Stonebridge Villa Marie
Inspection history, citations, penalties and survey trends for this long-term care facility in Jefferson City, Missouri.
- Location
- 1030 Edmonds Street, Jefferson City, Missouri 65109
- CMS Provider Number
- 265208
- Inspections on file
- 17
- Latest survey
- July 17, 2025
- Citations (last 12 mo.)
- 2
Citation history
Health deficiencies cited at Stonebridge Villa Marie during CMS and state inspections, most recent first.
The facility did not establish or maintain an infection prevention and control program as required, resulting in a deficiency identified by surveyors.
The facility did not complete the care plan within 7 days of the comprehensive assessment and failed to ensure it was prepared, reviewed, and revised by a team of health professionals as required.
A facility failed to thoroughly investigate a sexual assault allegation involving a resident with severe cognitive impairment. The investigation lacked signed statements from staff or witnesses and did not include interviews with other residents, contrary to the facility's policy. The DON initiated the investigation, but documentation was incomplete and stored on the DON's computer, who was off work. The LPN who reported the allegation was not asked to provide a signed statement.
Facility staff failed to report an allegation of sexual abuse involving a resident with severe cognitive impairment to DHSS and law enforcement within the required two-hour timeframe. Despite the facility's policy, the DON and administrator delayed reporting, as they did not find the allegation substantiated after an internal investigation. The resident had reported the incident to an LPN, who informed the administrator and DON immediately.
The facility failed to employ a full-time qualified dietitian or nutrition professional, resulting in the appointment of an unqualified dietary manager (DM) without prior experience or necessary certification. The DM had not started the required training, and the facility's registered dietitian only works part-time, potentially affecting all 66 residents.
Facility staff failed to serve food according to nutritionally calculated menus, as observed during a survey. Dietary staff did not prepare or serve cream cheese brownies as directed for residents on regular and dental/mechanical soft diets. Additionally, residents on pureed diets were served unmeasured portions of pureed leftovers instead of the specified menu items. This practice was due to training by a previous dietary manager, and the current dietary manager continued this without realizing it was against menu directives. The facility administrator was unaware of the non-compliance.
The facility staff failed to store food properly, leading to potential contamination and outdated use. Observations showed unlabeled and undated food items, improper thawing of frozen foods, and inadequate hand hygiene and dishwashing practices. The dietary manager and administrator acknowledged these issues, citing a lack of training and oversight as contributing factors.
The facility did not designate a qualified Infection Preventionist (IP) for its infection prevention and control program. The LPN/ADON enrolled in IP training only after the DON resigned, leaving the facility without a trained IP since April. The facility lacked a policy on IP qualifications, and the ADON and another RN are now enrolled in training.
The facility failed to complete required PASARR screenings for three residents, despite their significant cognitive impairments and psychiatric diagnoses. The residents, who were admitted or transferred from other facilities, did not have the necessary Level I Pre-Admission Screening or PASARR Level II screen. Interviews with staff revealed that the new administrator and SSD faced challenges in reviewing and locating PASARR records due to staff turnover and other priorities.
Facility staff failed to maintain safe food temperatures, serving hot food items like hamburger patties and french fries below the required 140°F, and pureed foods below 165°F. Staff did not check temperatures before serving, contrary to facility policies, risking food-borne illness for residents.
Facility staff failed to prepare and serve food at the correct texture for residents on mechanical soft diets. Instead of grinding hamburger patties as required, the cook diced them, following incorrect training from the DM. This led to a resident coughing after eating the meal. The DM and administrator were unaware that staff were not following the correct portion sizes and preparation methods.
Failure to Implement Infection Prevention and Control Program
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to provide and implement an infection prevention and control program. This deficiency was identified during the survey process, indicating that the required measures to prevent and control infections were not established or maintained as per regulatory standards. The report notes the absence of a comprehensive infection prevention and control program but does not provide further details regarding specific actions, inactions, or events, nor does it mention any particular residents or staff involved.
Failure to Timely Develop and Review Care Plan by Interdisciplinary Team
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to develop the complete care plan within 7 days of the comprehensive assessment. The care plan was not prepared, reviewed, and revised by a team of health professionals as required. This deficiency was identified based on the review of facility records and documentation, which showed that the care planning process did not meet the specified timeline and team involvement requirements.
Incomplete Investigation of Sexual Assault Allegation
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to thoroughly investigate an allegation of sexual assault involving a resident with severe cognitive impairment, dementia, traumatic brain injury, and anxiety disorder. The facility's policy on abuse, neglect, and exploitation requires immediate investigation and documentation of all allegations, including interviews with the involved resident, witnesses, and other residents. However, the investigation report lacked signed and dated statements from staff or witnesses and did not document interviews with other residents. The Director of Nursing (DON) was notified of the allegation by an LPN and initiated an investigation, but the documentation was incomplete and stored on the DON's computer, who was off work at the time. The administrator confirmed that the DON and Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON) gathered most of the information, but the LPN who reported the allegation was not asked to provide a signed statement. This lack of thorough documentation and adherence to the facility's policy led to the deficiency.
Failure to Timely Report Alleged Sexual Abuse
Penalty
Summary
Facility staff failed to report an allegation of sexual abuse involving a resident to the Department of Health and Senior Services (DHSS) and local law enforcement within the required two-hour timeframe. The facility's policy mandates that all alleged violations involving abuse must be reported immediately, but not later than two hours if the events involve abuse or result in serious bodily injury. Despite this, the Director of Nursing (DON) and the administrator did not report the allegation within the specified timeframe, as they did not find the allegation substantiated after an internal investigation. The resident involved was assessed with severe cognitive impairment and had diagnoses including dementia, traumatic brain injury, and anxiety disorder. The resident reported the alleged sexual assault to a Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN), who immediately informed the administrator and the DON. However, the DON did not report the incident to DHSS within the required timeframe, as the internal investigation did not substantiate the claim. The Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON) confirmed awareness of the initial report and acknowledged the requirement to report such allegations within two hours, but was unsure why the report was delayed.
Lack of Qualified Director in Food and Nutrition Services
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to designate a qualified Director of Food and Nutrition Services, as they did not employ a full-time qualified dietitian or other clinically qualified nutrition professional. The facility's Food Services Manager policy requires the daily functions of the Food Services Department to be under the supervision of a qualified Food Services Manager. However, the current dietary manager (DM) was hired without prior experience in a nursing facility and lacked the necessary certification or education for the director of nutritional services position. The DM had been in the position for about two weeks and had not yet started an online food protection manager's course. The administrator admitted to hiring the current DM from within the dietary department after the previous DM quit without notice. The facility's registered dietitian only works part-time, and there are no certified or clinically qualified nutritional staff employed full-time. The administrator was unaware that the DM did not meet the requirements for the position, which has the potential to affect all residents in the facility, with a census of 66.
Failure to Follow Nutritionally Calculated Menus
Penalty
Summary
The facility staff failed to serve food in accordance with the nutritionally calculated menus to all residents, as observed during a survey. The facility's policy, dated October 2008, required that menus meet the nutritional needs of residents, be prepared in advance, and be followed. However, on a specific day, dietary staff did not prepare or serve cream cheese brownies as directed by the menus to residents on regular and dental/mechanical soft diets. The dietary manager acknowledged the oversight and admitted to not knowing why the brownies were not made. Additionally, the facility staff did not follow the menu for residents on pureed diets. Instead of serving the specified pureed cheeseburger, french fries, mandarin oranges, and cream cheese brownie, staff served unmeasured portions of pureed leftover roast beef, green beans, and cinnamon rolls. This practice was a result of training by the previous dietary manager, who instructed staff to use leftovers for pureed meals. The current dietary manager continued this practice, unaware that it was against the menu directives. The facility administrator confirmed that staff should follow the planned menus and was unaware that the menus were not being adhered to.
Deficiencies in Food Storage, Thawing, and Hygiene Practices
Penalty
Summary
The facility staff failed to store food in a manner that prevents potential contamination and outdated use, as observed during a survey. Multiple instances were noted where food items in refrigerators and storage areas were unlabeled, undated, and left open to the air, which could lead to cross-contamination and the growth of food-borne pathogens. The dietary manager acknowledged that staff were trained on proper food storage practices, but some staff continued to neglect these protocols. The administrator confirmed that all dietary staff are responsible for monitoring food storage, but the dietary manager is specifically tasked with weekly checks. Additionally, the facility staff did not adhere to proper thawing procedures for frozen foods, as evidenced by the observation of frozen broccoli florets left on a countertop next to ready-to-eat food items. The dietary manager admitted that the broccoli should not have been left on the countertop and should have been thawed in the refrigerator or under running water. The administrator reiterated that staff were trained on proper thawing techniques, but the issue persisted due to a lack of oversight and training. The facility also failed to ensure proper hand hygiene and dishwashing practices. Observations revealed that staff did not allow dishes to air dry before stacking them, and several staff members did not follow proper handwashing procedures, such as scrubbing hands for the required duration or using paper towels to turn off faucets. The dietary manager and administrator both acknowledged these deficiencies, noting that some staff had not been adequately trained on these requirements. Furthermore, waste containers were left uncovered, contrary to the facility's policy, which could attract pests and rodents. The dietary manager admitted to not having trained all staff on this requirement, and the administrator confirmed that waste containers should always be covered.
Failure to Designate Qualified Infection Preventionist
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to designate a qualified Infection Preventionist (IP) for its infection prevention and control program, as required. The facility, with a census of 66, did not have a policy outlining the qualifications for the IP role. During interviews, it was revealed that the Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN)/Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON) had only recently enrolled in the necessary IP training after the Director of Nursing (DON) resigned. The DON had been enrolled in IP training since April but had not completed it before resigning. Consequently, the facility had been without a trained IP since April, and the ADON and another Registered Nurse (RN) were only now enrolled in the training to serve as backups.
Failure to Complete PASARR Screenings for Residents
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure that Level I Pre-Admission Screening and Resident Review (PASARR) screenings were completed for three of the seven sampled residents. The PASARR process is a federally mandated screening to evaluate the presence of psychiatric conditions and determine if a Level II screen is required. The facility's policy outlines specific procedures for obtaining and processing the necessary forms, DA-124 A/B, for residents in Medicaid-certified beds. However, the facility did not adhere to these procedures, resulting in the absence of required screenings for the residents in question. Resident #25 was admitted and re-entered the facility without a Level I Pre-Admission Screening or PASARR Level II screen, despite having diagnoses of dementia, depression, and schizophrenia, and receiving psychiatric medications. Similarly, Resident #48, who entered from an inpatient psychiatric facility, and Resident #59, who transferred from another skilled nursing facility, both lacked the necessary PASARR evaluations. These residents had significant cognitive impairments and psychiatric diagnoses, which should have triggered the need for a PASARR assessment. Interviews with facility staff revealed that the administrator, who started in March, acknowledged a lack of review of PASARRs due to other priorities. The Social Services Director (SSD), who is new to the position, admitted difficulty in locating and reviewing the PASARR records for current residents. The SSD stated that while all new residents have complete PASARRs, the records for existing residents have been challenging to find, indicating a lapse in the facility's compliance with PASARR requirements.
Failure to Maintain Safe Food Temperatures
Penalty
Summary
The facility staff failed to ensure that prepared food items were served at a safe and appetizing temperature. Observations revealed that hot food items, such as hamburger patties and french fries, were not maintained at the required internal temperature of 140°F or higher. The staff did not check the internal temperatures of these food items before placing them in insulated food carts for delivery to the dining room. When the food was served, the internal temperatures of the hamburger patties and french fries were significantly below the safe temperature, measuring as low as 116°F and 93°F, respectively. Additionally, the facility staff did not reheat pureed food items to the necessary internal temperature of 165°F before service. Pureed foods, including roast beef, green beans, and cinnamon rolls, were observed to be served at temperatures as low as 74°F, which is well below the safe threshold. The dietary aide admitted to not checking the internal temperatures of foods before serving them, and the dietary manager was unaware that staff were not following the proper procedures for temperature checks. The facility's policies on food preparation and service, as well as food safety requirements, were not adhered to by the staff. These policies clearly outline the importance of maintaining food temperatures to prevent the growth of food-borne pathogens. Despite recent education on food temperature requirements, the staff failed to implement these practices, leading to the potential risk of food-borne illness for all residents dining in the affected dining room.
Improper Food Preparation for Mechanical Soft Diets
Penalty
Summary
Facility staff failed to prepare and serve food items at an appropriate texture for residents on dental/mechanical soft diets. The facility's policy required that menus meet the nutritional needs of residents and that standardized recipes be used. However, the staff did not follow these guidelines. Instead of grinding hamburger patties as directed by the recipe, the cook cut them into small diced pieces. This method of preparation was taught by the dietary manager (DM), who had been trained by the previous DM to cut food items with a knife for mechanical soft diets, despite the recipe's instructions to use a food processor. During meal service, residents received a smaller portion of diced hamburger patties than specified in the menu. One resident began coughing repeatedly after consuming the meal, indicating that the food texture was inappropriate. The DM acknowledged that not all residents on mechanical soft diets could make choices about food texture and admitted to not knowing that staff were not following the portion sizes on the menu. The administrator confirmed that food should be prepared and served according to the planned menus and recipes, and was unaware that staff were not adhering to these standards.
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.
