Foxwood Springs Living Center
Inspection history, citations, penalties and survey trends for this long-term care facility in Raymore, Missouri.
- Location
- 1500 West Foxwood Drive, Raymore, Missouri 64083
- CMS Provider Number
- 265803
- Inspections on file
- 21
- Latest survey
- October 22, 2025
- Citations (last 12 mo.)
- 1
Citation history
Health deficiencies cited at Foxwood Springs Living Center during CMS and state inspections, most recent first.
A resident with multiple chronic conditions and on hospice care did not have their physician-ordered oxycodone accurately documented or reconciled between the narcotic sheet and MAR. Staff failed to consistently document administration, altered medication counts without proper notation, and left required fields blank on medication count sheets, resulting in discrepancies that were only identified during an audit.
The facility failed to maintain cleanliness in the kitchen, with observations revealing food debris, grime, and grease on floors, equipment, and surfaces. Interviews with staff indicated a lack of updated cleaning schedules and oversight, contributing to the deficiency in food service safety.
The facility's QAPI Committee failed to include the Medical Director and Infection Control Preventionist in three out of six meetings, as required by policy. The absence of these key members was confirmed by the ADON, who was new to coordinating the meetings and unaware of the attendance requirements.
The facility failed to maintain a clean and safe environment for residents on the 200 Hall and in shared areas. Observations revealed unclean carpeting, misplaced personal items, and trash in resident rooms. The shared lounge area had dirt, dust, and cobwebs, and the ice machine was unclean. The facility lacked documented cleaning procedures, relying on insufficient spot checks by the Housekeeping Supervisor.
An RN Charge Nurse left a treatment cart unlocked in a lounge area used by residents, containing medicated creams, ointments, sprays, and scissors. This oversight occurred when the nurse was called away and did not secure the cart, posing a potential hazard to residents nearby.
A facility failed to involve a resident in the Care Plan process despite the resident not being determined by a physician to lack decision-making capacity. The resident had a moderate cognitive impairment and a DPOA for Health Care Decisions, which was misinterpreted by social workers as being effective immediately, rather than upon a physician's determination of incapacity.
A facility failed to ensure a resident was informed of a Medicare non-coverage determination. The resident, with moderate cognitive impairment, had a DPOA for health care decisions. Social workers assumed the resident lacked capacity without documented physician assessment, leading to the DPOA's involvement without proper notification to the resident.
A facility failed to update a resident's Comprehensive Care Plan within the required timeframe after the resident experienced an unwitnessed fall resulting in a right hip replacement and pubic bone fracture. The Care Plan was updated beyond the seven-day requirement, despite the resident's complex medical history, including conditions like dementia and diabetes. The delay was confirmed by the ADON.
A resident with dementia was prescribed Memantine without notifying their DPOA, despite instructions to do so. The charge nurse failed to inform the DPOA of the new medication order, leading to the administration of the drug without consent. The DPOA discovered the issue upon receiving a pharmacy bill and requested discontinuation.
A resident was forcibly showered by an LPN and three CNAs despite their refusal and expressed fear of water. The resident was visibly upset and had multiple bruises. Staff interviews confirmed they proceeded with the shower despite the resident's protests, violating the facility's policies on resident care and rights.
A resident was transferred by four staff members from a wheelchair to a shower chair without a gait belt, resulting in bruising. The facility's policy mandates the use of gait belts for all transfers, but staff did not adhere to this policy, leading to the resident's injury. Interviews confirmed that gait belts should be used for all transfers unless a mechanical lift is required.
Failure to Accurately Document and Reconcile Narcotic Medication Orders and Administration
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure accurate and consistent documentation and administration of a physician-ordered narcotic medication for one resident. Specifically, the physician's order for oxycodone was not accurately reflected on both the narcotic sheet and the Medication Administration Record (MAR). The narcotic record showed a different dosage and frequency than the physician's order and the MAR, and the number of tablets received from the pharmacy was altered on the narcotic record without proper documentation. Additionally, the MAR did not show administration of the medication on certain dates, even though the narcotic record indicated it had been given. Nursing staff did not consistently document the administration of narcotic medications on the MAR as required by facility policy. On several occasions, the nurse signed out the medication on the narcotic sheet but failed to document it on the MAR. There were also instances where the quantity of medication administered was altered on the narcotic sheet without explanation, and the required information on the medication count sheets, such as nurse initials and verification, was left blank. The orders on the narcotic sheet, MAR, and physician's order sheet did not match, and discrepancies were not promptly identified or corrected. The resident involved had multiple complex medical conditions, including chronic pain, kidney failure, heart disease, and was receiving hospice services. Despite the facility's policies outlining the steps for safe administration and documentation of oral and narcotic medications, these procedures were not followed. Staff interviews confirmed that the expected protocols were not adhered to, and the errors in documentation and order reconciliation were only discovered during an audit.
Deficiency in Kitchen Sanitation and Cleanliness
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to maintain cleanliness and sanitation in the kitchen, as observed during two separate tours. The kitchen floors were found to have food debris, black grime, and grease under various equipment such as the stove, grill, ovens, steamers, and preparation tables. Food preparation tables, shelves, and drawers contained food debris and crumbs. The stove, grill, and grill area had accumulated grease and grime, while the ovens had black food debris built up inside and on the doors and sides. The deep fat fryer had yellow grease buildup, and the refrigerators contained dried food substances and sticky debris on the handles. The tilt skillet and steamer/convection ovens had black food debris inside, and the glass doors were discolored with gunky handles. A sign on the steamer indicated cleaning responsibilities, but these were not adequately followed. Interviews with Chef #3 and the Director of Dining Services (DDS) revealed that the kitchen cleaning schedule was not updated, and the responsibility for ensuring cleanliness was not adequately managed. Chef #3 acknowledged the importance of cleaning to prevent illness and pests, while the DDS admitted to not being in the kitchen as often as necessary. Both agreed that the kitchen items were not clean, highlighting a lapse in maintaining professional standards for food service safety. The lack of proper oversight and adherence to the sanitization policy contributed to the deficiency in food service safety.
QAPI Committee Lacks Required Participation
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to maintain a Quality Assessment and Performance Improvement (QAPI) Committee with the required participation of the Medical Director and Infection Control Preventionist for three out of six quarterly meetings. The facility's policy mandates that the QAPI Committee includes the Administrator, Director of Nursing Services, Medical Director, and Infection Preventionist. However, the review of QAPI committee meeting attendance sheets revealed that the Medical Director did not attend the meetings on December 21, 2023, and December 19, 2024, while the Infection Control Preventionist was absent on September 19, 2024, and December 19, 2024. Both the Medical Director and Infection Control Preventionist were absent from the December 19, 2024 meeting. The Assistant Director of Nursing, who was new to coordinating the QAPI Committee Meetings, confirmed the absence of these key members and was unaware of the required attendance.
Facility Fails to Maintain Clean and Safe Environment
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to maintain a safe, clean, comfortable, and homelike environment for residents on the 200 Hall and in shared areas. Observations revealed that the carpeting on the 200 Hall was consistently unclean, with debris such as paper trash and gauze fragments scattered throughout the hallway. In the semi-private room shared by two residents, trash was found on the floor, including cotton balls and paper trash, and personal items like pillows and cushions were misplaced under furniture. These conditions persisted over multiple days of observation. In the shared lounge area, which serves residents from both the 100 and 200 Halls, several cleanliness issues were noted. A disposable exam glove was found under a medication cart, and there were accumulations of dirt and dust in various areas, including corners, chair rails, and baseboards. Cobwebs were present in the sunroom area, and the doorknob to a supply room was loose and missing a screw. The ice machine near the nursing station was also found to be unclean, with lime build-up and dust accumulations. The facility lacked documented policies and procedures for cleaning resident rooms and common areas. The housekeeping staff had a checklist on their carts, but it was not filled out or retained, and there was no verification process to ensure tasks were completed as specified. The Facilities Director acknowledged the need for additional monitoring in light of the findings, as the current system relied on spot checks by the Housekeeping Supervisor, which proved insufficient to maintain cleanliness standards.
Unsecured Treatment Cart Poses Hazard
Penalty
Summary
The facility staff failed to maintain a safe environment free from accident hazards by not securing the contents of an unattended treatment cart. The cart, which contained medicated creams, ointments, topical sprays, and bandage scissors, was left unlocked in a lounge area used by residents on the 100 and 200 Halls. This oversight occurred when a Registered Nurse (RN) Charge Nurse was called away to assist someone and did not lock the cart before leaving it unattended. The unlocked cart posed a potential hazard to all residents in the vicinity, as multiple residents were observed to be within six feet of the cart.
Failure to Involve Resident in Care Planning Due to Misinterpretation of DPOA
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure that a resident, who was not determined by a physician to lack the ability to make informed healthcare decisions, was provided with opportunities to participate in the Care Plan process. The resident, identified as having a moderate cognitive impairment with a BIMS score of nine, had a Durable Power of Attorney (DPOA) for Health Care Decisions document that specified the agent's authority would only be activated when the resident could not make decisions or communicate their wishes. However, the facility did not have documentation from a physician indicating that the resident lacked decision-making capacity. Interviews with two social workers revealed that the resident's DPOA representative was notified of healthcare concerns and asked to acknowledge changes in care and services, while the resident was not involved in the planning of their care. Social Worker #1 admitted there was no documentation of a decline in the resident's decision-making capacity, nor could they provide the physician's documentation about such a change. Social Worker #2 incorrectly stated that the DPOA representative's authority was effective from the date of the resident's signature on the DPOA document, rather than after a physician's determination of the resident's incapacity.
Failure to Notify Resident of Non-Coverage Determination
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure that the Notice of Medicare Non-Coverage and the Skilled Nursing Facility Advance Beneficiary Notice of Non-Coverage were acknowledged by a resident. This deficiency was identified for a resident who had a Durable Power of Attorney (DPOA) for Health Care Decisions. The resident had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score indicating moderate cognitive impairment. Despite this, there was no documentation to support that the resident's physician had determined the resident was unable to make informed healthcare decisions, which would necessitate the involvement of the DPOA. Interviews with social workers revealed that the resident was not notified of the non-coverage determination due to an assumption of incapacity to make informed decisions. However, there was no documented evidence of a decline in the resident's cognitive status or a physician's determination of incapacity. The social workers indicated that the DPOA's decision-making authority was activated based on the date of the resident's signature on the DPOA document, rather than a physician's assessment of the resident's decision-making capacity.
Failure to Timely Update Care Plan After Resident's Significant Change
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to develop a Comprehensive Care Plan following a significant change in the status of a resident. This deficiency was identified when a resident experienced an unwitnessed fall resulting in a major injury, specifically a right hip replacement and pubic bone fracture. Despite the incident occurring on 7/24/24, the Care Plan was not revised within the required seven-day timeframe. The Care Plan was only updated on 8/19/24, which was beyond the stipulated period for ensuring a timely, person-centered comprehensive assessment. The resident's medical history included conditions such as Senile Degeneration of Brain, Major Depressive Disorder, Hypertension, Dementia, and Type II Diabetes. An interview with the Assistant Director of Nursing confirmed the delay in updating the Care Plan.
Failure to Notify DPOA of New Medication
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to notify the responsible party of a resident before starting a new medication, Memantine, which was prescribed for dementia-related behaviors. The resident had a Durable Power of Attorney (DPOA) who had specified that they should be contacted for any medication changes. Despite this, the resident was administered Memantine without the DPOA's consent. The resident's medical records indicated severe cognitive impairment and a diagnosis of dementia, necessitating careful communication with the DPOA regarding treatment decisions. The deficiency occurred because the charge nurse did not notify the DPOA when a new physician's order was given for Memantine. The psychiatrist provided verbal orders to the charge nurse, who was responsible for contacting the DPOA but failed to do so. The DPOA only became aware of the new medication upon receiving the resident's pharmacy bill, at which point they expressed disapproval and requested the medication be discontinued. This oversight highlights a lapse in communication and adherence to the resident's care plan regarding medication changes.
Failure to Protect Resident from Abuse
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to protect a resident from intimidation and physical abuse. On the specified date, an LPN and three CNAs forcibly made the resident take a shower despite the resident's refusal and expressed fear of water. The resident was visibly tearful and upset while recounting the event and had multiple bruises on their arms as a result of the incident. The resident's care plan indicated that they were resistive to care and preferred to wash themselves at the sink in their room. The care plan also specified that if the resident resisted ADLs, staff should reassure the resident, leave, and return later to try again. However, the staff involved did not follow these guidelines and instead forced the resident to shower, causing physical and emotional distress. Interviews with the staff involved revealed that they were aware of the resident's refusal but proceeded with the shower anyway. The LPN and CNAs admitted to physically assisting the resident to stand and disrobe, despite the resident's protests and physical resistance. The facility's policies clearly state that residents have the right to refuse care and should not be coerced or forced, yet these policies were not followed in this instance.
Failure to Use Gait Belt During Resident Transfer
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to provide safe transfer assistance for a resident who was transferred by four staff members from a wheelchair to a shower chair without the use of a gait belt. The resident physically resisted the transfer, and staff grabbed the resident by the arms to lift them, resulting in bruising on the back of the right upper arm, left lower arm below the elbow, and right upper outer arm. The resident had diagnoses including morbid obesity, unspecified osteoarthritis, low back pain, and required assistance with personal care. The facility's policy on Safe Lifting and Movement of Residents, revised in 2017, mandates the use of appropriate techniques and devices, including gait belts, for lifting and moving residents. However, during the incident, staff did not use a gait belt and instead lifted the resident by the arms, contrary to the care plan that required assistance by two staff for transfers. Interviews with various staff members, including LPNs, CNAs, and therapists, confirmed that gait belts should be used for all transfers unless a mechanical lift is required. Despite the facility's policy and staff training on the use of gait belts, the staff involved in the incident did not adhere to these guidelines. The resident's care plan and the facility's policy were not followed, leading to the resident sustaining bruises during the transfer. Interviews with the staff revealed a lack of consistent understanding and application of the policy regarding the use of gait belts during transfers.
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.
