Amberwood Estates Nursing And Rehabilitation
Inspection history, citations, penalties and survey trends for this long-term care facility in Saint Louis, Missouri.
- Location
- 5303 Bermuda Drive, Saint Louis, Missouri 63121
- CMS Provider Number
- 265719
- Inspections on file
- 32
- Latest survey
- February 4, 2026
- Citations (last 12 mo.)
- 9
Citation history
Health deficiencies cited at Amberwood Estates Nursing And Rehabilitation during CMS and state inspections, most recent first.
The facility failed to maintain a homelike environment by allowing extremely loud door alarms to sound repeatedly throughout the building, including during meals, without prompt staff response, which residents described as constant and annoying. The facility also did not maintain adequate hot water in several rooms and bathing areas; cognitively intact residents dependent on staff for ADLs reported cold or non-functioning water, and CNAs confirmed that some rooms lacked hot water, that water was sometimes taken from an eye wash station for care, and that residents were not receiving regular showers or bed baths due to cold water. In addition, a resident’s room and bathroom were not thoroughly cleaned, with repeated observations of dark pellet-like debris, accumulated dirt along wall perimeters, and a visibly stained, soiled toilet and surrounding flooring, while the resident reported only brief, inadequate mopping by housekeeping.
Surveyors found that the facility failed to designate and communicate a grievance official and did not make grievance forms or instructions readily accessible. The written policy required 24/7 availability of grievance forms in unsecured common areas, posted information on residents’ rights to file grievances orally, in writing, or anonymously, and clear identification of a grievance official, typically the Social Services Director. However, alert and oriented residents reported they did not know where forms were located, how to file a grievance, or who the grievance official was. Observations showed forms were kept in an unmarked folder in a locked receptionist’s office and only provided on request, with no posted signage about the grievance process. Staff interviews revealed confusion about who served as grievance official after the Social Worker position became vacant, with grievances routed informally through the receptionist, HR, the Activity Director, the Administrator, or the DON without a clearly identified responsible grievance official.
Surveyors found that the facility did not provide or document required bed-hold policy information when residents were transferred to the hospital, despite the Administrator stating that floor nurses were responsible for giving this information at the time of transfer. Review of records showed multiple transfers and discharges with no corresponding bed-hold documentation. In addition, the facility failed to send required copies of discharge notices to the State LTC Ombudsman, even though its written policy required Ombudsman notification for facility-initiated discharges, planned discharges and transfers, and discharges decided while a resident was hospitalized. The last documented Ombudsman notification and transfer log were several months old, and the facility lacked copies of discharge notices for more recent discharges.
The facility failed to provide required showers or baths and to honor resident bathing preferences, resulting in multiple residents not receiving at least two showers or bed baths weekly as required by policy. One resident with mobility impairment and dementia, care planned for twice-weekly assisted showers, had very limited documented bathing and was repeatedly observed with greasy hair, body odor, and unchanged clothing, while reporting infrequent showers due to limited shower room access. Another resident with paraplegia and renal failure, who preferred daily bed baths and required maximal assistance, reported that nonfunctioning or cold water on the unit led to not being offered showers or bed baths, and described an aide refusing to take them to another unit or obtain hot water, then documenting a refusal. A third dependent resident reported avoiding showers because of cold water and resorting to sink bathing, with records showing only one shower, several bed baths, and multiple refusals over many opportunities. Facility leadership acknowledged that residents should have been offered showers or bed baths at least twice weekly and that resident choices, including daily bathing, should have been honored despite water temperature issues.
The facility failed to maintain safe and appetizing food temperatures during tray service, resulting in multiple meals being served either lukewarm, cold, or partially melted. Several cognitively intact residents, including individuals with conditions such as anemia, inflammatory bowel disease, heart failure, malnutrition, renal disease, and diabetes, reported that the food tasted bad, was often cold, or that they avoided eating it. During observed meal services, surveyors and an LPN recorded hot items such as lasagna, chicken bites, and corn at temperatures well below expected hot-holding levels, and cold items such as salad, coleslaw, fruit cups, and sherbet at temperatures that were warm, wilted, or melted, contrary to the facility’s stated expectations for food service.
Surveyors found that staff repeatedly failed to follow the facility’s infection control and EBP policies during high-contact care for multiple residents who were dependent for toileting and personal hygiene and had conditions such as stroke, multiple sclerosis, hemiplegia, cerebral palsy, chronic wounds, and g-tube status. Despite EBP signage and available PPE at room doors, CNAs provided incontinence and peri-care without wearing required gowns, used improper peri-care technique, double gloved, and placed soiled pads and blankets directly on the floor or on another resident’s bed before reusing them. One resident’s care plan called for EBP for a g-tube without a corresponding physician order, and staff interviews confirmed that expected practices—front-to-back peri-care, no double gloving, proper linen handling, and gown and glove use for high-contact care—were not consistently followed in practice.
The facility failed to follow its own policy requiring that nourishing bedtime snacks be offered to all residents unless contraindicated by a physician’s diet order. The policy specified that dietary would stock snacks such as milk, 100% fruit juice, cookies, crackers, and fruit at each nursing station and that nursing staff would pass snacks room to room rather than announcing them from the nurse’s station. Resident Council minutes documented that residents were told there were no snacks at the nurse’s desk and that dietary was not passing out snacks. In a group interview, most alert and oriented residents reported they were not offered bedtime snacks, and one noted that only residents able to walk to the nurse’s station sometimes received snacks. Observations over multiple days showed no snacks at several nursing stations, and the Dietary Manager stated that snacks had not been provided to nursing staff for delivery, affecting all residents who ate at the facility.
Two residents were found living in rooms with significant pest issues, including ants, rat droppings, and water damage, with staff unaware or slow to address the problems. Maintenance logs were not properly used, and cleaning procedures were not followed, resulting in an environment that was neither clean nor homelike.
A resident with cognitive impairment and heel wounds did not receive six ordered doses of Tramadol for pain due to delays in prescription processing and lack of timely physician contact. Staff were unable to access the emergency stock of the medication because the required prescription was not provided to the pharmacy, and documentation inaccurately reflected medication administration when it had not occurred.
The facility did not maintain appropriate hot water temperatures in multiple resident rooms and shower areas, with observed water temperatures consistently below standard levels. Staff interviews revealed that residents had complained about the lack of hot water for months, and CNAs had to take extra measures to provide warm water for bathing. The facility lacked clear policy parameters and regular monitoring, and administrative staff were unaware of the full extent of the issue due to missing documentation and recent changes in management.
A resident's personal and medical information was exposed when a medication card was left visible in an unlocked shred bin accessible to staff, residents, and the public. Additionally, an LPN used a personal phone and email to send a photo of the resident's prescription to the pharmacy due to lack of access to secure communication systems. Facility staff and management confirmed that secure procedures and policies for handling confidential information were lacking, and shred bins containing sensitive documents were often unlocked, overflowing, and located in unsecured areas.
A resident with psychiatric and cardiac conditions was slapped by another resident with neurological impairments. Although the incident was witnessed and reported internally, there was no documentation or confirmation that the required report was made to state authorities, and no investigation records were found. Staff interviews indicated uncertainty about whether the abuse was properly reported, resulting in a failure to follow mandated abuse reporting procedures.
The facility did not thoroughly investigate allegations of narcotic misappropriation by an LPN and resident-to-resident physical abuse involving two residents. In both cases, required investigative steps such as obtaining statements, conducting interviews, and documenting findings were not completed, and there was no evidence of a comprehensive investigation as mandated by facility policy.
A resident with multiple pressure ulcers did not receive consistent wound care or weekly wound assessments as ordered, with numerous missed treatments documented. The resident was found with maggots in a wound, and staff confirmed inconsistent dressing changes and lack of wound care policies. The facility lacked a designated wound nurse, and leadership was unaware of the incident and did not investigate.
The facility failed to monitor and maintain safe water temperatures, resulting in excessively hot water in two resident rooms, and did not conduct a thorough investigation after a resident fall, with missing documentation such as witness statements and neuro checks. Leadership and staff interviews revealed a lack of access to necessary policies and procedures, and required post-fall assessments were not completed.
The facility failed to promote self-determination for residents dependent on staff for transfer assistance by not ensuring they were out of bed daily and did not provide showers per resident preferences. A resident reported being out of bed only twice since admission, and multiple observations confirmed this. Staff interviews revealed that frequent short-staffing hindered their ability to assist residents as needed.
The facility failed to ensure functional bathroom toilets, lights, and call lights for several residents, leading to unsafe and uncomfortable conditions. One resident had to use a shower room down the hallway due to a clogged toilet, while another experienced consistently cold water and a non-functional bathroom light. Additionally, a resident's call light was unreliable, causing delays in receiving assistance. The Maintenance Director admitted to not conducting regular equipment inspections, relying on staff to report issues.
The facility failed to ensure that residents requiring assistance with ADLs received showers as per policy. Multiple residents were observed with poor hygiene and reported not receiving showers for several weeks. Staffing issues and lack of shower sheets were cited as reasons for the deficiency.
The facility failed to ensure proper bed rail assessments and fall interventions for a resident, leading to multiple falls and injuries. Additionally, the facility did not follow safe mechanical lift transfer protocols, failed to complete smoking assessments for two residents, and did not respond promptly to an exit door alarm, highlighting inadequate supervision and safety measures.
The facility failed to maintain adequate staffing levels, resulting in multiple residents not receiving necessary care. One resident, requiring extensive assistance, was repositioned by a single CNA, contrary to their care plan. Another resident had not received a shower for over a month due to staff shortages. A third resident, dependent on staff for ADLs, was found in an unkempt state and had not received scheduled showers. The Regional Nursing Consultant confirmed the facility's staffing was insufficient to meet care expectations.
The facility failed to ensure proper labeling and storage of medications, with multiple instances of opened, undated, and expired OTC medications found in medication carts and a medication room. An unsteady refrigerator storing insulin pens lacked a temperature log sheet. Staff inconsistencies in maintaining medication storage were noted.
A facility failed to maintain dignity and provide personal privacy for a resident by not covering the resident's catheter drainage bag, which was visible from the hallway. Despite the care plan's directive, the catheter bag was observed uncovered multiple times. Staff acknowledged the oversight and confirmed that the catheter should always be covered.
The facility failed to prevent a physical altercation between two residents, resulting in one resident being struck in the face with a cane and sustaining a skin tear. The incident occurred when one resident entered another's room, causing irritation and leading to the altercation. The facility's investigation confirmed the incident, and staff were instructed to monitor both residents for aggressive behavior.
A resident at risk for skin injury developed multiple open areas on the buttocks and thighs due to moisture and incontinence. The CNAs did not report these skin changes to the nurse, and the wound nurse was not informed until she conducted an assessment. The facility's wound treatment management policy was not followed, leading to a delay in appropriate wound care treatment.
The facility failed to provide consistent restorative services to two residents with limited mobility. One resident did not receive the required splint and range of motion exercises, while another did not have a knee splint applied for several weeks. Staff shortages and the reassignment of restorative aides contributed to the inconsistency.
The facility failed to ensure proper dialysis care and communication for a resident with end-stage renal disease, as there were no physician orders, dialysis provider information, or transportation details documented. Additionally, staff did not provide communication forms to the dialysis provider or assess the dialysis access site before or after treatment.
The facility failed to notify the attending physician about a pharmacy medication regimen review recommendation for a resident with diabetes, resulting in the omission of a recommended HgA1C test. Despite the facility's policy for frequent medication reconciliation, the necessary follow-up actions were not documented or completed.
The facility failed to ensure a gradual dose reduction (GDR) was attempted or documented as contraindicated for two residents receiving psychotropic medications. The necessary documentation for GDR was incomplete and unsigned by the physician, and no GDR attempts had been made, as confirmed by the Regional Nurse Consultant.
The facility failed to ensure accurate documentation and administration of medication for a resident. The LPN marked the MAR as if the medication was given, despite it not being available and not taken from the e-kit. Interviews revealed discrepancies in the medication administration process.
The facility failed to follow infection control practices during personal care for a resident requiring a Foley catheter and did not maintain proper hand hygiene during medication administration for another resident. An LPN reused a washcloth after rinsing it in the sink and handled medications with bare hands, contrary to the facility's policies.
A facility failed to provide a working call light system for a resident, preventing them from calling for assistance. The resident, who was dependent on assistance for daily activities, was observed yelling for help as the call light was not activated. Staff interviews revealed the call light system was unreliable, and the Maintenance Director did not conduct regular inspections, relying on staff to report issues.
The facility failed to post the Nurse Staffing Information daily as required. Observations revealed outdated or missing information, and the Regional Nurse Consultant was unable to provide current staffing details. The facility's policy mandates daily updates in a clear, accessible format, which was not followed.
The facility failed to provide an RN for eight consecutive hours per day, seven days a week, despite having a census of 90 residents. Staffing sheets for specific weekends showed only LPNs were present, with no RN coverage. The Administrator acknowledged the issue, noting the weekend RN was on leave.
A resident with severe cognitive impairment developed a pressure ulcer, but the facility failed to notify the responsible party as required by their policy. Despite documentation of the skin condition changes and new treatment orders by the Wound Nurse, there was no record of family notification, leading to a deficiency.
A resident in an LTC facility was physically abused by another resident who stabbed them in the face with a fork. The incident was unwitnessed by staff and occurred after a disagreement over a vending machine. The resident who committed the act was given an emergency discharge after making a threatening statement. Both residents had diagnoses of dementia, stroke, and depression, but no prior behaviors were noted.
Failure to Maintain Homelike Environment, Adequate Hot Water, and Cleanliness
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to provide a safe, clean, comfortable, and homelike environment by allowing excessively loud door alarms to sound repeatedly throughout the building, including during meal service, without timely staff response. During a dining observation with approximately 30 residents present, a fire exit door alarm sounded at a very loud volume and continued intermittently for several minutes before staff silenced it. Residents in the dining room reported that the alarms sounded constantly and were annoying. The Administrator acknowledged that the alarms had been sounding continuously since she began working at the facility months earlier, and that this was not homelike. The facility also failed to maintain adequate hot water temperatures in multiple resident rooms and bathing areas, affecting residents who were dependent on staff for bathing and personal hygiene. One cognitively intact resident with heart failure and hypertension reported not taking showers lately because the water was cold; observation showed no cold water from the cold tap and hot water measuring only 58.9°F after running for two minutes. Another cognitively intact resident with anxiety, depression, and PTSD stated the facility only had hot water sometimes; observation showed no cold water from the cold tap and hot water at 52.0°F after two minutes. A third cognitively intact resident with renal failure, neurogenic bladder, and paraplegia reported that the water in the room had not worked for several months and that the unit’s shower rooms did not have hot water; observation confirmed the sink water never became warm after several minutes. CNAs reported that some rooms had no hot water since the weather turned cold, that hot water was obtained from an eye wash station for resident care, and that residents on one unit were not receiving regular showers or bed baths due to cold water. Additionally, the facility failed to thoroughly clean one resident’s room and bathroom. Over multiple observations on different days, the perimeter of the room’s walls contained multiple small, dark pellet-like substances scattered along the floor and within crevices near the walls and furniture bases, along with accumulated dirt and debris. The bathroom toilet had visible brown staining and streaking on the exterior porcelain surface, with accumulated dirt and discoloration around the base where it met the flooring, and darkened residue and debris along the perimeter of the toilet base. The flooring immediately surrounding the toilet base was soiled and discolored. The resident reported that housekeeping staff entered and mopped briefly but did not perform a thorough cleaning.
Failure to Designate Grievance Official and Provide Accessible Grievance Process
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to implement its grievance policy by not identifying a grievance official responsible for overseeing the grievance process and not making grievance information and forms readily accessible. The written policy, dated 4/1/2022, specified that the facility would have grievance forms available 24/7 in an unsecured common area, notify residents via postings of their right to file grievances orally, in writing, and anonymously, and identify a Grievance Official (normally the Social Services Director) with name, business address, email, and phone number posted in prominent locations. The policy also stated that staff would assist individuals who could not or chose not to write, and that grievances noted verbally would be recorded on the facility’s grievance form or in the electronic tracking system. During a group interview with eight alert and oriented residents, all residents reported they did not know where grievance forms were located, and six did not know how to file a grievance even if a form were available. All eight residents stated they did not know who the Grievance Official was. The previous Grievance Official had been the Social Worker, but the facility did not have a Social Worker at the time, and six residents reported they did not know who else to go to with grievances or concerns. These resident reports demonstrated a lack of awareness of the grievance process and the designated grievance contact. Surveyor observations over multiple days showed that grievance forms were not readily accessible in unsecured common areas and that there was no visible information posted identifying the Grievance Officer, the location of forms, or how to file grievances orally, in writing, or anonymously. Grievance forms were found in the receptionist’s office, behind a desk in an unmarked folder, and were only provided upon request; the receptionist’s office was locked at night. The front desk staff stated that residents requesting to file a grievance were directed to the receptionist desk for a form and, if assistance was needed, were referred to the Social Worker, who was not employed at that time, and then to the HR office. The HR Manager reported that grievance forms were turned in to her because there was no Social Worker, that she sometimes sought help from the Activity Director, and that unresolved grievances were forwarded to the Administrator or DON. The HR Manager stated she did not know who was designated as the grievance officer and assumed it would be the Social Worker. The Administrator stated she expected signage identifying the Grievance Officer and freely accessible grievance forms, and that the process should allow anonymous grievances, confirming that these elements were not in place during the survey period.
Failure to Provide Bed-Hold Notices and Ombudsman Discharge Notifications
Penalty
Summary
Surveyors identified a deficiency in the facility’s failure to provide residents and/or their representatives with the required bed-hold policy information at the time of transfer to the hospital or as soon as practicable. Record review showed that between 9/1/25 and 2/2/26, 31 residents were transferred to acute care hospitals, yet the facility did not have documentation that the bed-hold policy had been provided for these transfers. During interview, the Administrator stated that floor nurses were responsible for giving the bed-hold policy at the time of transfer and acknowledged that the facility did not have the bed-hold documentation for residents who were transferred to the hospital. Surveyors also found that the facility failed to send copies of discharge notices to the Office of the State LTC Ombudsman as required by the facility’s own Transfer and Discharge policy dated 4/1/22. That policy required that a copy of the discharge notice be sent to the Ombudsman for 30-day facility-initiated discharges, planned discharges and transfers to the hospital initiated by the facility, and unplanned discharges where the facility decided to discharge the resident while hospitalized. Review of Ombudsman notifications showed the last notification was in July 2025, and the Ombudsman representative reported the last transfer log received was from August 2025. The facility also lacked copies of discharge notices after July 2025, despite 15 residents being discharged home and three discharged to another facility during the review period.
Failure to Provide Required Showers and Honor Bathing Preferences
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to ensure residents who required assistance with activities of daily living received showers or baths in accordance with facility policy and resident preferences. The facility’s written policy required that showers or bathing be offered at least twice weekly or per resident/resident representative preference, with schedules developed for each resident and refusals reported to licensed staff. Surveyors requested a shower schedule but none was provided. For one resident with moderate cognitive impairment, impaired mobility, and a care plan specifying limited assistance with showering twice weekly, documentation showed only one shower or bed bath in October, two in November, one in December, and a refusal in January. Observations over several days showed this resident with long, messy, greasy hair, strong body odor, and wearing the same clothes, and the resident reported receiving showers only every two weeks or once a month, citing limited shower room availability and needing staff assistance to access the shower room. Another resident, cognitively intact with renal failure, neurogenic bladder, and paraplegia, required substantial/maximal assistance with bathing and had a care plan indicating a preference for a daily bed bath. Documentation for November and December showed four showers or bed baths each month, and two in January. However, this resident reported that the water in the room had not worked for several months and that shower rooms on the unit did not have hot water, resulting in not being offered showers or bed baths and an inability to recall the last shower. The resident stated a preference for daily shower or bed bath and described an instance when an aide declined to take the resident to another unit for a shower or obtain hot water from another unit, instead documenting a refusal after the resident’s request for hot water was not accommodated. A CNA confirmed that residents on the unit, including this resident, were not being showered regularly due to cold water and were not consistently receiving at least two showers or bed baths per week. A third cognitively intact resident, dependent on staff for bathing and personal care, reported not taking showers lately because the water was cold and instead performing partial “whore baths” at the sink. Review of shower sheets over nearly three months showed 19 opportunities, with only one documented shower, nine bed baths, and nine refusals. Facility leadership, including the DON, ADON, and Administrator, acknowledged that showers or bed baths were to be offered at least twice weekly and that resident choices, including daily bathing preferences, should have been honored. They also acknowledged that some residents may not have received showers or bed baths twice weekly due to inadequate water temperatures, despite the possibility of taking residents to other units for showers or obtaining hot water from other units.
Failure to Maintain Safe and Palatable Food Temperatures During Tray Service
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to ensure that food and drink were served at palatable, attractive, and safe temperatures during tray service. The facility’s own policy, revised 10/1/23, stated that food is to be cooked to specified temperatures and times to mitigate dangerous microorganisms and identified the danger zone for food temperatures as above 41°F and below 135°F. Multiple cognitively intact residents reported dissatisfaction with the food, including one resident with anemia, ulcerative colitis, Crohn’s disease, and inflammatory bowel disease who stated they barely ate the facility’s food and relied on their own snacks, another resident with heart failure and hypertension who said the food tasted bad, a resident with malnutrition who said the food was not good and often arrived cold, and a resident with renal disease and diabetes who said the food was sometimes served cold. Surveyor observations and temperature checks during meal service showed that hot foods were not consistently maintained at or above 120°F and that cold foods were not kept at appropriately cold or frozen temperatures. At one lunch service, lasagna on a tray from the 200 unit was lukewarm, initially 125°F but dropping to 112°F after 15 seconds, coleslaw measured 66°F and appeared wilted, and sherbet was melted. On the 100 unit at another lunch, salad with creamy dressing was warm at 76°F, lasagna was 102.6°F, and rainbow sherbet was mostly melted at 28.2°F. During an evening meal on the 100 unit, an LPN measured chicken bites at 95.4°F, corn at 109.9°F, and a fruit cup at 70.5°F. The Dietary Manager stated she expected food to be served at 135°F when it reached the resident and sherbet to be served frozen, and the Administrator stated she expected food to be served at a safe and appetizing level.
Failure to Follow Enhanced Barrier Precautions and Standard Infection Control Practices During High-Contact Care
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to follow its infection prevention and control program, including Enhanced Barrier Precautions (EBP) and standard precautions, during high-contact care for multiple residents. The facility’s EBP policy required an order for EBP for residents with chronic wounds, indwelling medical devices, or infection/colonization with certain MDROs, clear signage on the door indicating required PPE and high-contact activities, and the use of gown and gloves for high-contact care such as dressing, transferring, providing hygiene, changing linens, and changing briefs or assisting with toileting. The standard precautions policy required assuming every person could be infected or colonized and minimally handling contaminated laundry with appropriate PPE, placing it in leak-proof bags at the location of use. Surveyors observed that these policies were not followed for several residents. One resident with severe cognitive impairment, total dependence for toileting and personal hygiene, and diagnoses including stroke, multiple sclerosis, and altered mental status had an EBP sign and PPE at the room door. A CNA provided incontinence and peri-care without wearing a gown, contrary to the EBP requirement for high-contact care. During this care, the CNA cleaned the resident’s genital area from front to back abdomen (back to front), placed a soiled pad directly on the floor without a barrier, and moved blankets from the resident’s bed to the roommate’s bed and then back to the original resident’s bed. The Assistant DON later stated that peri-care for a female resident should be performed front to back, linens should not be transferred between residents’ beds due to cross contamination, and staff should wear a gown, gloves, and mask as needed for high-contact care. Another resident, cognitively intact but dependent for toileting and personal hygiene and always incontinent of bladder with frequent bowel incontinence, had a physician order for EBP for a chronic wound, with gown and gloves required for high-contact care. An EBP sign and PPE were present on the door. A CNA entered, performed hand hygiene, donned two pairs of gloves but no gown, and provided incontinence care, including cleaning the groin and between the legs. The CNA placed a soiled blanket on the floor without a barrier, used double gloving, and later used a folded blanket as a substitute for a pad, stating the facility had run out of pads. The CNA then picked up linens from the floor and placed them in a trash bag. The ADON stated staff should not double glove, should remove gloves and perform hand hygiene, and should not place soiled linens on the floor. A third resident with moderate cognitive impairment, dependence for toileting and personal hygiene, and diagnoses including stroke and hemiplegia/hemiparesis had an order for EBP for a chronic wound with gown and gloves required for high-contact care. This resident preferred to remain in bed and was totally dependent on staff for toileting and used incontinence products. A CNA provided peri-care while wearing gloves but did not wear a gown, despite the EBP order and high-contact nature of the care. A fourth resident, rarely or never understood, totally dependent for toileting and personal hygiene, always incontinent of bladder and bowel, and with diagnoses including cerebral palsy and gastrostomy status, had a care plan indicating EBP for a g-tube with gown and gloves required for high-contact care, but there was no corresponding physician order for EBP on the physician order sheet. An EBP sign and PPE were on the door, and a CNA provided peri-care wearing gloves but no gown. Additional staff interviews confirmed expectations that conflicted with observed practices. One CNA stated that residents requiring EBP were identified by a sign and PPE at the door and that staff should wear a gown, mask, face shield, and gloves every time they entered the room, remove PPE before exiting, avoid double gloving, place soiled linens in a trash bag rather than on the floor or another resident’s bed, and perform peri-care front to back. Another CNA similarly stated that peri-care should be front to back, staff should not double glove, and soiled linens should be placed in a linen cart or trash bag, and that staff should wear gown, gloves, and mask when providing close contact care to residents. The Administrator stated she expected staff to follow the facility’s infection control policies and procedures. These statements contrasted with the observed failures to use gowns during EBP-required high-contact care, improper handling of soiled linens, improper peri-care technique, and inconsistent implementation of EBP orders and signage.
Failure to Provide and Offer Bedtime Nourishing Snacks
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to provide and offer nourishing bedtime snacks to residents in accordance with its own policy and resident needs and preferences. The facility’s undated Between Meal Snack/Bedtime Nourishments policy required that between-meal snacks and bedtime nourishments be offered to all residents unless contraindicated by a physician’s diet order, and specified that bedtime nourishment must consist of nourishing foods such as milk, 100% fruit juice, cookies, crackers, and fruit. The policy also stated that dietary should develop a snack nourishment stock level for each nursing station and that nursing staff were to pass snacks and nourishments from room to room, with an explicit statement that it was not acceptable to simply announce snacks from the nursing station. Surveyor review of Resident Council meeting minutes showed that residents had previously reported problems with snack availability and distribution. In one meeting, residents were told by a nurse that there were no snacks at the nurse’s desk, and in another, residents reported that dietary was not passing out snacks. During a group interview with eight alert and oriented residents, six reported they were not offered snacks at bedtime, and one reported that snacks were sometimes available at the nurse’s station for residents who could ambulate there, but staff did not come to resident rooms to offer snacks. Observations over several days showed no snacks at the nursing stations on three units. The Dietary Aide confirmed the scheduled meal times, and the Dietary Manager acknowledged that snacks had not been provided to nursing staff for delivery to residents. This deficiency affected all residents who ate at the facility, with a census of 83.
Failure to Maintain Clean, Pest-Free, and Homelike Resident Environment
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to provide a clean, comfortable, and homelike environment for its residents, as evidenced by multiple pest control and maintenance issues in resident rooms. In one instance, a resident with moderately impaired cognition, quadriplegia, and other significant health conditions was found in a room with multiple ants on the floor, in the sink, and on the wall by the sink. The resident's room also had a can of pesticide on the sink, a steadily dripping faucet, dust and debris around storage bins, and a black, fuzzy, wet, and spongy spot on the wall under the air conditioning unit, which transferred residue when touched. Staff interviews revealed a lack of awareness about the ant infestation and uncertainty about the timing of recent pest control visits. The maintenance log at the nurse's station was found to be empty, with no current work orders or requests documented at the time of review. Another resident, who had severely impaired cognition and required substantial assistance with daily activities, was found in a room with several small brown pellets on the floor behind the bed, identified by a family member as rat feces. Observations confirmed the presence of these droppings during multiple visits. Staff interviews indicated that pest control and maintenance issues were not consistently reported or addressed in a timely manner. The housekeeping manager acknowledged awareness of some issues, such as a leaking faucet, but was unaware of the extent of the pest problem and the water damage to the wall. The pest control company was reported to visit frequently, but the last visit could not be recalled. Review of facility policies and procedures for floor care outlined steps for cleaning and maintaining vinyl plank flooring, but observations indicated that these procedures were not being followed, particularly in high-traffic and problem areas. The maintenance log, intended for staff to report issues, was not being utilized effectively, and completed and incomplete work orders were not readily available for review. Interviews with nursing and housekeeping leadership confirmed that cleaning and pest control should be prioritized, but acknowledged delays and lapses in reporting and addressing these deficiencies.
Failure to Timely Process and Administer Ordered Narcotic Pain Medication
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure that services provided met professional standards of quality when staff did not process an ordered narcotic pain medication, Tramadol 50 mg, in a timely manner for a resident with moderate cognitive impairment and heel wounds. The resident was re-admitted with a care plan indicating a risk for pain related to stroke, and interventions included administering pain medication as ordered. Despite a physician order for Tramadol to be given twice daily, the medication was not delivered promptly by the pharmacy, and staff did not promptly contact the physician to ensure the prescription was processed. Documentation in the medical record and Medication Administration Record (MAR) showed that the resident missed a total of six doses of Tramadol over several days. Progress notes indicated that the medication was unavailable and that the pharmacy was waiting for a signed prescription. Staff administered acetaminophen as needed in place of the ordered Tramadol. The facility's emergency stock (e-kit) contained Tramadol, but staff were unable to access it because the pharmacy required a signed prescription before providing the access code. Interviews with staff revealed that the nurse practitioner (NP) who wrote the order did not have a DEA number, which prevented the pharmacy from filling the prescription. The process for obtaining the necessary prescription signatures was not clearly defined, and staff did not have a protocol to ensure timely processing of narcotic orders. The Director of Nursing confirmed that the resident did not receive any Tramadol until several days after the order was written, and that staff had documented administration of the medication when it was not actually available.
Failure to Maintain Adequate Hot Water Temperatures in Resident Areas
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to maintain appropriate water temperatures throughout multiple resident areas, including hallway shower rooms and individual resident rooms. Observations with a calibrated digital thermometer revealed that hot water temperatures in various sinks and shower stalls ranged from 72.4°F to 97.1°F, which is below typical standards for hot water in such settings. Several rooms and shower areas consistently provided water that was not sufficiently warm, and in some cases, shower stalls lacked proper fixtures such as showerheads. The facility's water temperature policy did not specify recommended temperature parameters, and there was no evidence of regular monitoring or documentation of water temperatures. Interviews with staff, including CNAs and the Maintenance Director, indicated ongoing issues with water temperature, with some staff reporting that residents had complained about the lack of hot water for several months. Staff described having to take extra steps, such as running water for extended periods or transporting warm water in bags, to accommodate residents' needs for bathing and personal care. Some staff noted that only a few rooms had access to warm water, and that the problem had persisted for an extended period, affecting both residents who required assistance and those who bathed themselves. Administrative staff, including the Administrator and DON, were not fully aware of the extent of the water temperature issues or the specifics of the facility's water temperature policy. The Maintenance Director was unable to locate maintenance or water temperature logs, and there was confusion regarding policy documentation due to changes in facility ownership and staff turnover. The lack of clear policy parameters, regular monitoring, and documentation contributed to the ongoing deficiency in providing a safe, comfortable, and homelike environment for residents.
Failure to Protect Resident Confidentiality and Secure Medical Records
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to maintain the privacy and confidentiality of a resident's personal and medical records in multiple ways. Identifying information, including a medication card with the resident's name, room number, medication name, and dose, was observed sticking out of an unlocked shred bin located in an area accessible to residents, staff, and the public. The shred bin was not locked, and the area was not secured, allowing anyone to access confidential information. Additional observations revealed that other shred bins in the facility were also full, overflowing, and located in unsecured areas, with confidential resident information visible and accessible. Staff practices further compromised resident confidentiality. An LPN, lacking access to the facility's e-fax system and a work email, used a personal device to take a photo of a resident's medication prescription and then sent it to the pharmacy using a personal email address. This process exposed the resident's name, date of birth, and prescription details. Interviews with facility staff and management confirmed that floor nurses did not have access to secure communication methods for transmitting sensitive information, and there was confusion about proper procedures for sending prescriptions to the pharmacy. The facility did not have a current policy on maintaining the confidentiality of resident medical records available when requested. The administrator and DON acknowledged that the use of personal devices and unsecured email for transmitting resident information, as well as the exposure of confidential documents in unlocked and overflowing shred bins, constituted privacy violations. The facility was also in the process of changing shred companies, and there was uncertainty about when confidential materials were last securely disposed of.
Failure to Report Resident-to-Resident Physical Abuse
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to report an allegation of physical abuse involving one resident who was slapped by another resident. According to the facility's policy, any suspicion or allegation of abuse must be immediately reported to the charge nurse, who is then responsible for notifying the Administrator or Director of Nursing and making the required notifications to state authorities. In this case, documentation showed that a restorative aide informed a nurse that a resident had slapped their roommate. The incident was acknowledged by the resident who was slapped, and the Director of Nursing was notified. The involved residents were separated, and one was sent for psychiatric evaluation. Despite these actions, there was no documentation of a formal investigation or a report being made to the Missouri Department of Health and Senior Services (DHSS) as required by policy. Staff interviews revealed uncertainty about whether the incident was reported to authorities. The Social Services Director and Human Resources Manager both stated they had no direct knowledge of the notification being sent, and there was no evidence or confirmation of a report being filed. The previous Administrator, who was terminated, claimed to have reported the incident but left no documentation or investigation records. The lack of documentation and confirmation of reporting the abuse incident constitutes a failure to follow the facility's abuse investigation and reporting policy. The incident involved residents with significant medical and psychiatric histories, including schizophrenia and stroke-related disabilities. The absence of a documented investigation and notification to authorities represents a deficiency in the facility's response to suspected abuse.
Failure to Investigate Alleged Misappropriation and Resident-to-Resident Abuse
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to thoroughly investigate two separate allegations: one involving misappropriation of property (narcotics) by an LPN, and another involving resident-to-resident physical abuse between two residents. In the case of the alleged misappropriation, the facility's records lacked documentation of a statement from the accused LPN, resident interviews, staff interviews, a summary or conclusion of the incident, or any witness statements. The initial allegation was made by the LPN's significant other, who claimed the LPN possessed prescription bottles and medication cards without names, and the facility administrator notified the police and state authorities. However, there was no evidence that a comprehensive investigation was conducted, as required by facility policy. For the resident-to-resident abuse allegation, the facility failed to document a thorough investigation into an altercation between two residents. The care plans and progress notes indicated a history of physical altercations and behavioral issues, but there was no documentation of a completed investigation, witness interviews, or a summary of findings. Staff interviews revealed that the previous administrator claimed to have notified the state, but there was no confirmation or supporting documentation. Staff members were generally unaware of the details of the incident, and the file related to the incident was found empty after the administrator's departure. Both deficiencies were compounded by a lack of proper documentation and follow-through on required investigative steps, as outlined in the facility's own policies. The absence of statements, interviews, and investigative summaries for both the misappropriation and abuse allegations demonstrates a failure to respond appropriately to alleged violations, as required by federal and state regulations.
Failure to Provide Consistent Wound Care and Assessments Resulting in Maggot Infestation
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure that weekly wound assessments and ordered wound treatments were performed as prescribed for a resident with multiple complex medical conditions, including paraplegia, severe malnutrition, and several pressure ulcers. Documentation revealed that wound care orders, such as the application of Collagenase Ointment and Vashe Wound Solution, were not consistently signed out or completed as required, with numerous missed opportunities recorded on the Medication Administration Record (MAR) and Treatment Administration Record (TAR). Only two weekly wound assessments were documented for the entire month of August, despite expectations for weekly assessments. The lack of consistent wound care and assessment was confirmed by staff interviews, with nurses and the DON acknowledging that if treatments were not signed out on the TAR, they were not done. A significant event occurred when a resident was found with small, white, legless, worm-like organisms (maggots) in their wound and brief during a routine care episode. The CNA and nurse responded by cleaning the wound, changing the dressing, and cleaning the resident and their environment. The resident reported that staff did not change dressings daily as ordered and expressed embarrassment about the incident. Staff interviews confirmed the presence of maggots and noted environmental factors such as food crumbs and flies in the resident's room. The incident was not reported to all relevant nursing staff, and no investigation was initiated by facility leadership. Additionally, the facility did not have wound care or pressure ulcer policies and procedures available to staff. The DON and Administrator both stated they did not have access to such policies, and the DON had not been provided with any. The absence of these policies, combined with the lack of a designated wound nurse and inconsistent documentation and performance of wound care, contributed to the deficiency. The failure to provide appropriate pressure ulcer care and prevent new ulcers had the potential to affect all residents with wounds in the facility.
Failure to Monitor Water Temperatures and Incomplete Fall Investigation
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to monitor and maintain safe water temperatures throughout the building, resulting in hot water in two resident rooms measuring significantly above the required range, with temperatures recorded at 136.5°F and 141.0°F. The maintenance director, who was new to the position, was unable to locate any water temperature logs or maintenance records, and there was no clear policy in place specifying acceptable water temperature parameters. Interviews with staff and residents confirmed that the water in these rooms was very hot, and the maintenance director acknowledged that water temperature checks had not been performed as required. Additionally, the facility did not conduct a complete and thorough investigation following a resident fall. One resident, who was moderately cognitively impaired and had a history of falls, experienced an unwitnessed fall and was subsequently sent to the emergency room for evaluation. Documentation related to the incident was incomplete, as the facility was unable to provide witness statements or neurological check records for the resident. The care plan for this resident indicated multiple previous falls, but no new interventions were added after the most recent incident, and required post-fall assessments and documentation were not completed. Interviews with facility leadership, including the administrator and DON, revealed that they did not have access to the previous company's policies and procedures, including those related to water temperature monitoring and fall investigations. The DON stated that a full and thorough investigation should be completed after every fall, including head-to-toe assessments, pain evaluations, and neuro checks, but these were not documented for the resident in question. The lack of policies, procedures, and documentation contributed to the deficiencies identified during the survey.
Failure to Promote Resident Self-Determination and Provide Adequate Care
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to promote and facilitate self-determination for residents dependent on staff for transfer assistance by not ensuring residents were out of bed daily according to their preferences. Resident #71, who had no cognitive impairment and required extensive assistance for mobility and personal hygiene, reported being out of bed only twice since admission. Multiple observations confirmed the resident remained in bed despite expressing a desire to get up. Staff interviews revealed that the facility was often short-staffed, which hindered their ability to assist residents in getting out of bed as per their preferences. Additionally, the facility did not provide showers or baths according to resident preferences. During a group meeting, five alert and oriented residents reported not being offered at least two showers per week and being told it was not their shower day when they requested one. One resident, who required a mechanical lift for transfers, stated they were often unable to get out of bed due to staff shortages. Staff interviews corroborated that residents did not always receive the required number of showers per week and were not always able to get out of bed daily due to insufficient staffing. The facility's policy on Resident Rights emphasized the importance of promoting self-determination and accommodating resident preferences. However, interviews with the Director of Rehab, LPNs, CNAs, and the Regional Nurse Consultant indicated that the facility's staffing issues frequently prevented them from meeting these standards. The Administrator, DON, and RNC acknowledged that residents should receive at least two showers per week and be up and out of bed daily, but this was not consistently achieved due to staffing constraints.
Facility Fails to Maintain Functional Equipment and Safe Environment
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure a functional bathroom toilet for one resident, resulting in the resident having to use a shower room down the hallway for four out of five days of the survey. The resident reported the issue to staff, but the toilet remained clogged with a dark brown substance and toilet paper floating on the surface. Additionally, the facility failed to ensure functional bathroom lights and comfortable water sink temperature and pressure for two other residents, with one resident's bathroom light not working and the water temperature being consistently cold at 77.5 degrees Fahrenheit. Another resident experienced low water pressure in their sink, causing a very small stream of water to come from the faucet. The facility also failed to ensure a functional call light for one resident, who repeatedly yelled for help but received no response due to the call light not being activated. The resident reported the issue, and a CNA confirmed that the call lights were unreliable. The Maintenance Director admitted to not conducting regular equipment inspections and was unaware of the clogged toilet and other issues. He relied on staff to report broken equipment through a maintenance log binder, which he checked multiple times a week. The Regional Nurse Consultant expected resident room lights to be in working condition and water temperatures to be appropriate. The Maintenance Director was expected to keep a maintenance log to inspect and maintain all resident rooms and patient care equipment in functional condition. However, the lack of regular inspections and immediate repairs led to multiple deficiencies in the facility's environment, impacting the residents' safety, comfort, and dignity.
Failure to Provide Adequate Shower Care
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure that residents who required assistance with activities of daily living (ADL) care received showers in accordance with their personal needs. Eight residents were identified as not receiving showers as per the facility's policy. The facility's Resident Showers Policy mandates that residents be provided showers as per request or facility schedule protocols, and partial baths may be given between regular showers. However, observations and interviews revealed that residents were not receiving the required three showers per week due to staffing issues, and there were no shower sheets available for documentation. Resident #19, who had severe cognitive impairment and was dependent on staff for ADLs, was observed multiple times with dirty and long nails, disheveled hair, and a strong urine odor. The resident's fitted sheet had dried blood stains, and the incontinence brief was wet and soiled. Despite these conditions, the resident had not received a shower recently, and staff failed to provide timely care. Similar observations were made for Resident #17, who was cognitively intact but required substantial assistance with ADLs. The resident had long and dirty nails and emitted a strong scent of urine, indicating a lack of proper hygiene care. Other residents, including Resident #15, Resident #51, Resident #35, Resident #78, Resident #39, and Resident #50, also reported not receiving showers for several weeks. These residents expressed their desire for showers and dissatisfaction with the bed baths or wipe-downs provided by the staff. The Regional Nurse Consultant (RNC) confirmed the lack of shower sheets for these residents, further highlighting the facility's failure to adhere to its shower policy. The Administrator and RNC acknowledged that each resident should receive a shower twice a week and that bed baths with wipes are not considered adequate substitutes for showers.
Failure to Ensure Resident Safety and Proper Supervision
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure proper bed rail assessments and fall interventions for a resident, leading to multiple falls and injuries. Resident #71, who was cognitively intact and required full staff care for ADLs, experienced several falls due to inadequate bed rail maintenance and insufficient staff assistance. Despite having a physician's order for bed rails, the resident's bed rail was broken and not repaired, resulting in the resident falling out of bed multiple times. Additionally, the facility was frequently short-staffed, which contributed to the lack of timely assistance and supervision for the resident, further exacerbating the risk of falls and injuries. The facility also failed to ensure safe mechanical lift transfers for three residents. Observations revealed that staff did not follow the policy requiring two staff members to assist with mechanical lift transfers. In several instances, residents were left suspended in the air without proper support, and the mechanical lift equipment was not inspected for functionality before use. This negligence in following safe transfer protocols put the residents at risk of injury during transfers. Furthermore, the facility did not complete smoking assessments for two residents, allowing them to keep smoking materials in their rooms unsupervised. This was against the facility's policy, which required smoking materials to be stored by nursing staff and only provided to residents as needed. Additionally, staff failed to respond promptly to an exit door alarm, which had been malfunctioning for a month. The lack of timely response and proper headcount procedures during the alarm further highlighted the facility's inadequate supervision and safety measures for residents at risk of elopement.
Inadequate Staffing Leading to Deficient Resident Care
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to maintain appropriate and competent staffing to adequately provide resident care and meet resident needs. This deficiency was observed through various instances involving multiple residents. For example, Resident #71, who required extensive assistance for bed mobility and personal hygiene, was observed being repositioned in bed by a single CNA, contrary to the care plan that required two staff members. The resident and their family expressed concerns about insufficient staffing and lack of timely assistance, including an incident where the resident fell out of bed and had to rely on a family member to get help before staff arrived. Additionally, the facility was noted to be short-staffed, with one LPN covering multiple halls and having to find additional staff to assist with mechanical lifts, further indicating inadequate staffing levels to meet resident needs effectively. Resident #39, who required moderate assistance with bathing, reported not having had a shower for over a month due to staff shortages. The resident's hair appeared unkempt, and staff confirmed that there were not enough personnel to provide showers regularly. Similarly, Resident #50, who also required moderate assistance with bathing, had not received a shower in over a month and was only given wipe-downs with wet wipes or washcloths due to the lack of staff. These observations highlight the facility's failure to provide basic hygiene care as per the residents' needs and care plans. Resident #19, who was severely cognitively impaired and dependent on staff for ADLs, was found in an unkempt state, emitting a scent of urine, and had not received a shower recently. The CNA responsible for the resident confirmed that residents were not receiving the scheduled three showers per week due to staffing issues. The Regional Nursing Consultant acknowledged the expectation for two staff to provide care for residents requiring it and for showers to be given as scheduled. However, the facility's staffing levels were insufficient to meet these expectations, leading to the observed deficiencies in resident care.
Medication Storage and Labeling Deficiencies
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure drugs and biologicals were labeled and stored in accordance with acceptable standards of practice. During observations, multiple medication carts and a medication room were found with opened, undated, and expired over-the-counter (OTC) medications. Additionally, a refrigerator storing unopened insulin pens was found unsteady and leaning sideways, with a thermometer stuck in the freezer and no temperature log sheet observed. The facility's Medication Storage Policy mandates proper labeling, storage, and temperature control of medications, which was not adhered to in these instances. On Hall 300, opened OTC medication bottles were found with expired dates, and some were undated. Similar issues were observed on Hall 100, where multiple opened OTC medication bottles were also expired or undated. The treatment cart on Hall 400-500 contained opened tubes of medications that were either expired or undated. Additionally, the medication cart on Hall 400-500 had multiple opened OTC medication bottles that were undated but within the current expiration date. Interviews with staff revealed inconsistencies in maintaining and organizing medication carts and rooms. A Certified Medication Technician (CMT) admitted to using undated medications as long as they were not expired and acknowledged the lack of consistency due to staff changes. The Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON) confirmed that the night shift nurse was responsible for maintaining the refrigerator temperature record, which was missing in the Hall 400-500 medication room. The Regional Nurse Consultant expected staff to date medications when opened and check expiration dates before administration, which was not consistently practiced.
Failure to Maintain Resident Dignity and Privacy
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to maintain dignity and provide personal privacy for a resident when staff did not place a cover over the resident's half-full catheter drainage bag, which was visible from the hallway through the resident's open room door. This deficiency was observed multiple times over several days. The resident, who was cognitively intact and used a wheelchair, had a suprapubic catheter due to a neurogenic bladder and required dependent assistance for toileting hygiene. The resident's care plan specifically included an intervention to ensure the catheter bag was covered to maintain the resident's dignity. Despite the care plan's directive, observations on four separate occasions showed the catheter bag was not covered. Interviews with multiple Licensed Practical Nurses (LPNs) and the Regional Nursing Consultant confirmed that the catheter should have been covered and that staff were expected to follow the resident's care plan. The failure to cover the catheter bag was acknowledged by the staff, who admitted that the catheter should always be covered to respect the resident's dignity and privacy.
Resident-to-Resident Altercation Resulting in Injury
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure a resident's right to be free from abuse was not violated when two residents were involved in a physical altercation. Resident #3, who has severe cognitive impairment and uses a wheelchair independently, was struck in the face with a cane by Resident #76, resulting in a skin tear to the forehead. Resident #76, who has moderate cognitive impairment and ambulates independently, admitted to twirling the cane when Resident #3 got too close, leading to the injury. The incident occurred when Resident #3 entered Resident #76's room, causing irritation to Resident #76, who then struck Resident #3 with the cane. The facility's investigation revealed that the charge nurse observed Resident #3 with blood on the forehead and immediately separated the residents. The physician, Administrator, resident representatives, and DON were notified, and both residents were sent to the emergency room for evaluation. Resident #3's hospital visit summary showed no intracranial injury. Interviews with staff indicated that Resident #76 had a history of verbal aggression, but there were no prior conflicts between the two residents. The Social Services Director confirmed that staff were instructed to monitor both residents for aggressive behavior following the incident. The facility's policy on abuse, neglect, and exploitation mandates the protection of residents from all types of abuse and requires immediate intervention in situations where abuse is likely to occur. Despite these policies, the facility failed to prevent the altercation between the two residents, resulting in physical harm to Resident #3. The incident was substantiated, and the facility's response included monitoring both residents and updating their care plans to prevent future occurrences.
Failure to Report and Address Skin Impairment
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure a resident at risk for skin injury did not develop skin impairment. The staff did not report the skin impairment to the nurse when it was discovered. The resident, who had multiple diagnoses including diabetes, asthma, and morbid obesity, was found to have open areas on the buttocks and thighs due to moisture and incontinence. Despite having orders for barrier cream and wound consults, the resident's skin issues were not documented or reported in a timely manner. During observations and interviews, it was revealed that the resident had open areas on the buttocks and thighs, which were not reported to the nurse by the CNAs. The wound nurse, who had been in the position for two weeks, was not informed of the resident's skin issues until she conducted an assessment. The resident's skin condition included multiple areas of shearing and a Stage II wound with serosanguineous drainage. Additionally, the resident had an ingrown toenail that was not previously addressed. The facility's wound treatment management policy required that wound treatments be provided according to physician orders and that any changes in skin condition be reported immediately to the nurse. However, the CNAs did not report the resident's skin changes, and the weekly skin assessments did not reflect the resident's current condition. The LPN confirmed that aides are expected to report changes immediately, but this protocol was not followed, leading to a delay in appropriate wound care treatment for the resident.
Failure to Provide Consistent Restorative Services
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure residents with limited mobility received appropriate services, equipment, and assistance to maintain or improve mobility for two residents. Resident #19 had an order for occupational therapy to evaluate and treat a right-hand splint, but there was no documentation of restorative services being provided. Observations showed the resident lying in bed with a contracted right hand and no splint. Interviews with CNAs revealed that the resident was supposed to receive restorative services daily, but these services were not consistently provided due to staff being pulled to the floor to provide care. The resident confirmed that the splint was applied for the first time during the survey period. Resident #35 had contractures to both upper and lower limbs and was supposed to receive restorative therapy, including the application of a right knee extension splint. However, observations and interviews indicated that the resident had not received any restorative therapy for several weeks, and the splint had not been applied. The resident confirmed the lack of restorative services, and staff interviews corroborated that restorative aides were often reassigned to other duties due to staffing shortages. Interviews with the Director of Rehabilitation, the Regional Nurse Consultant, the Director of Nursing, and the Administrator confirmed that the facility's restorative nursing program was inconsistent. The facility had not had a stable Director of Nursing for several months, and the restorative aides were frequently pulled to work the floor, preventing them from providing consistent restorative services. The facility acknowledged the deficiency in their restorative nursing program.
Failure to Ensure Proper Dialysis Care and Communication
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure that a resident who received routine dialysis treatment had physician orders in place and consistent communication with the dialysis provider. The resident, who was cognitively intact and had diagnoses including heart failure, end-stage renal disease, and lung disease, did not have dialysis orders, dialysis provider information, or transportation details documented in the Physician Order Sheet. Additionally, the facility staff did not provide communication forms to the dialysis provider and did not assess the dialysis access site before or after treatment, as confirmed by the resident and the Regional Nurse Consultant. The facility's hemodialysis policy required ongoing assessment of the resident's condition, communication with the dialysis provider, and documentation of dialysis treatments and physician orders. However, these requirements were not met for the resident, as there were no dialysis communication forms in the medical record, and the dialysis orders were missed on the POS. The Regional Nurse Consultant acknowledged that the resident was admitted after an audit and that the dialysis orders were overlooked. The Charge Nurse was expected to catch the missing dialysis order, and communication forms should have been sent with and returned with the resident following each treatment.
Failure to Notify Physician of Pharmacy Recommendations
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to notify the attending physician about the pharmacy medication regimen review recommendation for a resident. The resident, who had no cognitive impairment and was diagnosed with depression, anxiety disorder, and paraplegia, was on a regimen that included Novolin N FlexPen and Humalog KwikPen for diabetes management. The pharmacy review recommended a HgA1C test for baseline and subsequent monitoring every six months due to insulin therapy. However, there was no documentation in the resident's medical record indicating that the physician was notified of this recommendation, nor was the HgA1C test completed. The facility's Medication Reconciliation policy mandates frequent medication reconciliation to ensure residents are free from significant medication errors and that the facility's medication error rate remains below 5 percent. Despite this policy, the review of the resident's progress notes and medical records showed a lack of follow-through on the pharmacy's recommendations. During an interview, the Regional Nursing Consultant confirmed that nursing staff are expected to notify the physician of any pharmacy medication regimen review recommendations and follow any subsequent orders, which did not occur in this case.
Failure to Document or Attempt Gradual Dose Reduction for Psychotropic Medications
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure a gradual dose reduction (GDR) was attempted or documented as contraindicated for two residents receiving psychotropic medications. Resident #19 had an order for Sertraline, an antidepressant, but there was no documentation indicating an attempt to reduce the dose or a justification for not doing so. The resident's care plan included the use of antidepressant medication for depression, but the necessary documentation for GDR was incomplete and unsigned by the physician. Similarly, Resident #17 had an order for Quetiapine, an antipsychotic, but the required documentation for GDR was also incomplete and unsigned. The resident's care plan included the use of psychotropic medications, but there was no follow-up on the GDR as expected. During an interview, the Regional Nurse Consultant confirmed that no GDR attempts had been made for these residents. The facility had recently hired a new Director of Nursing, who started shortly before the survey. The consultant expected that GDR should have been followed up on, but it was not done for these residents. The facility's failure to document or attempt GDR for these residents receiving psychotropic medications constitutes a deficiency in care.
Failure to Accurately Document and Administer Medication
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure medical records were accurately documented in accordance with acceptable professional standards of practice when staff documented the administration of a medication for a resident, despite the medication not being available. The resident, who was cognitively intact and had multiple diagnoses including anemia, high blood pressure, ulcerative colitis, kidney disease, diabetes, high cholesterol, stroke, seizures, and depression, was prescribed Linzess to be taken orally every Monday, Wednesday, and Friday for constipation. On the observed date, the medication was not found on the medication cart, and the LPN indicated they would reorder it from the pharmacy. However, the LPN later claimed the medication was taken from the facility's emergency kit, which was not accurate as the medication was not listed in the e-kit inventory. Despite this, the MAR was marked as if the medication had been administered at the scheduled time. Interviews with the LPN, pharmacist, ADON, and RNC revealed discrepancies in the medication administration process. The pharmacist confirmed that the medication was refilled later that night and was not part of the e-kit. The ADON and RNC both stated that if the MAR was initialed, it indicated that the medication was given, which was not the case here. This failure to accurately document and administer medication as per the facility's protocol and professional standards led to the identified deficiency.
Infection Control and Medication Handling Deficiencies
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to follow acceptable infection control practices during personal care for a resident who required a Foley catheter insertion. The Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) used a washcloth to clean the resident's groin area but rinsed the washcloth in the sink and reused it multiple times, which is against the facility's infection control policy. The resident had a history of irregular heartbeat, diabetes, stroke, and one-sided paralysis, and required full hygiene care from the staff. The LPN acknowledged that a fresh washcloth should have been used instead of rinsing and reusing the same one in the sink. Additionally, the facility failed to maintain proper hand hygiene during medication administration for another resident. An LPN handled medications with bare hands and did not sanitize their hands before or after touching the medications. The LPN also picked up spilled tablets from the medication cart with bare hands and returned them to the container, which is against the facility's medication administration policy. The resident involved was cognitively impaired and had multiple diagnoses, including heart failure, high blood pressure, diabetes, Alzheimer's disease, and asthma. Interviews with staff, including the Regional Nurse Consultant, confirmed that the actions observed were not in compliance with the facility's infection control and medication administration policies. The staff acknowledged that washcloths should not be rinsed and reused, and spilled or dropped medications should be destroyed and replaced, not touched with bare hands. The facility's policies clearly outline the importance of hand hygiene and proper handling of medications to prevent contamination and infection.
Failure to Provide Working Call Light System
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to provide a working call light system for a resident, which prevented the resident from calling for staff assistance. The resident, who had no cognitive impairment and was dependent on assistance for activities of daily living, was observed yelling for help because the call light was not activated. The resident's care plan emphasized the need for the call light to be within reach and for prompt response to requests for assistance. However, the call light system was found to be non-functional during the surveyor's observation. Interviews with staff revealed that the call light system was unreliable, with some lights not working properly. The Maintenance Director admitted to not conducting regular equipment inspections and relied on staff to report broken equipment through a maintenance log binder. The Regional Nursing Consultant expected the call lights to be functional and for the Maintenance Director to maintain a log and inspect the call lights regularly. The facility's policies required a safe and functional environment, including a working nurse call system in resident rooms and toilet/bathing facilities, which was not upheld in this case.
Failure to Post Daily Nurse Staffing Information
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to post the Nurse Staffing Information on a daily basis as required by their policy. Observations on two separate dates revealed that the Nurse Staffing Information was either outdated or missing entirely. On 4/15/24, the posted information was dated 4/8 and 4/10, and it was placed in a location that was not easily accessible, being approximately 6 feet or higher from the ground. On 4/18/24, no Nurse Staffing Information was posted at the same location where it was previously observed. During an interview on 4/18/24, the Regional Nurse Consultant (RNC) stated that the Nurse Staffing Information was supposed to be updated and posted according to the facility's policy. However, the RNC was unable to show or provide the current information. The facility's policy mandates that the Daily Staffing Sheet should be posted at the beginning of each shift in a clear and readable format, in a prominent place readily accessible to residents and visitors, and should reflect any staff absences due to callouts and illness. The failure to adhere to this policy led to the deficiency noted in the report.
Failure to Provide RN Coverage
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to provide a Registered Nurse (RN) for eight consecutive hours per day, seven days a week, despite maintaining a census of greater than 60 residents, specifically 90 residents. This deficiency was identified through a review of the facility's staffing sheets for specific weekends, including 11/19/23, 11/20/23, 11/25/23, 11/26/23, and 12/3/23, which showed that only Licensed Practical Nurses (LPNs) were staffed, with no RN present on these days. During an interview on 12/19/23, the Administrator acknowledged the lack of RN coverage on weekends, attributing it to the weekend RN being on leave, which she realized upon returning from vacation. This oversight had the potential to affect all residents in the facility.
Failure to Notify Responsible Party of Pressure Ulcer Development
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to notify a resident's responsible party after the development of a pressure ulcer. The resident, who had severe cognitive impairment and required total assistance for all activities of daily living, was at risk for skin integrity issues due to impaired mobility, incontinence, and other health conditions. Despite the facility's policy on pressure injury prevention and management, which included notifying the responsible party of any new skin breakdown, there was no documentation showing that the responsible party was informed of the changes in the resident's skin condition. The resident's progress notes indicated the development of a pressure ulcer and subsequent changes in skin condition, including moisture-associated skin dermatitis with eschar tissue. The Wound Nurse documented these changes and obtained new treatment orders, but failed to notify the responsible party. Interviews with facility staff, including the Wound Nurse and Director of Nurses, confirmed that it was the Wound Nurse's responsibility to notify the family of such changes, yet this was not done, leading to the deficiency.
Resident-to-Resident Physical Abuse Incident
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure that a resident was free from physical abuse, as evidenced by an incident involving two residents. On November 30, 2023, one resident stabbed another in the face with a fork in the common area/dining room. The altercation was unwitnessed by staff, and the incident was reported to local authorities and the state entity. The resident who was attacked had a history of stroke, dementia, and depression, with cognitive impairment but no prior behaviors noted. The resident who committed the act had diagnoses of dementia, stroke, and depression, with no cognitive impairment or prior behaviors noted. The incident occurred when the resident who committed the act felt disrespected after the other resident was in front of a vending machine and refused to move. This led to the resident pulling a fork from their pocket and striking the other resident in the face. The altercation resulted in a small scratch on the victim's left cheek, and the resident who committed the act was given an emergency discharge after expressing a threat to kill the other resident. Interviews with staff and residents revealed that there were no known prior issues between the two residents involved in the altercation. The Director of Nurses and the Administrator both expressed surprise at the incident, as both residents were generally friendly and got along with others. The facility's abuse prevention policy outlines the commitment to protecting residents from abuse and the procedures for reporting and investigating such incidents.
Latest citations in Missouri
Staff failed to protect a cognitively intact, independent resident from sexual abuse when a CNA repeatedly entered the resident’s room when the roommate was absent or asleep, hugged the resident, and kissed the resident on the mouth without the resident’s initiation or encouragement. A housekeeper observed the CNA return to the resident’s room, then saw the CNA and the resident in a full hug with the CNA kissing the resident on the mouth through a partially open door, and reported the incident. The resident later reported that these contacts were inappropriate and made the resident uncomfortable, while the CNA admitted to hugging the resident but denied kissing and believed hugging was not inappropriate, despite the facility’s abuse policy defining sexual abuse as any non-consensual sexual contact and requiring immediate reporting of abuse allegations.
Staff failed to report an allegation of sexual abuse to state authorities within the required two-hour timeframe after a cognitively intact resident with multiple psychiatric diagnoses reported being forced to touch another resident’s genitals in a dining room. A CNA observed the contact and notified an LPN, who separated the residents and obtained conflicting accounts, including a statement from the alleged victim that the act was forced. The facility’s investigation documented the allegation but did not show timely notification to the Department of Health and Senior Services, and state records confirmed the report was not made until more than 24 hours later. In interviews, the administrator stated the event was viewed as consensual and linked to the residents’ prior sexual history, while the LPN reported having informed the administrator the same day that the resident said the act was forced.
A resident with Alzheimer’s disease, severe cognitive impairment, and identified elopement risk was housed on a secured unit but was able to leave the building unnoticed when a floor tech exited through a coded door without ensuring it closed and no one followed. Staff last observed the resident near the nurses’ station and dining room, and when a CMT attempted to pass medications later, the resident could not be found, triggering a Code Pink and search. Multiple staff reported that the door alarm did not sound that night and that the door could be opened by pushing on it for several seconds or by using a code without an alarm. The facility’s investigation determined the door between the rehab and secured units was not securely closed after staff use, allowing the resident to elope and later be found in the community by EMS and transported to the ER without documented injury.
Facility staff did not fully develop or implement a comprehensive water management program to control Legionella and other waterborne pathogens. Although a written policy and an undated Water Management Plan existed, they lacked key elements such as a documented water management team, evidence of monthly monitoring review, documentation of baseline or annual Legionella testing, and specific guidance for identified high-risk areas like dead legs and unused bathrooms. Water temperature, pH, chlorine, and total dissolved solids were checked intermittently in random rooms without clearly identifying locations or consistently including all high-risk areas. The maintenance director reported flushing lines frequently but documenting checks only biweekly and not testing for Legionella, and was unfamiliar with the specific high-risk areas in the plan. Leadership, including the Regional Administrator, owner, and administrator, demonstrated limited knowledge of who performed Legionella testing, how the plan should be implemented, and the specific risk areas, control measures, and corrective actions required.
Staff failed to follow the facility’s emergency transfer/discharge policy when they discharged a resident to a local hospital for safety reasons and refused to allow the resident to return. The resident had been in the facility less than 24 hours, refused care, and made threats that scared staff, leading the administrator to authorize an immediate emergency discharge. Documentation included a progress note and an Immediate Discharge Notice listing the hospital as the discharge location for resident and staff safety, despite the administrator acknowledging that a hospital is not an appropriate discharge location. These actions resulted in the resident being discharged to a hospital without an appropriate emergency discharge notice that ensured the transfer met the resident’s needs/preferences and prepared the resident for a safe transfer/discharge.
A resident with significant GI history, chronic anemia, and recurrent constipation had physician orders and facility protocols requiring close bowel movement (BM) monitoring and a stepwise bowel regimen, as well as multiple medications for GI conditions, constipation, and other comorbidities. Staff failed to consistently document BMs, did not implement ordered bowel interventions when BMs were absent for several consecutive days, and delayed notifying the physician until the resident had gone multiple days without a BM and developed coffee‑ground emesis, leading to hospital evaluation where fecal impaction and stercoral colitis were documented. The care plan was not updated to reflect increased BM monitoring after a prior hospitalization for constipation/impaction, and the TAR showed missed documentation of ordered BM checks. In addition, the MAR showed repeated refusals of numerous medications throughout the month, including GI, cardiac, constipation, and psychiatric drugs, yet there was no documentation that the physician was notified of these frequent refusals, despite facility policy requiring reporting of medication refusals.
Surveyors found that the facility failed to keep call lights within reach for two residents, despite a policy requiring accessible call lights and frequent checks for those unable to use them. One resident, with multiple medical conditions, an above‑knee amputation, moderate cognitive impairment, and a history of numerous falls, was repeatedly observed asleep in a wheelchair by the bed with the call light on the floor or under the bed, and the care plan did not address the resident’s falls or related interventions. Another resident with Alzheimer’s disease, dementia, contractures of all extremities, and hospice care needs was observed lying in bed with the call light at the foot of the bed or under the bed, out of reach, even though the care plan specified the call light should be within reach. Staff, including an LPN, a CNA, the Administrator, and the DON, all stated that call lights should always be within reach for all residents, and that frequent rounding was expected when residents could not use the call light, confirming that practice did not align with stated expectations.
A non-verbal resident with severely impaired cognition and total dependence for ADLs was seated in a WC with an arm looped around the WC handle when a CNA/restorative aide repeatedly attempted to reposition the arm to the front. Despite the resident’s non-verbal refusals and resistance, the aide pried the resident’s fingers from the WC wheel, grabbed the arm, and forcefully jerked it forward, causing the resident’s body to lurch and nearly fall from the chair. Video review showed the aide tugging and pulling on the arm multiple times as the resident refused further assistance, and a staff witness reported the aide was yelling and grabbing at the resident while the resident fought to get free. The resident later stated staff were rough and that he/she was afraid. These actions, inconsistent with the resident’s care plan and the facility’s abuse policy, resulted in a finding that the resident was subjected to physical abuse.
Two residents with significant risk factors for skin breakdown did not receive consistent, accurately documented wound care. One resident with multiple comorbidities and existing pressure-related wounds had no skin or wound interventions on the care plan, lacked an EMR order for a newly identified ankle wound, and had numerous missed or undocumented treatments for buttocks, hip, and ankle wounds, including barrier creams and Medi Honey applications. Another high-risk resident with a low Braden score had no skin-related care plan, an ankle wound that was reported as healed while MAR/TAR entries continued, weekly skin checks documented as normal despite an active ankle dressing, and a right ankle wound that went unreported in shift report until surveyors observed an outdated dressing; subsequent documentation by the wound specialist and facility conflicted on the wound’s type and measurements. The DON later confirmed expectations that staff follow wound policies, enter and document orders and refusals in the EMR, and update care plans, which were not met in these cases.
The facility failed to implement and document effective fall interventions for a resident with an above‑knee amputation, lower extremity impairment, and a history of multiple witnessed and unwitnessed falls related to attempting independent transfers. Although the care plan noted general assistance needs, it did not address the repeated falls or specify individualized fall‑prevention measures, and fall investigations recorded no new interventions despite ongoing events. Surveyors observed the resident in a wheelchair by the bed multiple times with the call light out of reach on the floor. In addition, the facility did not complete a required smoking safety assessment for a resident with Huntington’s disease, weakness, and moderately impaired cognition, even though this resident was observed smoking outside and facility policy required a smoking assessment at admission to determine needed supervision.
Failure to Protect a Resident From Non-Consensual Sexual Contact by CNA
Penalty
Summary
Facility staff failed to protect a cognitively intact resident from sexual abuse when a CNA engaged in non-consensual physical contact. The resident’s quarterly MDS showed the resident was cognitively intact and care plan indicated independence with ADLs. On the morning in question, a housekeeper observed the CNA go to the nurses’ station from the direction of the resident’s room, look around, then quickly return to the resident’s room. When the housekeeper approached to clean the room, the door was slightly open; after a quiet knock and looking in, the housekeeper saw the CNA and the resident in a full hug, with the CNA kissing the resident on the mouth. The housekeeper then reported this observation to another housekeeper, who in turn reported it to the administrator. The facility’s abuse and neglect policy defined sexual abuse as non-consensual sexual contact of any type with a resident and required immediate reporting of all abuse allegations to the administrator. In a written statement, the CNA acknowledged going to the resident’s room and hugging the resident, claiming it was to comfort the resident, and denied kissing the resident, stating that hugging residents was not considered inappropriate. In contrast, the resident documented and later stated in interviews that the CNA had repeatedly come into the room when the roommate was absent or asleep to hug and kiss the resident, that these actions were not initiated or encouraged by the resident, and that the resident felt uncomfortable and did not want to be kissed. The resident also reported not disclosing these incidents earlier due to concern about how the CNA might treat the resident and the resident’s friends.
Failure to Timely Report Allegation of Sexual Abuse to State Authorities
Penalty
Summary
Facility staff failed to report an allegation of sexual abuse to the Department of Health and Senior Services (DHSS) within the required two-hour timeframe. The facility’s abuse, neglect, exploitation, and misappropriation prevention program, revised April 2021, states staff will identify and investigate all possible incidents of abuse, neglect, mistreatment, or misappropriation of resident property and report any allegations within timeframes required by federal requirements. Resident #1, assessed as cognitively intact on a quarterly MDS dated 2/12/26, had diagnoses including schizoaffective disorder, bipolar type, major depressive disorder, generalized anxiety disorder, and bipolar disorder. On 3/29/26, CNA A reported to LPN B that Resident #1 was seen touching Resident #2’s privates in the main dining room; CNA A separated the residents, and LPN B interviewed both residents. Resident #1 stated Resident #2 forced him/her to touch his/her privates, while Resident #2 denied the allegation. The facility’s investigation, dated 3/30/26, documented that Resident #1 reported assisting Resident #2 in playing with his/her privates but stated he/she was forced to assist. The investigation record did not show that facility staff contacted DHSS within the required two-hour timeframe after the allegation was reported. Review of the DHSS database confirmed that the facility did not report the allegation of sexual abuse until more than 24 hours after Resident #1 made the allegation. During interviews, the administrator stated he/she would have reported within two hours if the act was not consensual and claimed he/she was not informed that Resident #1 said he/she was forced until 3/30/26, characterizing the situation as involving residents with a past sexual history who were upset because they were caught. However, LPN B stated that on 3/29/26 at 10:12 A.M. he/she called the administrator and explained in detail that Resident #1 said he/she was forced into the sexual act, and that the administrator responded that the residents had a sexual history, so it was okay.
Failure to Secure Door and Supervise Wanderer Resulting in Elopement
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to ensure a secured unit door was properly secured and supervised, allowing an at-risk resident to exit the building unnoticed. The resident had Alzheimer’s disease, an anxiety disorder, hearing loss, and was assessed as severely cognitively impaired on the MDS. An Elopement Risk Evaluation identified the resident as ambulatory, wandering aimlessly, and at risk for elopement, and the care plan documented that the resident was on a secured unit with impaired cognitive function. Despite this, the resident was last seen around the nurses’ station and dining room in the early evening and was not continuously monitored in a way that prevented unsupervised access to an exit door. On the evening of the incident, staff reported seeing the resident around 8:00–8:10 p.m. near the nurses’ station and dining room. A CMT later attempted to pass medications to the resident at approximately 8:30 p.m. and discovered the resident was not in their room, prompting a Code Pink and an internal search of the unit and facility. Staff, including the CMT and CNA, reported that the door alarm did not sound the night the resident left, and that previously the door could be opened by pushing on it for several seconds, or by using a code, without an alarm sounding. The Administrator and DON stated that prior to the elopement, the doors were configured so that pushing and holding the bar for 15–20 seconds would open the door and trigger an alarm, but staff did not hear an alarm at the time of the incident. A floor tech working on the secured unit acknowledged exiting through the coded door between the rehab and secured units during the relevant time frame and not checking whether anyone was following or whether the door clicked shut behind them, despite prior training to watch the door for residents attempting to leave. The facility’s investigation concluded that the entry door to the facility was not securely closed after staff exited the unit, creating an opportunity for unauthorized egress, and determined that the resident exited through the door between the rehab and secured unit. The resident was later found by EMS approximately 1.5 miles from the facility, wandering and only alert to self, and was transported to the hospital, where no injuries were documented. The nurse practitioner noted the resident was a wanderer, fairly new to the facility, and expected staff to check on the resident every one to two hours.
Incomplete Legionella Water Management and Monitoring Program
Penalty
Summary
Facility staff failed to develop and implement complete policies and procedures for inspection, testing, and maintenance of the facility’s water systems to inhibit the growth of waterborne pathogens, including Legionella. CMS guidance (QSO-17-30) requires certified healthcare facilities to have water management policies and procedures, including a facility risk assessment, a water management program aligned with ASHRAE standards and CDC toolkit, specified testing protocols with acceptable ranges and documentation of results and corrective actions, and compliance with applicable regulations. The facility’s Legionella Infection policy, dated 03/05/20, stated these requirements but the actual implementation and supporting documents did not meet them. Review of the facility’s Water Management Plan showed it included a risk assessment that identified several high-risk areas, such as dead legs in specific rooms and departments, empty resident room bathrooms, and low-rise floor sinks in housekeeping closets. The plan stated that environmental testing would be conducted if there was difficulty maintaining water systems within control limits or if a healthcare-associated Legionella case occurred, and it instructed staff to perform baseline Legionella testing at four specified sites. However, the plan lacked a list of designated water management team members, documentation of monthly review of scheduled monitoring, documentation of baseline or annual Legionella testing, and specific guidance related to the identified high-risk areas. The facility’s Infection Prevention and Control Program, dated 04/10/19, did not contain information related to Legionella. Record review of the Resident Room Water Temperature and Checklist for a three-month period showed staff tested water temperatures in random resident rooms on both wings and also tested water pH, chlorine, and total dissolved solids, but did not indicate the testing locations or include results for all identified high-risk areas. In interviews, the maintenance director reported flushing resident room water lines almost daily but only documenting water checks every two weeks, testing pH and chlorine every two weeks, and not testing for Legionella; the director was familiar with the water management plan only generally and was not familiar with the specific high-risk areas. The Regional Administrator stated the facility should have annual Legionella testing but did not know who conducted it. The owner indicated that corporate maintained a template Water Management Policy but that the facility administrator was responsible for developing and implementing a facility-specific plan. The administrator stated the water management plan should include how water is tested monthly, believed Legionella testing was only done if there was suspicion or a positive case, had not updated the plan since an earlier review, did not document the water management team membership, had not discussed the plan with the maintenance director, and was not familiar with specific risk areas, control measures, or corrective actions.
Improper Emergency Discharge to Hospital and Refusal to Readmit Resident
Penalty
Summary
Facility staff failed to provide an appropriate emergency discharge notice and improperly discharged a resident to a hospital while refusing the resident’s return. The facility’s policy on making an emergency transfer or discharge, revised April 2007, directed staff to only make an emergency discharge when it is in the best interest of residents and to follow specific procedures, including notifying the attending physician and receiving facility, preparing the resident and a transfer form, notifying the representative and family, and assisting with transportation. Record review showed the resident was admitted on 3/3/26 and discharged to the hospital the same day, with a progress note the following day documenting an emergency discharge effective immediately to the local hospital for safety reasons. An Immediate Discharge Notice dated 3/3/26 listed the local hospital as the discharge location for resident and staff safety. In an interview, the administrator stated the resident had been in the building less than 24 hours, had refused care, made threats, and scared staff, and that an emergency discharge to the hospital was done that day; the administrator acknowledged that a hospital is not a discharge location but stated the facility would not take the resident back for the safety of staff and other residents. These actions and documentation show that staff used the hospital as the discharge location and refused readmission, contrary to the facility’s own emergency transfer/discharge policy and without providing an appropriate emergency discharge notice that ensured the transfer/discharge met the resident’s needs and preferences and prepared the resident for a safe transfer/discharge.
Failure to Monitor Bowel Function and Report Repeated Medication Refusals
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to provide treatment and care according to physician orders, facility bowel protocol, and the resident’s care needs, specifically related to bowel monitoring, constipation management, and medication refusals. The facility’s own Medication Monitoring policy required licensed nurses to report refusals of medications and to identify interventions on the care plan for systematic monitoring of high‑risk medications. The Bowel Protocol required routine monitoring and documentation of bowel movements (BMs), use of a stepwise regimen (milk of magnesia on day three without a BM, bisacodyl suppository on day four, and fleet enema on day five), and prompt provider notification of significant changes such as impaction. For one resident with significant GI history and prior constipation/impaction, staff did not consistently document BMs, did not follow the bowel protocol when BMs were absent for multiple days, and did not notify the physician in a timely manner. The resident had a history of chronic GI blood loss, recurrent constipation, large stool burden, and prior fecal impaction. In mid‑November, the resident was hospitalized for anemia, GI bleeding, and severe constipation with a large fecal impaction, during which a disimpaction was performed and the physician recommended keeping a record of BMs. After return, facility bowel elimination records showed multiple gaps in documentation and prolonged periods without recorded BMs. In early December, there were days with no documentation and no recorded BMs, and staff did not document physician notification or administration of bowel interventions from several consecutive days without BMs. Later in December, the record again showed multiple consecutive days with no BMs documented; staff did not administer bowel interventions until the sixth day and did not document physician notification until that time. A nurse’s note on that day described the resident having no BM for five to six days, vomiting coffee‑ground emesis, and being sent to the hospital, where hospital records documented stercoral colitis, fecal impaction, and a moderate to large amount of stool throughout the colon. Despite the resident’s history and the physician’s expectation for close monitoring, the February Treatment Administration Record showed an active order to monitor BMs daily with a requirement that the resident have a BM every other day and to give a Dulcolax suppository if no BM every other day, yet nursing staff failed to document monitoring on multiple shifts. The resident’s care plan did not reflect the increased BM monitoring ordered after the hospitalization for constipation/impaction. Interviews with RNs, LPNs, CNAs, the MDS coordinator, ADON, DON, and the physician showed inconsistent understanding and implementation of the bowel protocol and monitoring orders; staff acknowledged that monitoring had not been consistent and that the system for tracking BMs was not effective. The deficiency also includes failure to notify the physician of multiple medication refusals for this resident. Throughout February, the MAR showed repeated refusals of numerous ordered medications, including baclofen, bisacodyl, Carafate, Colace, Dexilant, ferrous sulfate, folic acid, metoprolol, Miralax, pravastatin, Remeron, and Senna‑S, often refused more than ten times in the month. The facility’s Medication Monitoring policy required nurses to report refusals of medications to the physician, but the medical record contained no documentation of physician notification regarding these repeated refusals. Nursing staff and the MDS coordinator acknowledged that the resident refused medications and that they used nursing judgment about when to notify the physician, but several staff did not know how many refusals should trigger notification, and some believed the physician was aware without recalling specific contacts or documentation. The physician stated that he knew the resident sometimes refused medications but was not aware of the high frequency of refusals in February and stated he wanted to know when refusals occurred so often. Overall, the actions and inactions leading to the deficiency included failure to consistently document and monitor BMs per order and protocol, failure to implement ordered bowel interventions when BMs were absent for multiple days, failure to update the care plan to reflect increased bowel monitoring after hospitalization for constipation/impaction, and failure to notify the physician of frequent medication refusals as required by facility policy. These failures occurred despite the resident’s known history of GI bleeding, recurrent constipation, fecal impaction, and prior hospitalizations for GI issues and constipation.
Failure to Keep Call Lights Within Reach for Two Residents
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to reasonably accommodate residents’ needs and preferences by not ensuring call lights were within reach, contrary to its own “Answering the Call Light” policy. That policy required staff to keep call lights within easy reach for residents in bed or confined to a chair and to frequently check residents unable to use the call light. Despite this, surveyors observed multiple instances where residents’ call lights were out of reach or on the floor, and staff interviews confirmed that the expectation was for call lights to be accessible at all times when residents were in their rooms. One resident had diagnoses including type 2 diabetes, acute kidney failure, and an above-knee amputation, with cognition changing from intact on admission to moderately impaired on a subsequent MDS. The resident’s care plan addressed admission for LTC, need for assistance with bed/chair mobility, transfers, and locomotion, and use of a wheelchair with safety reminders, but did not address the resident’s multiple falls or any fall interventions. Facility event reports documented numerous falls, both witnessed and unwitnessed, over a three‑month period. During several observations on different days and times, this resident was seen asleep in a wheelchair by the bed, with the call light out of reach—on the ground on the opposite side of the bed or under the bed—despite staff acknowledging the resident fell frequently and liked to sleep in the wheelchair. Another resident had diagnoses including Alzheimer’s disease and dementia, was unable to communicate, and had all four extremities contracted. The care plan identified risk for dehydration and increased pain due to contractures, skin integrity issues, and hospice care, with specific interventions to keep the call light within reach and remind the resident to call for assistance. However, during multiple observations, this resident was lying in bed with the call light positioned at the foot of the bed or on the floor under the bed, out of reach. Staff, including an LPN and a CNA, stated that call lights should be within reach for all residents regardless of cognitive status and that frequent rounding was expected if a resident could not use the call light. The Administrator and DON also stated they expected call lights to be in reach for all residents at all times and specifically for residents with frequent falls, underscoring that the observed conditions did not meet facility expectations or policy.
Resident Physically Abused During Forceful Arm Repositioning
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to protect a resident from physical abuse and to honor the resident’s right to be free from the willful infliction of physical harm. The facility’s abuse policy defined abuse as the willful infliction of injury, unreasonable confinement, intimidation, or punishment resulting in physical harm, pain, or mental anguish, and required staff training in abuse prevention and sensitivity to residents’ rights and needs. The policy also required that all incidents, allegations, or suspicions of abuse be documented and investigated. Despite these policies, a staff member, identified as Restorative Aide/CNA E, used excessive force while attempting to reposition a resident’s arm, in a manner inconsistent with the resident’s care plan and the facility’s abuse prevention standards. The resident involved had severely impaired cognition, unclear speech, and was non-verbal, with dependence on staff for all ADLs, and weighed 213 lbs. The resident’s care plan identified impaired communication and decision-making, with approaches that included explaining procedures prior to tasks, providing cues and reorientation, offering simple choices, and using alternative communication methods as needed. On observation, the resident was seated in a wheelchair at the nurse’s desk with his/her arm positioned on the back of the wheelchair and looped around the handlebar. Restorative Aide/CNA E stood to the right of the resident and repeatedly attempted to move the resident’s right arm forward. The resident responded with non-verbal refusals, moving the arm away and then propelling slightly forward to grasp the wheelchair wheel. Despite these non-verbal refusals, Restorative Aide/CNA E pried the resident’s fingers off the wheelchair wheel, grabbed the resident’s right arm with one hand while placing the other hand behind the triceps area, and forcefully jerked the arm forward. This action caused the resident’s seated body to lurch forward to the point that the resident nearly fell out of the wheelchair onto the tile floor. A subsequent observation showed the aide wiping the resident’s hands with a washcloth that had a red substance on it. Shortly afterward, the resident, when interviewed, stated that staff were rough and that he/she was afraid. Review of security camera footage with facility leadership showed the aide tugging and pulling on the resident’s arm in a forward motion multiple times, with the resident refusing further assistance and the aide becoming more aggressive. A laundry assistant also reported seeing the aide yelling and grabbing at the resident, with the resident resisting and fighting to get the aide off, and believed the incident affected the resident’s behavior afterward. These observed and documented actions constituted the use of excessive force and physical abuse toward the resident. Additional interviews further described the context of the incident. Restorative Aide/CNA E stated that the resident liked to sit with the arm behind the chair and claimed to be repositioning the arm at the resident’s request, acknowledging that the resident’s hand was locked on the wheelchair wheel and that the aide moved it off. The aide reported the resident complained of arm pain and that a red substance seen on the arm was ketchup from lunch, and did not believe the handling was rough. In contrast, an LPN who had cared for the resident for three months stated the resident commonly rested the arm behind the wheelchair, had never required arm repositioning for that posture, and had not complained of arm pain in that position. Facility leadership, after viewing the video, agreed that the staff member used excessive force and that the aide should have stopped and re-approached the resident instead of continuing to pull and tug on the arm in the face of resistance. These facts collectively demonstrate that the resident’s right to be free from physical abuse was not upheld.
Failure to Provide Consistent Wound Care and Accurate Skin Assessment Documentation
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to provide consistent wound treatments, timely and accurate wound orders, and accurate skin assessments for two residents with wounds. For one resident with multiple comorbidities including open right foot wound, coccyx pressure ulcer, stroke, hemiplegia, dysphagia, severe protein-calorie malnutrition, seizures, and peripheral vascular disease, the care plan in use during the survey contained no problems, goals, or interventions related to skin or wound prevention, despite these conditions. A readmission skin observation documented no abnormalities, but shortly afterward an NP note identified a new open area to the right ankle and ordered cleansing and Medi Honey treatment. The corresponding physician orders reflected Medi Honey treatment to the right buttocks, but there was no EMR order for the right ankle wound treatment on the MAR/TAR. Multiple subsequent skin observation reports and wound doctor notes documented MASD and a stage 3 right hip pressure injury with specific measurements and treatment orders, yet the documentation of wound locations was sometimes incomplete or inconsistent. Medication and treatment administration records for this resident showed numerous missed or undocumented wound care treatments. The December and January MAR/TARs reflected missed opportunities for Medi Honey and right hip dressing changes, including refusals without required progress notes and missed treatments without explanation. In February, barrier cream and zinc oxide orders for the peri area and buttocks were documented as missed in all or many opportunities, and wound treatments to the right buttocks, right hip, and right ankle were missed multiple times without progress notes. A new ankle wound was noted by the DON, with an NP confirming the resident did not need hospital evaluation and suggesting continuation of the wound doctor’s plan, and later documentation described a right ankle/foot stage 2 ulcer with specific measurements. However, the EMR showed missed treatments for the ankle wound and the facility’s wound report later listed multiple MASD sites (right buttocks, coccyx, groin) with onset dates and durations, indicating these wounds were not present on admission but had remained open for extended periods. For a second resident with morbid obesity, bipolar disorder, and intellectual disability, the annual MDS showed no skin concerns, and the care plan in use during the survey contained no skin-related problems, goals, or preventive interventions, despite a Braden score of 11 indicating high risk for pressure injury. Physician orders included offloading pressure areas on the heels and elevating extremities every shift, as well as an order to cleanse the right lateral ankle and apply a foam dressing every three days. Wound specialist notes indicated the resident was not seen on two occasions, once due to being away with family and once because the DON reported the right ankle wound as healed. Weekly skin observation reports in March documented no skin abnormalities, yet the March MAR/TAR showed ongoing documentation of right ankle dressing changes and refusals. On observation, the resident had a foam dressing on the right ankle dated several weeks earlier, and the LPN acknowledged the outdated dressing, stated night shift was scheduled to change it, and then discovered in the EMR that the resident was listed as refusing care over a prolonged period, although the LPN was unaware of the wound and it had not been mentioned in shift report. The wound measured 2 cm by 2 cm at that time, and the DON later described discoloration to the left heel and stated he could not make clinical decisions on staging without the wound doctor. A wound specialist note that same day identified a new stage 2 pressure injury over the right ankle with specific measurements and treatment orders, while the facility’s wound report listed the same area as an abrasion with different initial measurements, demonstrating inaccurate and inconsistent documentation of the wound’s status and type. The DON stated that nursing staff were expected to follow facility policies, that weekly assessments were completed but not ordered, and that staff were prompted in the EMR scheduler. The DON explained that shift nurses were expected to enter treatment orders or provide them to the DON to enter, that nurses were expected to document progress notes when residents declined treatments, and that the medical doctor should be notified of new hospital wound treatment recommendations. The DON also stated that care plans should be updated within 24–48 hours to reflect new changes and that staff should attempt a second approach or allow time before documenting a refusal. Despite these expectations and the facility’s wound management policy requiring Braden assessments, daily or weekly skin checks based on risk, accurate wound differentiation and documentation, and consistent use of wound protocols, the records for both residents showed failures to consistently administer ordered treatments, failures to enter and maintain accurate wound treatment orders in the EMR, and failures to accurately document skin assessments and wound characteristics needed for appropriate follow-up and monitoring.
Failure to Implement Fall Interventions and Complete Smoking Safety Assessment
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to maintain an accident‑hazard‑free environment and to provide adequate supervision and interventions to prevent accidents, specifically falls and unsafe smoking. For one resident with lower extremity impairment, an above‑knee amputation, diabetes, and acute kidney failure, the admission MDS showed a need for partial to moderate assistance with transfers and use of a wheelchair. The resident’s care plan addressed general needs for assistance with bed/chair mobility, transfers, and locomotion, and noted the need for monitoring to prevent falls, but it did not address the resident’s actual history of multiple falls or specify any individualized fall interventions. Facility event reports documented numerous falls over several months, including unwitnessed and witnessed falls in the bathroom and room, often related to the resident attempting independent transfers from wheelchair to toilet or from bed to wheelchair without assistance. Fall investigations dated across this period identified root causes such as the resident leaving the dining area and attempting to transfer independently in a common bathroom, and attempting to get out of bed and into a wheelchair without assistance despite having an amputated leg. These investigations documented that the resident was encouraged or educated to ask for help or call for assistance, but no new interventions were recorded following these events. Observations by surveyors showed the resident seated in a wheelchair by the bed with eyes closed on multiple occasions, with the call light not in reach and at times on the floor on the opposite side of the bed. The Director of Therapy stated the resident was receiving PT, OT, and speech therapy and recommended a wedge (tilt‑in‑space) wheelchair with foot pedals, more frequent rounding, and ensuring the call light was in reach, and expected these interventions to be reflected on the care plan. An LPN and facility leadership acknowledged the resident had frequent falls and that interventions, including those tried such as frequent rounding and ensuring call light access, should have been documented on the care plan. The deficiency also includes failure to assess another resident for smoking safety. This resident had diagnoses including Huntington’s disease and weakness, with moderately impaired cognition documented on the admission MDS. Review of the electronic medical record showed no smoking assessment, despite the facility’s smoking policy requiring assessment at admission and at least quarterly or with significant change to determine needed assistance and supervision. Surveyor observations documented this resident smoking outside on more than one occasion. An LPN, the Administrator, and the DON all stated that a smoking assessment should have been completed upon admission to ensure the resident’s safety while smoking, but no such assessment was found in the record.
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.
