Ignite Medical Resort Kansas City, Llc
Inspection history, citations, penalties and survey trends for this long-term care facility in Kansas City, Missouri.
- Location
- 2100 N W Barry Road, Kansas City, Missouri 64154
- CMS Provider Number
- 265872
- Inspections on file
- 23
- Latest survey
- February 11, 2026
- Citations (last 12 mo.)
- 1
Citation history
Health deficiencies cited at Ignite Medical Resort Kansas City, Llc during CMS and state inspections, most recent first.
A resident with heart failure, pneumonia, respiratory failure, and an ADL self-care deficit requiring substantial assistance with bathing and personal hygiene did not receive a shower, bed bath, or shave during a five-day respite stay, despite facility policies requiring at least twice-weekly bathing and assistance with grooming. Observation found the resident in bed with dry, flaky skin, disheveled greasy hair, facial hair, and body odor, and the resident reported staff had repeatedly said they would provide at least a bed bath and trim facial hair but never did, causing the resident to feel self-conscious and uncomfortable. Review of records showed no documentation of a shower, shave, or any refusals, while CNAs, an LPN, the DON, and the Administrator all stated that residents should be offered regular showers, refusals must be documented, and residents requesting shaving should be assisted and kept clean and well groomed.
A resident was hit in the face by another resident, resulting in a laceration to the lower lip. The incident occurred in the dining room when one resident asked another to move away from the table, leading to frustration and physical aggression. Both residents have moderately impaired cognitive skills and a history of behavioral issues, but neither had previously displayed physical aggression. The facility's abuse policy requires staff education on abuse prevention, but the incident highlights a failure in monitoring and managing resident behaviors.
The facility failed to employ a qualified director of food and nutrition services, affecting all residents receiving meals. The Dietary Manager, promoted nine months ago, lacked necessary qualifications and credentials, including certification and experience. Interviews confirmed the DM was not certified and was still completing a food safety course, with the Registered Dietitian and General Manager acknowledging the deficiency.
The facility failed to provide written notification of hospital transfers for two residents, only giving verbal notices. One resident with intact cognition was transferred twice for medical issues without written notice, while another with moderately impaired cognition was transferred multiple times for serious conditions without documentation of written notice. The facility's management acknowledged the lack of written notifications.
The facility failed to ensure a safe discharge for multiple residents, resulting in significant deficiencies. Residents were discharged without proper orders, medications, or follow-up care. One resident with a heart condition was sent home with incorrect medications, while another lacked necessary medical equipment and dialysis services. The facility's discharge process lacked communication, coordination, and documentation, leading to unsafe transitions.
The facility failed to provide written bed hold notices to two residents during hospital transfers, relying instead on verbal notifications. This deficiency was identified for residents with intact and moderately impaired cognition, who were hospitalized for various medical conditions. The facility's policy lacked details on the cost per day and the requirement for written notices, contributing to the oversight.
The facility failed to conduct ongoing neurological assessments for residents who experienced unwitnessed falls, as required by their policy. A resident with a history of traumatic brain injury had multiple falls without proper evaluations. Another resident reported hitting her head during a fall, but follow-up assessments were not conducted. A third resident also lacked documented follow-up assessments after an unwitnessed fall. Staff interviews revealed inconsistencies in following the facility's protocol for neurological assessments.
The facility failed to document that residents were offered and provided education about influenza and pneumonia vaccines, with no signed declinations or rationales for refusals recorded. Interviews revealed that the facility did not obtain signatures for vaccine refusals and did not document education in the electronic medical record, contrary to the expectations of the Director of Nursing.
A resident with intact cognition requested not to receive care from certain staff members due to perceived rudeness and disrespect. Despite this request and subsequent coaching for the staff involved, the facility failed to ensure these staff members were removed from the resident's care assignments. This oversight violated the resident's right to self-determination and highlighted communication gaps within the facility's management.
A facility failed to maintain ileostomy care orders for a resident with metabolic encephalopathy, ileostomy status, and cirrhosis of the liver. The resident's care plan required ostomy care, but no orders were present in the EMR. The last documented change of the ileostomy wafer and bag was weeks prior, leading to leakage issues that affected the resident's quality of life. Observations showed fecal matter under the ileostomy skin barrier, and the NP confirmed the absence of care orders, noting they might have been lost during hospital visits.
A resident with Alzheimer's and dementia eloped from the facility and was found near a busy roadway. The facility failed to provide adequate supervision and did not follow their elopement policy, resulting in a lack of immediate search and notification to the resident's family. The incident was not documented in the nursing notes, and the family was informed days later. Staff interviews revealed confusion about the incident's documentation and reporting.
Failure to Provide Assisted Bathing and Grooming for Dependent Resident
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to honor a resident’s right to dignity and appropriate personal hygiene and grooming. Facility policies on Resident Rights and Bathing required that residents be treated with respect and dignity, be offered baths or showers in accordance with their preferences (or at least twice weekly if no preference was voiced), and receive assistance with grooming. Resident #131’s admission MDS dated 10/20/25 documented no cognitive impairment, substantial assistance needs with showers, bathing, and personal hygiene, and diagnoses including heart failure, pneumonia, and respiratory failure. The resident’s care plan dated 2/8/26 identified an ADL self-care deficit related to limited physical mobility, respiratory impairment related to respiratory failure, and a need for substantial assistance with showers and personal hygiene. From 2/2/26 through 2/9/26, there was no shower sheet or documentation that the resident had received a shower or shave, and no refusal documentation indicating that a shower or shave had been offered and declined. On observation and interview on 2/8/26, the resident was in bed with dry, flaky skin, disheveled and greasy hair, facial hair, and body odor, and reported having been in the facility since Tuesday without receiving a shower, bed bath, or shave, despite staff repeatedly saying they would at least provide a bed bath and trim facial hair. The resident stated they were there because they needed help and had not received the help needed, and that the lack of cleanliness and grooming made them feel self-conscious and uncomfortable. CNAs, an LPN, the DON, and the Administrator all stated that residents should receive at least two showers per week, that refusals must be documented, that residents requesting shaving should receive assistance, and that residents should be clean, dry, and well groomed, and acknowledged that this resident, who was present for five days, should have received at least one shower.
Resident-to-Resident Abuse Incident
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to protect a resident from abuse when they were hit in the face by another resident, resulting in a laceration to the lower lip. The incident occurred in the dining room, where the resident was sitting at a table and was approached by another resident who was asked to move away. The second resident, feeling frustrated, hit the first resident in the face. This incident was witnessed by another resident who heard the exchange and saw the aftermath. The first resident involved in the incident has a history of mild cognitive impairment and has displayed behaviors such as refusing care and medications, and occasionally being physically aggressive. The second resident also has moderately impaired cognitive skills and a history of potential behaviors, including being sexually inappropriate and yelling at other residents. Both residents have adequate hearing and clear speech, and neither had previously displayed physical aggression while residing at the facility. The facility's abuse policy, dated November 2018, outlines the prohibition of abuse and the requirement for staff education on abuse prevention. However, the incident highlights a failure in monitoring and managing resident behaviors, as neither resident was identified as high risk for physical aggression prior to the incident. The facility's investigation revealed that staff did not witness the incident, and the residents involved had not previously exhibited such behaviors, indicating a gap in the facility's ability to anticipate and prevent resident-to-resident abuse.
Facility Lacks Qualified Dietary Manager
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to employ a qualified director of food and nutrition services, which had the potential to affect all 87 residents receiving meals from the facility's kitchen. The Dietary Manager (DM), who was hired in September 2018, was promoted to the position of dietary manager nine months prior to the survey but lacked the necessary qualifications and credentials. The DM's job description required a Food Service Sanitation certification, but the employee file did not contain documentation of any training course. During interviews, the DM confirmed she was not a certified dietary manager and did not possess other qualifying credentials, although she was currently enrolled in a food safety and management course. The General Manager and the Registered Dietitian (RD) corroborated that the DM was not a certified dietary manager and lacked two or more years of experience in the role of director of food and nutrition services in a healthcare setting. The RD also confirmed that neither the DM nor the assistant DM had the required experience, and the DM had not yet completed the food safety and management course. This deficiency in staffing qualifications was identified through interviews and record reviews, highlighting the facility's failure to meet regulatory requirements for food and nutrition service management.
Failure to Provide Written Transfer Notices
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to provide written notification of facility-initiated transfers to the hospital for two residents, R38 and R19, as required by their policy. For Resident R38, who had intact cognition, the facility did not provide written notice of transfer on two occasions, despite the resident being sent to the hospital for issues such as stomach pain, vomiting, dizziness, and critical lab results indicating a UTI and failed antibiotic treatment. The General Manager confirmed that only verbal notices were given, and no written documentation was provided to the resident or their representative. Similarly, Resident R19, who had moderately impaired cognition, was transferred to the hospital multiple times for conditions including acute ischemic encephalopathy, seizures, pneumonia, and a blood clot. However, there was no documentation in the facility's records that R19 or his representative received written notice of these transfers. The Administrator acknowledged that only verbal notifications were given, and there was a lack of paper documentation to support the transfers.
Inadequate Discharge Process Leads to Unsafe Transitions
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure a safe and orderly discharge for five out of six sampled residents, leading to significant deficiencies in the discharge process. Residents were discharged without proper orders, medications, home health services, dialysis services, and follow-up appointments. For instance, one resident was discharged with a heart condition and pneumonia but was not provided with necessary home health care or follow-up appointments. The resident was sent home with incorrect medications belonging to other residents, leading to confusion and a lack of medication adherence until an emergency in-home visit was conducted. Another resident was discharged without any medications or necessary medical equipment, such as a bed and lift, which were promised by the facility but not delivered. The resident also required dialysis services, which the facility failed to arrange. The resident and their family were not provided with discharge instructions or education on medication management, leaving them to arrange home health services independently. Additional deficiencies were noted with other residents, including one who left the facility against medical advice and found that their prescriptions had not been sent to the pharmacy as claimed by the facility. Another resident was discharged to the hospital without proper documentation or provider orders. Overall, the facility's discharge process was inadequate, lacking in communication, coordination, and proper documentation, resulting in unsafe transitions for the residents involved.
Failure to Provide Written Bed Hold Notices
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to provide written notification of the bed hold policy to residents and their representatives during hospital transfers, as required by regulations. This deficiency was identified for two residents, R38 and R19, out of a sample of 28. The facility's policy on bed hold and therapeutic leave, revised in November 2018, did not include the cost per day or specify that the notice must be written, which contributed to the oversight. Resident R38, who had intact cognition as indicated by a BIMS score of 15 out of 15, was transferred to the hospital on two occasions, once for stomach pain and vomiting and another time for a urinary tract infection and failed antibiotic treatment. Despite these transfers, there was no documentation in the electronic medical record (EMR) that a written notice of the bed hold policy was provided to R38 or their representative. The General Manager confirmed that only verbal notices were given, acknowledging the need for improvement in this area. Similarly, Resident R19, who had moderately impaired cognition with a BIMS score of 11 out of 15, was hospitalized multiple times for conditions including acute ischemic encephalopathy, seizures, pneumonia, and a blood clot. The facility's EMR lacked documentation of written notices regarding the bed hold policy for any of these hospital transfers. The Administrator admitted that neither R19 nor their representative received the necessary bed hold papers, indicating that the facility relied on verbal notifications instead of the required written documentation.
Failure to Conduct Neurological Assessments After Unwitnessed Falls
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to perform ongoing neurological assessments for residents who experienced unwitnessed falls, which could have resulted in head trauma. This deficiency was identified for three residents out of a sample of 28. The facility's policy required that neurological assessments be conducted for any unwitnessed fall or if there was any indication of head injury. However, the facility did not consistently follow this protocol, as evidenced by the lack of completed neurological evaluations for several falls experienced by the residents. Resident 19, who had a history of traumatic brain injury and repeated falls, experienced multiple unwitnessed falls. Despite the facility's policy, neurological evaluations were not completed for all of these incidents. The facility's documentation was inconsistent, with some falls lacking any neurological assessments and others having only partially completed checklists. Interviews with staff revealed a lack of adherence to the facility's protocol, with some nurses not completing the required assessments or documentation. Similarly, Resident 222 reported an unwitnessed fall where she hit her head, but follow-up neurological assessments were not conducted as required. The initial evaluation was completed, but the ongoing assessments were not documented. Resident 226 also experienced an unwitnessed fall, and while an initial neurological evaluation was conducted, no follow-up assessments were documented. Interviews with the DON and nursing staff highlighted discrepancies in the understanding and implementation of the facility's neurological assessment protocol, contributing to the deficiency.
Failure to Document Vaccine Education and Declinations
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to document that residents were offered and provided education about the influenza and pneumonia vaccines. Specifically, two residents were not documented as having been offered education about the influenza vaccine, and four residents were not documented as having been offered education about the pneumonia vaccine. This lack of documentation could potentially prevent residents or their representatives from making informed decisions regarding immunizations, which could lead to illness. The facility's Immunization Policy, revised in May 2023, requires that all admissions be offered the pneumovax injection as recommended by the CDC, and that each resident's immunization status be documented in their clinical record. However, the facility did not document any history of pneumonia vaccines for the residents reviewed, nor did they document signed declinations or rationales for refusals. Additionally, there was no documentation of education provided to residents who declined the vaccines. Interviews with the Infection Preventionist and the Director of Nursing revealed that the facility did not obtain signatures for vaccine refusals and did not document education provided to residents in the electronic medical record. The Director of Nursing expected that the electronic medical record would contain reasons for vaccine declinations and any education provided, but this was not the case for the residents reviewed.
Failure to Honor Resident's Request for Specific Care Providers
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to honor a resident's request to not have certain staff members provide care, which compromised the resident's right to self-determination. The resident, identified as R26, had an intact cognitive status and was dependent on staff for care. Despite having expressed concerns about the behavior of two staff members, CNA2 and LPN4, whom the resident found rude and disrespectful, the facility continued to assign these staff members to provide care to R26. This was contrary to the facility's policy on self-determination, which emphasizes supporting resident choice in care providers. The resident's complaints were documented during a care plan conference in July 2024, and coaching sessions were conducted for the staff members involved. However, the facility's management failed to ensure that these staff members were removed from R26's care assignments. The General Manager and Staffing Coordinator were unaware that CNA2 continued to provide care to R26 in September 2024, despite the resident's request and the coaching sessions that had taken place earlier. Interviews with facility staff revealed a lack of communication and follow-through regarding the resident's request. The General Manager and Director of Nursing were not fully informed about the ongoing involvement of the staff members in R26's care, and the Staffing Coordinator was not aware of the full extent of the resident's complaints. This oversight resulted in the continued involvement of CNA2 and LPN4 in R26's care, contrary to the resident's expressed wishes and the facility's policy on resident rights.
Lack of Ileostomy Care Orders for Resident
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure that orders for ileostomy care were in place for a resident who required such services. The resident, who had diagnoses including metabolic encephalopathy, ileostomy status, and cirrhosis of the liver, was observed to have no physician orders for ileostomy care in their electronic medical record. The resident's care plan indicated the need for ostomy care as per provider's orders, but these orders were missing. The resident's treatment administration record showed that the last documented change of the ileostomy wafer and bag was several weeks prior, indicating a lack of consistent care. Observations and interviews revealed that the resident experienced issues with their ileostomy, including leakage that affected their quality of life and potentially their skin integrity. The resident reported not getting out of bed much due to the leakage, and fecal matter was observed under the ileostomy skin barrier during a wound assessment. The nurse practitioner confirmed that the leakage could negatively impact wound healing and acknowledged the absence of ileostomy care orders. It was noted that the orders might have been lost during the resident's recent hospital visits, and the admission nurse was responsible for ensuring the orders were present upon the resident's return.
Resident Elopement Due to Inadequate Supervision and Communication
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to provide protective oversight for a resident with Alzheimer's disease, dementia, cognitive communication deficit, difficulty walking, and a history of falls. The resident eloped from the facility and was found by a motorist lying in the grass near a busy roadway. Facility staff were unaware of the resident's absence, and the incident was not documented in the nursing notes. The facility's policy on elopement, which requires immediate search and notification of the resident's responsible party, was not followed. The resident's care plan identified them as at risk for elopement and wandering, yet no specific goals or interventions were listed. The care plan also noted the resident's need for supervision and frequent reminders due to impaired cognition. Despite these documented risks, the facility did not implement adequate measures to prevent the resident's elopement or ensure their safety. Interviews with staff and family members revealed a lack of communication and documentation regarding the incident. The resident's family was not informed of the elopement until several days later, and there was confusion among staff about whether the incident had been properly recorded or reported. The Director of Nursing and Interim Administrator claimed that the facility followed their elopement policy, but there was no documentation to support this claim.
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.
