The incident was reported to the DON, family, and provider, but the report to the State Agency was delayed by 40 hours due to an initial assessment that it did not require reporting.
A resident, who required assistance with a gait belt for ambulation, fell and fractured their hip when a nursing assistant let go of the gait belt to secure a wheelchair. The resident, who was legally blind and had diabetes, lost balance and fell, resulting in a need for surgical intervention. The incident was initially reported as a slip, but video evidence later showed the care plan was not followed.
The facility failed to implement enhanced barrier precautions for two residents with implanted medical devices. One resident, dependent on staff for daily activities, was assisted by a nursing assistant without the necessary PPE. Another resident's care plan lacked specific instructions for G-tube care, leading an LPN to administer medications without proper PPE. The director of nursing confirmed the need for PPE, which was not followed.
The facility failed to conduct routine weekly skin assessments for two residents with impaired skin integrity. One resident with severe cognitive impairment had inconsistent wound assessments for a non-healing lesion, while another resident with multiple diagnoses had incomplete wound data for a deep tissue injury and a pressure ulcer. Staff interviews revealed that the required twice-weekly assessments were not consistently performed.
A resident with severe cognitive impairment and a non-healing head lesion experienced a lapse in accurate medical record-keeping. Maggots were found in the wound, but documentation was delayed and incomplete. The resident frequently removed dressings, complicating care. Despite observations and treatment attempts, the facility failed to document the extent of the infestation and subsequent monitoring.
Failure to Maintain Proper Dishwashing Temperatures in Kitchen
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure the high-temperature dishwashing machine operated at the required temperatures for effective sanitization. During an observation, the dietary manager (DM) ran several empty dish racks through the machine and consistently recorded wash and rinse temperatures of approximately 140 degrees Fahrenheit, which is below the required 150 degrees for wash and 180 degrees for rinse. The DM also noted a flashing red light on the booster, which was unusual, and stated that maintenance would be notified. Temperature logs indicated that a dietary aide (DA-A) had documented proper temperatures earlier, but during interview, DA-A referenced the dials on the machine and reported temperatures that did not align with the observed readings. The DA-A also described the process for checking temperatures and the protocol for notifying staff if temperatures were out of range. Further observation on the following day showed the dish machine reaching appropriate temperatures, but the initial failure to meet required standards was not addressed before equipment was used. Facility policy requires compliance checks for wash and rinse cycles at each meal service and mandates staff notification if temperatures are outside acceptable parameters. The policy also references the use of an irreversible registering temperature indicator to ensure proper surface temperature is achieved during the rinse cycle, as per the food code.
Failure to Use Appropriate PPE and Cover Clean Laundry During Transport
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure proper infection prevention and control practices in the handling of both soiled and clean laundry. Observations showed that a laundry aide transported clean resident clothing in an uncovered metal cart and carried multiple shirts by hand and on her arm into resident rooms. The clean clothing was not protected from dust or dirt during transport and delivery. The laundry aide confirmed that this was the standard practice and that the carts used did not have covers. The Ancillary Department Manager also acknowledged that the carts in use were not laundry carts and lacked covers, and that clean laundry was not being adequately protected during transport. Additionally, the facility did not ensure that appropriate personal protective equipment (PPE) was used when sorting soiled laundry. The laundry aide reported that only gloves were used during sorting, and there was no PPE such as gowns or aprons available nearby in the soiled laundry area. The Infection Preventionist and Ancillary Department Manager were both unsure if gowns were required, despite the facility's policy stating that at a minimum, a disposable apron and gloves should be worn when handling soiled laundry. The policy also directed that clean clothes should be transported and stored in a manner that reasonably protects them from dust and soil, and that clean linen carts should be covered at all times during storage and distribution.
Failure to Ensure Call Light Accessibility for High-Risk Resident
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure that a resident identified as high risk for falls had their call light within reach, as required by facility policy. The resident had a history of chronic kidney disease, altered mental status, severely impaired cognition, and a history of falls, and was assessed as high risk for falls. The care plan included interventions such as reminding the resident to call for staff assistance and ensuring the call light was accessible. However, during observation, the call light was found removed from the wall and placed on a bedside table, out of the resident's reach while she was sitting in a recliner at the back of the room. Staff interviews confirmed that call lights should always be placed within easy reach of residents unless a specific preference is documented, which was not the case for this resident. The facility's policy also required that call lights be accessible to residents at all times. The failure to ensure the call light was within reach was verified by both nursing and administrative staff, and there was no documentation indicating the resident had requested the call light be placed elsewhere.
Failure to Provide Timely Incontinence Care and Document Refusals
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to provide timely incontinence care for a resident with severely impaired cognition, dementia, and epilepsy, who was frequently incontinent of bladder and always incontinent of bowel. The resident's care plan required staff to check and change incontinence products every shift and as needed, maintain consistency in ADL routines, and re-approach the resident if care was refused, documenting each refusal. Despite these interventions, continuous observation revealed that the resident remained in urine-soaked sheets for an extended period, with a strong odor of urine present in the room, and staff did not offer toileting or change the resident's clothing or bedding during multiple interactions over several hours. Documentation in the facility's electronic health record indicated that the resident had only been toileted three times during the day in question, with no record of toileting or incontinence care for approximately eight hours. Staff interviews confirmed that the expectation was to offer toileting and check/change incontinence products every two hours, even if the resident refused, and to document each refusal. However, staff failed to follow these protocols, as evidenced by the lack of documented offers and the resident remaining in soiled conditions for an extended period. Family and staff interviews further corroborated that the resident would not have wanted to remain in urine-soaked clothing or bedding, and that staff were aware of the need to re-approach and document refusals. The facility's policy required necessary services for residents unable to perform ADLs, including maintaining personal hygiene. The observed failure to provide timely incontinence care and to document care refusals as required led to the identified deficiency.
Failure to Protect Residents from Sexual Abuse
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to protect two female residents from sexual abuse and inappropriate behaviors by a male resident. The male resident, who had severe cognitive impairment and a history of wandering, displayed sexually inappropriate behaviors towards staff and other residents. These behaviors included exposing himself, making sexual advances, and inappropriate touching. Despite these behaviors being documented in progress notes, the facility did not notify the physician promptly or update the resident's care plan to address the risk to other residents. The male resident's inappropriate behaviors escalated, leading to two incidents involving female residents. In one incident, the male resident was found in bed with a female resident, possibly attempting to masturbate. In another incident, he was found in a common area touching another female resident inappropriately. Both female residents had severe cognitive impairments and were unable to protect themselves or report the abuse effectively. The facility's interventions, such as placing a mesh stop sign banner and conducting more frequent checks, were insufficient to prevent these incidents. The facility's lack of a comprehensive assessment and failure to implement effective measures to supervise the male resident contributed to the incidents. The interventions in place were not adequately assessed for their effectiveness, and the facility did not ensure that the male resident was supervised to prevent further inappropriate behaviors. The facility's actions were deemed insufficient, resulting in an immediate jeopardy situation for the affected residents.
Removal Plan
- The facility implemented a plan to ensure R3 had direct 1:1 supervision.
- All nursing staff were provided with education and expectations pertaining to R3's care plan interventions and supervision.
- Audits have been initiated to ensure R3 had direct 1:1 supervision.
- Facility updated R1, R2, and R3's care plan and provided education to staff on changes and updates.
Delayed Reporting of Alleged Abuse Incident
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to report an allegation of abuse in a timely manner to the State Agency for one of the residents reviewed for allegations of abuse. The incident involved two residents, both diagnosed with dementia. One resident was found lying next to another in bed, with the former possibly attempting to masturbate. The incident was discovered by an LPN who responded to a call light and found the resident in question with his pants halfway down. The LPN notified the Director of Nursing (DON), the family, and the provider about the incident. Despite the facility's policy requiring allegations of abuse to be reported within 24 hours if there is no serious bodily injury, the report was submitted approximately 40 hours after the incident. The delay occurred because the DON and regional clinical service nurse initially determined that the incident did not need to be reported due to the absence of willful intent or injury. However, after further discussion, the administrator instructed the DON to submit the report to the State Agency, which was then finalized and submitted two days after the incident.
Failure to Follow Care Plan Leads to Resident Fall and Injury
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to provide safe transfers and adhere to the care plan for a resident, resulting in a fall and a left hip fracture that required surgical intervention. The resident, who was legally blind and had diabetes, required one staff assist with a gait belt for ambulation. On the day of the incident, a nursing assistant (NA) was assisting the resident from the bathroom to a wheelchair using a gait belt. The NA let go of the gait belt to secure the wheelchair, causing the resident to lose balance and fall, hitting their head and expressing pain in the hip. The incident was initially reported as a slip by the NA, and the care plan was believed to have been followed. However, a video later revealed that the NA had let go of the gait belt, leading to the fall. The director of nursing (DON) and the administrator reviewed the video with the resident's family, confirming the lapse in following the care plan. The facility's policy required staff to maintain hold of the gait belt until the resident was safely seated, which was not adhered to in this case.
Removal Plan
- Re-educate all staff on safe transfers and expectations for using the gait belt during transfers.
- Check the Kardex/care plan prior to assisting residents with mobility, including transfers and/or ambulation.
- Ensure the Kardex/care plan includes use of gait belt for transfers/ambulation, and staff hold on to the gait belt until the resident is safely seated on the destination surface.
Failure to Implement Enhanced Barrier Precautions
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to implement enhanced barrier precautions (EBPs) for two residents with implanted medical devices, leading to a deficiency in infection prevention and control. Resident R4, who was dependent on staff for all activities of daily living and had a supra pubic catheter and ostomy, required staff to wear gowns and gloves during high-contact care activities. However, during an observation, a nursing assistant (NA-E) assisted another nursing assistant (NA-M) in transferring R4 without wearing the necessary personal protective equipment (PPE), despite the supplies being readily available. Similarly, Resident R6, who had an indwelling urinary catheter and a feeding tube, required EBPs during high-contact care activities. However, the care plan did not specify the need for EBPs during G-tube care and medication administration. An LPN was observed administering medications via the feeding tube without wearing a gown and initially without gloves, indicating a lack of awareness of the need for PPE in such situations. The director of nursing confirmed that PPE should be worn as per facility policy, which was not adhered to in these instances.
Failure to Conduct Routine Weekly Skin Assessments
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure routine weekly skin assessments for two residents with impaired skin integrity. Resident 1, who had severe cognitive impairment and a non-healing lesion on the top of his head, did not receive consistent weekly comprehensive wound assessments. The care plan for Resident 1 included monitoring the location, size, and treatment of the skin injury, but the record showed missed weekly measurements on several dates. The wound data collection lacked initial measurements and descriptions, and the clinical manager acknowledged missing measurements due to her absence. Resident 2, diagnosed with hemiplegia, hemiparesis, and other conditions, had a suspected deep tissue injury on the right great toe and a stage 3 pressure ulcer on the left lower leg. The care plan required daily and weekly wound assessments, but the wound data collection did not consistently include descriptions or measurements. Missed assessments were noted on specific dates. Interviews with staff revealed that wounds were supposed to be assessed twice weekly, but this protocol was not followed consistently, leading to the deficiency.
Failure to Maintain Accurate Medical Records for Wound Management
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to maintain accurate medical records for a resident with severe cognitive impairment and a non-healing lesion on the head. The resident's care plan required monitoring of the lesion, but a change in the skin condition was identified on July 8, 2024, and not documented until July 10, 2024. During this period, maggots were found in the wound, and the family was notified, but the time of notification was not recorded. The nurse practitioner was informed, and the lesion was irrigated, but there was no documentation of the extent of the maggot infestation or subsequent monitoring. Interviews revealed that the resident frequently removed dressings, complicating wound management. A nursing assistant noted the dressing was intact on the morning of July 8, 2024, but a registered nurse found maggots during a dressing change. The clinical manager confirmed the presence of maggots and attempted treatment without initial orders. Despite these observations, there was a lack of documentation regarding the treatments and findings. The assistant director of nursing acknowledged the importance of timely documentation, which was not adhered to in this case.
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.
