Country Villa Wellness & Rehabilitation
Inspection history, citations, penalties and survey trends for this long-term care facility in Creve Coeur, Missouri.
- Location
- 850 Country Manor Lane, Creve Coeur, Missouri 63141
- CMS Provider Number
- 265343
- Inspections on file
- 24
- Latest survey
- February 26, 2026
- Citations (last 12 mo.)
- 15
Citation history
Health deficiencies cited at Country Villa Wellness & Rehabilitation during CMS and state inspections, most recent first.
Surveyors found that nursing staff repeatedly failed to administer and/or document physician-ordered medications and treatments for multiple residents, despite facility policies requiring accurate transcription and real-time MAR documentation. Residents with conditions such as diabetes, heart failure, Parkinson’s disease, COPD, seizure disorders, chronic pain, and psychiatric illnesses had numerous blank MAR entries for critical medications including insulin (both sliding-scale and long-acting), anticoagulants, anticonvulsants, antihypertensives, diuretics, psychotropics, Parkinson’s agents, inhalers, antibiotics, vitamins, supplements, and GI medications. At least one resident reported missed pain and diabetes medications and described increased pain and high blood sugars, while resident council minutes reflected broader concerns about untimely and missed medications. The absence of required documentation or explanatory notes for these omitted doses demonstrated a systemic failure to follow professional standards and facility policy for medication administration and recordkeeping.
The facility failed to follow its fall policy and acceptable standards of practice by not performing and documenting required neuro checks after unwitnessed falls for three residents. In each case, a resident was found on the floor after an unwitnessed fall, vital signs and basic assessments were completed, and injuries such as skin tears, bruising, or abrasions were addressed, but there was no documentation of 72-hour neuro monitoring as required for unwitnessed falls. Facility leadership stated they expected nurses to complete head-to-toe assessments, initiate neuro checks for unwitnessed falls or head strikes, and document post-fall monitoring each shift, but chart reviews showed these neuro checks were not done.
Multiple residents experienced unwitnessed falls and an injury during a staff-assisted transfer, and staff did not follow facility policies for post-fall management, family notification, and adherence to transfer orders. After several falls, staff completed incident reports but did not convene or document IDT reviews, did not add or revise care plan interventions to reduce future falls, and in two cases did not notify the resident’s family/responsible party. One resident with severe cognitive impairment sustained a fall with injury and was sent to the hospital without any documented post-fall risk evaluation or new interventions. Another cognitively intact resident, ordered and care planned for a full-body lift transfer with three staff, reported being transferred by only two CNAs with a Hoyer lift, resulting in a skin tear and bruising to the hand and forearm; no incident report, skin assessment, physician or RR notification, or post-incident monitoring was documented, and later observation confirmed that only two staff were performing the Hoyer transfer despite the three-person order.
A resident with a seizure disorder and multiple comorbidities had numerous scheduled doses of Depakote ER, levetiracetam, lacosamide, and lorazepam not documented as administered on the MAR, despite physician orders and a care plan requiring seizure medications to be given as ordered. Facility policies required accurate transcription of orders, timely administration, and immediate documentation on the MAR, but paper MARs showed repeated blank boxes for critical anticonvulsant and lorazepam doses, and PRN lorazepam orders were incompletely documented. An LPN acknowledged relying on the controlled substance count sheet rather than the MAR, stated that nurses were not always signing MARs because workload was too high after CMT roles changed, and admitted not verifying that all anti-seizure medications were being given. A CMT reported that some residents’ MARs were missing from the binder and could not recall to whom this was reported. Another LPN described multiple observed seizures in the dining room without completing a progress note, while hospice staff and the physician reported increased seizure activity that month and linked it to missed seizure medications.
Staff failed to treat a resident with dignity and respect when an LPN recorded and posted a video of a cognitively impaired, hospice resident on social media without written consent, in violation of facility policy. Additionally, staff were observed using personal cell phones in resident areas during mealtime, despite clear policies prohibiting such actions. Leadership acknowledged these expectations, but enforcement and staff education were lacking.
Staff failed to use safe, professional standards during mechanical lift transfers, resulting in injuries to two residents. One resident suffered a severe leg injury requiring hospitalization and surgery after being struck during a transfer, while another experienced multiple incidents of being bumped or struck by lift equipment. Investigations were incomplete, care plans were not updated, and required staff training was not documented, despite residents' repeated complaints of unsafe handling and lack of staff responsiveness.
Widespread Failure to Administer and Document Physician-Ordered Medications
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to ensure that medications and treatments were administered and documented in accordance with physician orders and the facility’s own medication administration policies. Facility policies required that all physician orders be complete and accurately transcribed to the MAR/TAR, that medications be administered as prescribed, and that the individual administering the medication document administration directly after giving the dose, including circling and explaining any withheld, refused, or unavailable doses. Resident council minutes documented resident concerns that medications were not being received timely and that doses were being missed. Multiple residents with significant medical conditions had numerous blank entries on their MARs where ordered medications and treatments should have been documented. One cognitively intact resident with diagnoses including heart failure, morbid obesity, anxiety, chronic pain, and hypertension had repeated blank MAR entries for Eliquis, Lasix, potassium chloride, famotidine, ondansetron, gabapentin, Miralax, Tylenol, vitamins, artificial tears, Senna Plus, and a lidocaine patch, among others. This resident reported not receiving medications as ordered and specifically stated that missed gabapentin doses caused increased pain in the feet. Another cognitively intact resident with diabetes, stroke, hemiparesis, and depression had multiple undocumented pre-meal blood glucose checks and corresponding Novolog sliding-scale insulin doses, as well as missed or undocumented doses of long-acting insulin (Tresiba) and metformin, and reported not receiving insulin for several days and having a blood sugar over 200 when it was eventually checked. Additional residents with diabetes, dementia, chronic kidney failure, psychiatric diagnoses, atrial fibrillation, anemia, chronic pain, hypertension, COPD, Parkinson’s disease, seizure disorders, and other chronic conditions also had numerous blank MAR entries for ordered medications. These included missed or undocumented blood glucose checks and insulin doses, anticonvulsants (carbamazepine, Keppra), anticoagulants (Eliquis, aspirin), antihypertensives (metoprolol, carvedilol, amlodipine, hydrochlorothiazide), diuretics (Lasix), psychotropics (mirtazapine, quetiapine, trazodone, duloxetine, buspirone, hydroxyzine), Parkinson’s medications (carbidopa-levodopa, amantadine), COPD and inhaler therapies, eye drops, vitamins, supplements, antibiotics, and various GI and pain medications. For each of these residents, the MARs showed blank spaces without documentation that the medications were administered, held, refused, or otherwise accounted for, contrary to facility policy and professional standards of medication administration and documentation. Across the sampled residents, the pattern of blank MAR entries demonstrated that staff did not consistently administer or document physician-ordered medications and treatments as required. The failures encompassed time-sensitive medications such as insulin and antibiotics, chronic disease management medications, anticoagulants, anticonvulsants, and psychotropic agents. The report does not describe any contemporaneous documentation explaining the omissions, nor does it show that the required notations and explanatory notes were made when doses were not given. These inactions and documentation gaps, combined with resident reports of missed medications and elevated blood sugars, form the basis of the cited deficiency for not meeting professional standards of quality in medication administration and documentation.
Failure to Perform and Document Neuro Checks After Unwitnessed Falls
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to provide post-fall neurological assessments in accordance with its own Fall Evaluation and Prevention policy and acceptable standards of practice for three residents after unwitnessed falls. The policy, dated 8/2020, requires that following a fall, staff promptly evaluate the resident, obtain vital signs, perform a neurological evaluation, and, if the fall is unwitnessed or there is loss of consciousness, initiate neuro checks for at least 72 hours. The Interim DON and Previous Administrator stated they expected nurses to complete a head-to-toe assessment, obtain vital signs, start neuro checks for unwitnessed falls or head strikes, notify the physician, family/Resident Representative, and DON, and document post-fall monitoring once per shift for 72 hours. For one resident with diagnoses including hypertension, anxiety, restless leg syndrome, and spinal pain, an unwitnessed fall from bed occurred in the early morning hours. The incident report documented that the resident was found lying on their back on the floor with a skin tear to the left elbow and bruising on the left scapula, reported pain at a level seven out of ten, and received a skin assessment, vital signs, wound care, and PRN pain medication. The DON and physician were notified, but the family/emergency contact was not notified of the fall, and review of the medical record showed no documentation that neuro checks were completed following this unwitnessed fall. Another resident with moderate cognitive impairment and diagnoses including dementia, Parkinson’s disease, stroke, seizure, and repeated falls experienced an unwitnessed fall when they were found having slid from a wheelchair onto the floor in the hallway, resulting in a facial abrasion. Vital signs were obtained, hospice was contacted, and the resident was assisted to bed, with the DON and physician notified, but the family/responsible party was not notified. Record review showed no neuro checks were completed. A third resident with severe cognitive impairment and a history of prior falls, and diagnoses including seizure disorder, dementia, hypertension, sleep disorder, and osteoarthritis, had an unwitnessed fall while trying to get into bed. The incident report stated the resident did not hit their head, denied pain, and had no observed injuries, and noted that family and physician were aware with no new orders, but listed no people notified on the form. The medical record again showed no neuro checks completed for this unwitnessed fall.
Failure to Implement Post-Fall Interventions, Notify Families, and Follow Transfer Orders
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to follow its fall management and evaluation policies after multiple unwitnessed falls and an injury during a staff-assisted transfer. For four residents who experienced unwitnessed falls, staff did not identify or implement new interventions to reduce the likelihood of additional falls, and the interdisciplinary team (IDT) did not document post-fall assessments or care plan revisions as required. The facility’s policies required completion of an incident report and post-fall assessment within 24 hours, root cause analysis, IDT review within 72 hours, and documentation of new interventions and care plan updates, but these steps were not carried out or documented for these residents. One cognitively intact resident with diagnoses including hypertension, anxiety, restless leg syndrome, and spinal pain had an unwitnessed fall from bed, resulting in a skin tear to the left elbow, bruising on the left scapula, and reported pain rated seven out of ten. The incident report showed the DON and physician were notified, but the resident’s family/responsible party was not notified, and there were no IDT notes or new interventions added to the care plan following the fall. Another resident with moderate cognitive impairment, dementia, Parkinson’s disease, stroke, seizures, and a history of repeated falls slid from a wheelchair to the floor in the hallway, sustaining a facial abrasion. The incident report documented notification of the DON and physician, but not the family/responsible party, and there were no IDT notes or additional interventions documented after this fall. A resident with severe cognitive impairment and multiple diagnoses including dementia, hypertension, stroke, diabetes, and anxiety had a fall with injury, with staff finding the resident on the floor with a swollen left wrist and complaints of hip pain, leading to transfer to the hospital. Although the incident report indicated the physician, DON, and a family member (by message) were notified, there was no post-fall risk evaluation, IDT documentation, or new interventions added to the care plan. Another resident with severe cognitive impairment, seizures, dementia, hypertension, sleep disorder, osteoarthritis, and a recent history of falls had an unwitnessed fall while trying to get into bed. The incident report noted no injuries and stated that family and physician were aware with no new orders, but listed no people notified, and there were no IDT notes or new interventions documented following this fall. The facility also failed to ensure that staff followed physician orders and the care plan for a resident requiring a full-body lift transfer with three staff. This resident, cognitively intact with diagnoses including heart failure, morbid obesity, anxiety, chronic pain syndrome, hypertension, muscle weakness, and right knee pain, had an order and care plan specifying transfer with a full-body lift and three people. The resident later reported that two agency CNAs transferred them with a Hoyer lift, turned them without informing them, and during lowering into the chair, the crossbar scraped their hand and wrist, causing a skin tear and bruising. There was no incident report, no skin assessment on the date of the incident, no documented notifications to the physician or responsible party, and no post-incident monitoring notes for 72 hours. Subsequent observation showed two CNAs performing the Hoyer transfer without a third staff member, and both CNAs stated they were unaware of the three-person transfer requirement in the care plan, indicating staff did not follow the ordered transfer protocol.
Failure to Administer and Document Seizure Medications as Ordered
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to ensure a resident with a seizure disorder was free from significant medication errors when ordered anticonvulsant and related medications were not administered or documented as given on multiple occasions. Facility policies required that physician orders be complete and accurately transcribed to the MAR, that medications be administered as prescribed, and that staff document administration directly after giving each dose. Policies also required that missed doses of vital medications be addressed and that seizure precautions consider missed anticonvulsant doses. Despite these policies, review of the resident’s paper MARs for February showed numerous blank administration boxes for scheduled doses of Depakote ER, levetiracetam, lacosamide, and lorazepam, with no explanatory documentation. The resident had moderate cognitive impairment and diagnoses including seizure disorder, repeated falls, dementia, Parkinson’s disease, and stroke. The care plan identified the resident as at risk for seizures with a goal to decrease seizure frequency, and approaches included administering medications as ordered. Physician orders included multiple scheduled anticonvulsants (Depakote ER in morning and bedtime doses, levetiracetam BID, lacosamide BID) and lorazepam 1 mg every 12 hours. MAR review showed Depakote ER 1,250 mg at bedtime was not documented as given on several dates, lacosamide and levetiracetam afternoon and morning doses were not documented as given on multiple dates, and lorazepam 1 mg scheduled every 12 hours was not documented as given for numerous morning and evening doses. A handwritten PRN lorazepam order and stat/PRN lorazepam orders from hospice on one date were partially documented with times but often without nurse initials, and there was no corresponding progress note describing seizure activity around the time those PRN orders were used. Staff interviews further described actions and inactions contributing to the deficiency. One LPN acknowledged documenting in a progress note that lorazepam had been given based on looking at a controlled substance count sheet, while admitting that some days nurses were not signing the paper MARs because it was “too much” work after CMTs were removed from passing certain medications. This LPN stated there were days when morning medications were not passed until after lunch and admitted not checking whether the resident’s other anti-seizure medications were being given as ordered because they could not keep up. A CMT reported working on a day when none of the resident’s medications were signed out on the day shift MAR and suggested the resident’s MARs might not have been in the binder, adding that some residents did not have MARs and the CMT did not know who they were or to whom this was reported. Another LPN reported witnessing the resident have multiple seizures in the dining room on one morning but did not write a progress note, stating the resident often had seizures. The hospice RN and the resident’s physician both reported increased seizure activity that month, and the physician specifically attributed the change to missed seizure medications at the facility and noted the resident had previously had an immediate seizure episode after missing just one dose of seizure medication.
Failure to Uphold Resident Dignity and Privacy Due to Unauthorized Video and Cell Phone Use
Penalty
Summary
Staff failed to treat a resident with dignity and respect when an LPN used a personal phone to record a video of a resident and posted it on a social media platform without obtaining written permission, as required by facility policy. The resident involved had severe cognitive impairment, multiple diagnoses including dementia and heart disease, and was on hospice care. The video, though not clearly identifying the resident, showed parts of the resident and the facility's unique carpet design, making the location recognizable. The LPN admitted to taking and posting the video, later removing it after realizing it was inappropriate. The Director of Nursing (DON) was informed of the incident but did not conduct a documented investigation or provide education or in-services to staff following the event. Additionally, staff were observed using personal cell phones in resident areas during mealtime, contrary to facility policy. During breakfast service, a CNA and the same LPN were seen scrolling and typing on their phones while in the dining room with residents. The Assistant Administrator and another staff member intervened, prompting the LPN to put away the phone, but the CNA continued to use their phone before assisting a resident. Staff interviews confirmed awareness of the policy prohibiting cell phone use in resident areas, but also revealed that no recent in-services had been provided regarding social media or personal phone usage. Facility policies clearly prohibit the use of personal electronic devices in resident areas and the sharing of resident information or images on social media without written consent. Despite these policies, staff actions demonstrated noncompliance, resulting in a failure to uphold residents' rights to dignity, respect, privacy, and confidentiality. The facility leadership acknowledged the expectation for staff to avoid personal phone use in resident areas and to refrain from recording or posting resident images, but these expectations were not consistently enforced.
Failure to Prevent Accidents and Ensure Safe Mechanical Lift Transfers
Penalty
Summary
Facility staff failed to ensure residents were free from accident hazards and did not provide adequate supervision during mechanical lift transfers, resulting in injuries to two residents. In one case, a cognitively intact resident with significant comorbidities, including morbid obesity, heart failure, diabetes, and polyneuropathy, was transferred using a Hoyer lift by two CNAs. During the transfer, the resident's right lower leg was struck, reportedly by the Hoyer lift remote control, despite the resident voicing pain and asking staff to be careful. The injury resulted in a rapidly growing hematoma, hospitalization, surgery for debridement, and the application of a wound vacuum. The resident consistently reported that staff did not listen to requests for caution during transfers, and the CNAs involved denied any incident or pain during the transfer. The facility's investigation into this incident was incomplete. The Director of Nursing (DON) interviewed the staff involved, who denied any improper actions, and did not document a conclusion or implement corrective measures. There was no evidence that the care plan was updated to prevent further accidents, and the required in-service training was not documented for the staff involved. The facility's policies required two staff for mechanical lift transfers, proper positioning, and monitoring to prevent injury, but these standards were not consistently followed or enforced. A second resident experienced two separate incidents involving improper Hoyer lift transfers. In one event, the resident's foot was bumped against the transfer pole, and in another, the resident was struck in the temple by the lift hook. Both incidents were documented, but the facility did not conduct thorough investigations or update the resident's care plan. The resident reported feeling unsafe during transfers, that staff did not listen to requests for caution, and described multiple near misses and rough handling. The DON was unaware of these incidents and did not recognize a pattern of improper mechanical lift use, despite multiple reports and resident complaints.
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.
