Diversicare Of Southaven
Inspection history, citations, penalties and survey trends for this long-term care facility in Southaven, Mississippi.
- Location
- 1730 Dorchester Dr, Southaven, Mississippi 38671
- CMS Provider Number
- 255109
- Inspections on file
- 29
- Latest survey
- February 20, 2026
- Citations (last 12 mo.)
- 2 (1 serious)
Citation history
Health deficiencies cited at Diversicare Of Southaven during CMS and state inspections, most recent first.
A cognitively impaired resident with dementia and documented wandering and elopement risk exited the facility unnoticed after following a visitor out the front entrance. Nursing staff had last seen the resident walking the halls after lunch, but when the resident was no longer observed, an LPN initiated a missing resident code and staff began searching. The receptionist, who was responsible for monitoring the entrance and using an elopement book with photos and information on at-risk residents, stated she had not been informed that this resident was an elopement risk and did not recognize her as a resident when she followed a visitor outside. The elopement book contained no information on this resident, and the door alarm did not sound when they exited; maintenance and the administrator later confirmed video showed the receptionist turning off the alarm. The resident, who later reported she followed others because she did not want to be left alone, was found by staff in a nearby subdivision after leaving the building.
A resident admitted with essential HTN, paroxysmal A-fib, and rheumatoid arthritis did not receive three ordered medications—terazosin at HS, dabigatran twice daily at HS, and morphine sulfate twice daily—on the night of admission. The eMAR showed these doses coded as not given, and the only progress note entry stated "awaiting medications" without further documentation that they were obtained or administered. Facility protocol required checking the E Kit, contacting the pharmacy or backup pharmacy, notifying a supervisor, and, if delays exceeded four hours, contacting the MD, but staff did not follow these steps. An LPN and the DON confirmed that the medications were not administered and that the established protocol for unavailable medications was not implemented.
A resident with dementia and impaired lower extremity range of motion was improperly transferred by a CNA using a stand-pivot method instead of the required total lift with a medium yellow sling. This resulted in the resident being lowered to the floor and later diagnosed with a fracture above a previous joint replacement. The CNA admitted to not checking the Kardex for updated transfer instructions, leading to the resident's injury and hospitalization.
A resident with dementia and impaired lower extremity ROM was injured when a CNA used an incorrect transfer method, contrary to the care plan requiring a total lift and two staff members. The CNA did not consult the Kardex, leading to the resident's fall and subsequent fracture.
The facility inaccurately submitted staffing data into the PBJ system for the first quarter of 2025 due to unresolved issues with their payroll system. Late clock-ins and shifts crossing midnight were automatically transferred to the next shift without manual correction, leading to discrepancies in reported staffing data. The Administrator confirmed that the facility had not experienced low staffing, but the payroll system's inaccuracies affected the reported hours.
The facility failed to securely store hazardous cleaning chemicals on two housekeeping carts. One cart was found unlocked with chemicals accessible, and another had chemicals stored outside the locked cart due to a lack of a key. Staff were unaware of the locking issues, and the chemicals posed potential hazards, including severe skin burns and eye damage.
The facility failed to implement proper infection prevention and control practices for residents on Enhanced Barrier Precautions (EBP) and contact isolation. Staff did not wear gowns during wound and catheter care for two residents, despite EBP signage. Additionally, a resident on contact precautions for C. diff lacked biohazard containers, and ineffective cleaning products were used. These oversights were acknowledged by staff and confirmed by the Infection Preventionist and Housekeeping Supervisor.
The facility failed to ensure call lights were within reach for two residents, limiting their ability to request assistance. One resident's call light was wrapped around the bed rail, while another's was found inside a closed drawer and later on the floor. Staff confirmed the oversight, and the DON emphasized the importance of call light accessibility for resident safety. The residents involved had conditions such as blindness, end-stage renal disease, and hemiplegia.
The facility failed to maintain a safe and homelike environment for several residents, with issues such as broken furniture, mice droppings, leaking air conditioners, and malfunctioning equipment going unaddressed. These deficiencies compromised the safety and comfort of the residents, as maintenance and housekeeping concerns were not reported or resolved in a timely manner.
The facility failed to implement care plans for several residents, leading to deficiencies in their care. A resident with a self-care deficit had poor oral hygiene due to neglect of daily oral care. Two residents with ADL deficits had unclean and untrimmed fingernails, indicating a lack of proper grooming. Another resident with end-stage renal disease exceeded fluid restrictions due to inadequate monitoring and documentation. These failures were confirmed by staff and the DON.
The facility failed to provide adequate ADL care for three residents dependent on staff assistance. A resident had poor oral hygiene with a thick white substance on their teeth, while two residents had long, jagged fingernails with a brown substance underneath. Despite staff acknowledging the need for care, these deficiencies were observed, with one resident expressing dissatisfaction and another at risk of skin breakdown or infection.
A facility failed to secure electronic health records, leading to a privacy breach for two residents. An LPN left a medication cart unattended with residents' EMARs visible, exposing their personal information. The LPN and DON acknowledged the oversight, confirming it as a privacy violation.
A medication cart was left unlocked and unattended in the [NAME] Wing, with a medication cup containing six pills on top. An LPN admitted to leaving the cart unsecured while assisting with moving a bed. The facility's policy requires medication carts to be locked and secure when not in use, as confirmed by the DON.
A facility failed to document and obtain physician orders for a resident's PICC line care. An RN flushed the PICC and started an antibiotic infusion without an order, and the EMAR lacked documentation for these actions. This was confirmed by another RN and the DON. The resident was admitted for aftercare following knee joint prosthesis explantation.
A resident's dresser drawers were found to contain mice droppings, indicating a failure in the facility's pest control program. The issue was reported by the resident's husband and confirmed by a CNA and RN, who expressed concerns about contamination risks. The Maintenance Supervisor received a work order about the problem, but the facility's pest control policy was not effectively implemented.
A facility failed to accurately monitor and document fluid intake for a dialysis resident with a one-liter fluid restriction, leading to the resident exceeding the limit on multiple days. Inconsistent documentation by nursing staff, including an LPN and oversight by the DON, contributed to the inability to determine adherence to the restriction.
A resident's wound vac dressing was not changed as ordered, leading to foam adhering to the wound bed. The dressing was supposed to be changed every Monday and Thursday, but it was not changed from 4/1/2024 to 4/10/2024. This resulted in complications that required debridement to remove the adhered foam fragments.
A facility failed to implement an elopement risk plan for a resident with a history of wandering, leading to the resident exiting the facility unsupervised. The resident's care plan included checking the wander guard every shift, but records showed this was not consistently done. The resident was found off the facility grounds and returned by staff.
A resident identified as an elopement risk exited the facility unnoticed due to a kitchen door not being properly closed and locked. The resident was found talking to the police at a nearby apartment complex and was returned to the facility uninjured. The kitchen area lacked a wander guard alarm system, and no staff were assigned to monitor that area late at night.
The facility failed to provide a safe, clean, and homelike environment, with damaged floors, dirty halls, and a lack of clean linens. A resident was found without proper bedding in cold weather, and the facility's shower room had been broken for two months. Housekeeping and maintenance issues were prevalent, with unclean resident rooms and garbage piling up in the biohazard room. Staff and residents expressed ongoing concerns about the facility's cleanliness and safety.
A resident was found lying on a bare mattress with no sheets or bedspread, covered only by a small throw, while the window was open, and the outside temperature was 38 degrees. Staff confirmed the lack of clean linens and blankets and the unnecessary opening of the window. The Administrator and DON acknowledged the resident should have had proper bedding and the window should not have been open in such cold weather.
The facility failed to implement comprehensive care plans for three residents requiring assistance with ADLs. One resident was found disheveled and unshaven, another had to wait up to eight hours for toileting assistance, and a third mainly received bed baths instead of showers. The DON confirmed that staff were not adhering to care plans, resulting in inadequate care.
The facility failed to provide sufficient staff, resulting in inadequate assistance with bathing, grooming, and personal hygiene for three residents. Staff reported reduced night shift staffing, making it difficult to provide timely care. Interviews confirmed the staffing issues, with one LPN stating the workload was overwhelming and residents not receiving showers as they should. The DON acknowledged some staff were not meeting basic care expectations, and the Workforce Manager admitted to insufficient training in scheduling.
The facility failed to ensure that call lights were functioning in all resident rooms, as evidenced by non-functioning call lights in the rooms of two residents. Observations and interviews confirmed that the call lights did not make any noise to alert staff, and maintenance was not aware of the issues. Both residents involved were cognitively intact.
Failure to Implement Elopement Protections Allows Cognitively Impaired Resident to Exit Unnoticed
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to provide adequate supervision and implement its elopement prevention system for a resident identified as an elopement and wandering risk. The resident was admitted with diagnoses including unspecified moderate dementia with behavioral disturbance and wandering, and had a BIMS score of 0, indicating severe cognitive impairment. On admission, the resident was assessed as being at risk for elopement, and documentation noted that a wander guard was in place. The facility’s clinical care system guidelines required that residents at risk for elopement have individualized interventions documented on the care plan and caregiver guide, a photograph taken, and their information placed in a central elopement information system, such as an elopement book at the nurse’s station or reception. On the day of the incident, nursing staff, including an LPN and CNAs, were aware that the resident wandered and was at risk for elopement and had last observed her walking the halls shortly after lunch. Around 1:00 PM, the LPN noticed the resident was no longer in the hallway and directed CNAs to check the resident’s room. When the resident was not found, the nurse initiated a missing resident code and staff began searching. Another resident reported seeing a lady in pink walking outside her window, prompting staff to search outside the building. The resident later confirmed in an interview that she had gone outside after following others because she did not want to be left alone when they left the table where she had been sitting. At the front entrance, the receptionist allowed a visitor to exit while a woman in pink followed the visitor out. The receptionist stated she was not aware that this individual was a resident and did not know she was at risk for wandering or elopement. She reported that there was an elopement book at the desk that should contain pictures and information on residents at risk, but she had not been notified about this resident and there was no information about her in the book. The receptionist also stated that the door alarm did not sound when she let the visitor and the woman in pink out, and that the alarm had been intermittently activating earlier in the day without residents present. Maintenance later reported that video footage showed the receptionist turning off the alarm after the visitor and the resident exited. The administrator confirmed that her review of the video showed the receptionist turning off the alarm and verified that the elopement book did not contain a picture or information regarding the resident’s elopement risk at the time of exit. The resident was determined to have exited the facility at approximately 1:08 PM and was located by staff about 0.4 miles away at 1:33 PM.
Removal Plan
- Implemented the elopement guideline.
- Completed an immediate room-to-room audit of all residents to assure all were safe.
- Returned Resident #1 safely to her room.
- Checked Resident #1’s wander guard for functionality upon return and confirmed it was functioning as designed.
- Performed a full body audit/assessment of Resident #1 immediately upon return with no negative findings.
- Placed Resident #1 on 1:1 supervision pending psychiatric consultation.
- Placed a request for psychiatric consultation for Resident #1.
- Planned that following removal of 1:1 supervision, Resident #1 would have visual observations every 30 minutes for 24 hours and continued as needed.
- Reviewed and updated Resident #1’s plan of care to reflect elopement risk.
- Checked all doors for proper function and operation and confirmed all doors were functioning properly.
- Notified the Medical Director.
- Notified Resident #1’s resident representative.
- Completed a 100% audit of all residents identified for elopement risk to ensure placement and functioning of the wander guard system.
- Completed an audit of elopement books on all units and at reception to ensure pictures and care plans were present for all at-risk residents.
- Completed elopement drills on all shifts.
- Educated the Receptionist on elopement guidance with emphasis on prompt response and investigation of alarm activation.
- Placed the Receptionist on administrative leave.
- Initiated an in-service with nursing staff regarding elopement guidelines, including completion of risk assessments, care plan updates, and elopement book updates.
- Initiated additional staff education on elopement guidelines and abuse and neglect.
- Provided education to Social Services regarding elopement guideline oversight.
- Returned (DNS) to educate staff and monitor effectiveness.
- Educated House Supervisors and Managers on Duty regarding elopement book accuracy.
- Ensured no staff member will be permitted to work without completing education.
- Conducted a QAPI meeting to address root cause and corrective action.
Failure to Obtain and Administer Ordered Medications for New Admission
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to ensure that ordered medications were available and administered as prescribed for one resident on the night of admission. The facility’s Medication Availability form, identified by the Nurse Consultant as the protocol for missing medications, directs staff to check the Emergency Medication Kit (E Kit), call the pharmacy for an estimated delivery time, notify a supervisor, and, if the delay is greater than four hours, call the physician for a plan to address the situation. Record review of the electronic Medication Administration Record (eMAR) for January 2026 showed that on the night of admission, the resident had physician orders for terazosin 1 mg at HS for essential hypertension, dabigatran 150 mg twice daily at HS for paroxysmal atrial fibrillation, and morphine sulfate 30 mg twice daily for pain related to rheumatoid arthritis. All three medications were documented with code 7 (Other/See Progress Notes), indicating they were not administered as ordered. Progress notes dated that night at 11:48 PM contained only the entry "awaiting medications" with no further documentation that the medications were obtained or given in accordance with the facility’s protocol. Interview with an LPN confirmed that, for new admissions, medication orders are transmitted to the pharmacy and that if medications are not available, staff may obtain them from the E Kit or contact the pharmacy, including backup or emergency pharmacy, to secure the medications. The LPN stated that failure to administer the resident’s prescribed medications could result in adverse outcomes. Review of the eMAR and interview with the DON confirmed that the three ordered medications were not administered and that staff did not follow the facility’s protocol for obtaining unavailable medications. Admission records showed the resident was admitted with essential hypertension, paroxysmal atrial fibrillation, and rheumatoid arthritis, requiring ongoing physician-ordered medication management.
Failure to Follow Transfer Protocols Leads to Resident Injury
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to protect a resident from neglect by not adhering to the prescribed transfer method as outlined in the resident's care plan. The incident involved a Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) who transferred the resident using a stand-pivot method instead of the required total lift with a medium yellow sling, as specified in the resident's Kardex. This improper transfer method led to the resident being lowered to the floor after expressing discomfort, which was initially assessed by a Registered Nurse (RN) with no apparent injury noted. Within 48 hours of the incident, the resident exhibited swelling and tenderness in the right knee, prompting further medical evaluation. An X-ray revealed a fracture above the previous joint replacement device, leading to the resident's transfer to the emergency room for further treatment. The facility's investigation confirmed that the CNA did not check the Kardex for updated transfer instructions, which contributed to the improper handling of the resident. The resident, who had been admitted to the facility with a diagnosis of dementia and required maximal assistance for transfers, suffered an acute comminuted periprosthetic fracture of the distal femoral metaphysis. The CNA admitted to not checking the Kardex for the resident's current transfer needs, despite being instructed to do so during orientation. This oversight resulted in the resident's injury and subsequent hospitalization.
Failure to Implement Care Plan Leads to Resident Injury
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to implement a resident's care plan when a Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) transferred a resident using an incorrect method, leading to an injury. The resident, who had a history of dementia and impaired range of motion in the lower extremities, required a total lift with a medium yellow sling and assistance from two staff members for transfers, as outlined in their care plan. However, on the evening of the incident, CNA #1 used a stand-pivot transfer method instead of the required lift, resulting in the resident being eased to the floor after expressing pain. Initially, no injury was noted, but within 48 hours, swelling and a fracture were identified, necessitating further medical evaluation and treatment. Interviews with facility staff revealed that the Kardex, which details the care plan interventions, was not consulted by CNA #1 before the transfer. The facility's policy mandates that CNAs check the Kardex at the beginning of each shift to ensure compliance with care plans. Despite this, CNA #1 admitted to not following the care plan, leading to the resident's injury. The facility's administrator confirmed that the care plan interventions automatically populate the Kardex for CNAs to follow, emphasizing the expectation for staff to adhere to these guidelines.
Inaccurate PBJ Staffing Data Submission
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to accurately submit staffing data into the Payroll-Based Journal (PBJ) system for the first quarter of 2025. The deficiency was identified through staff interviews, record reviews, and analysis of the PBJ staffing data report. The facility's policy on PBJ entry submission was not revised, and it was found that excessively low weekend staffing data was submitted for the specified quarter. Interviews with the Regional Human Resource and Human Resources personnel revealed that the facility's payroll system automatically transferred late clock-ins and shifts crossing midnight to the next shift, which was not manually corrected. This led to discrepancies in the reported staffing data. The Administrator confirmed that the facility had not experienced low staffing and that an on-call person was available on weekends to meet the required patient per day (PPD) staffing levels. However, the payroll system, which had been in use for about a year, had unresolved issues that affected the accuracy of the reported hours. The Administrator acknowledged that the workforce manager's schedule and the human resources report did not align, resulting in incorrect hour capture. This discrepancy in the payroll system contributed to the inaccurate submission of staffing data in the PBJ system.
Failure to Secure Hazardous Chemicals on Housekeeping Carts
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure the safe storage and locking of hazardous cleaning chemicals on two of the three housekeeping carts observed during the survey. On one occasion, an unattended housekeeping cart on the west hall was found unlocked, containing hazardous chemicals such as Crew Bathroom Disinfectant Cleaner, Virex Plus One-step disinfectant cleaner & deodorant, and Crew clinging Toilet bowl cleaner. Housekeeper #5 confirmed the cart was not locked and mentioned that the locking mechanism was broken, with previous attempts to secure it using tape. She acknowledged the importance of locking the cart to prevent residents from accessing the dangerous chemicals. In another instance, the rehabilitation hall housekeeping cart was locked, but chemicals were stored outside the cart within residents' reach. Housekeeper #4 admitted to storing the chemicals outside because he did not have a key to unlock the cart, having worked at the facility for about a month. The Housekeeping Supervisor was unaware of the issues with the west housekeeping cart and had forgotten to provide Housekeeper #4 with a key. The Administrator was also unaware of these issues, expecting to be notified if there were problems with the cart locks or if additional keys were needed. The Safety Data Sheets for the chemicals indicated potential hazards, including severe skin burns and eye damage, emphasizing the need for secure storage.
Infection Control Deficiencies in LTC Facility
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to implement proper infection prevention and control practices, as evidenced by several deficiencies observed during the survey. For Resident #4, the Treatment Nurse and a Certified Nursing Assistant did not wear gowns while providing wound care, despite the Enhanced Barrier Precautions (EBP) signage on the door indicating the need for such protective equipment. Both staff members acknowledged their oversight, attributing it to the absence of personal protective equipment at the door. The Infection Control Nurse confirmed that EBP should be followed during wound care to prevent infection spread. Similarly, for Resident #118, a Certified Nursing Assistant did not wear a gown while performing Foley catheter care, despite the EBP sign on the resident's door. The CNA admitted to the oversight and acknowledged the importance of wearing a gown to reduce the risk of bacterial transmission. The Infection Preventionist and Director of Nursing both confirmed that failing to use EBP during catheter care increased the risk of infection spread. For Resident #125, the facility failed to provide biohazard containers for the disposal of contaminated personal protective equipment, despite the resident being on contact precautions for Clostridium Difficile infection. The housekeeping staff used cleaning products that were not effective against C. diff spores, as confirmed by the Housekeeping Supervisor. The Infection Preventionist admitted to not notifying the housekeeping department about the specific precautions needed for Resident #125, which contributed to the improper handling of the resident's clothing and trash, potentially spreading the infection.
Inaccessible Call Lights for Residents
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure that resident call lights were within reach, limiting the ability of two residents to request assistance as needed. For Resident #32, the call light was observed wrapped around the side rail of the bed and out of reach. During an interview, the resident expressed difficulty in using the call light due to its inaccessibility. Staff members, including a CNA and an RN, confirmed the call light's position and acknowledged the oversight, with the CNA admitting to forgetting to reposition it after leaving the room. Resident #32, who is cognitively intact with a BIMS score of 15, has diagnoses including blindness in the right eye and end-stage renal disease. Resident #42's call light was found inside a closed drawer, making it inaccessible while the resident was asleep. Subsequent observations revealed the call light hanging down the side of the nightstand and later on the floor, consistently out of reach. A CNA confirmed the call light's inaccessibility throughout the morning and acknowledged the expectation for it to be within reach. The Director of Nurses emphasized the importance of call light accessibility for resident safety and care. Resident #42 has diagnoses including hemiplegia and hemiparesis following a cerebral infarction affecting the right dominant side.
Facility Fails to Maintain Safe and Homelike Environment
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to provide a safe, clean, and homelike environment for several residents, as evidenced by multiple maintenance and housekeeping issues that were not addressed in a timely manner. Resident #14's room had a broken headboard with jagged edges, which was reported by the resident but not repaired, posing a potential safety hazard. Similarly, Resident #70's room had mice droppings in the dresser drawers, which were reported but not cleaned, raising health concerns. Resident #79's room had a hole in the wall with a vent cover hanging out, which was not identified or addressed by staff, creating a potential hazard. Resident #17's room had towels on the floor due to a leaking air conditioner, and a window with a gap exposing outside elements, which were not repaired despite being reported. Resident #32's bed remote control had exposed wires, posing a risk of shock, but this issue was not reported to maintenance. Resident #71's mattress was sagging and peeling, and the bed was not functioning, affecting the resident's comfort and positioning, yet these issues were not addressed by maintenance. Resident #87's room had multiple issues, including a broken bed rail, an oxygen concentrator covered in powdery substance, and boxes of supplies on the floor, which were not reported or addressed. Resident #93's overbed light was broken, preventing the resident from turning it off, and this was not repaired despite being reported. Resident #95's room had stained curtains and clutter from boxes on the floor, creating a fall risk, but these issues were not resolved. The facility's failure to address these maintenance and housekeeping issues compromised the safety and comfort of the residents.
Failure to Implement Care Plans for Residents
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to implement appropriate care plans for several residents, leading to deficiencies in their care. Resident #12, who had a self-care deficit due to a cerebral vascular accident with left hemiplegia, was observed with poor oral hygiene, as a thick white substance was adhered to his gums. Despite the care plan specifying daily oral care, the resident's teeth were neglected, as confirmed by a CNA and the Director of Nurses (DON). This neglect indicates that the care plan was not followed, resulting in inadequate grooming for the resident. Resident #111, who had an ADL self-care performance deficit related to dementia and Parkinson's disease, was found with long, jagged fingernails with a brown substance underneath. Despite the care plan's directive for daily nail care, the resident's nails were not attended to, as confirmed by the DON. Similarly, Resident #118, who required assistance with personal hygiene due to weakness and impaired cognition, was observed with long, unclean fingernails. The DON confirmed that the care plan for personal hygiene was not implemented, leading to the resident not receiving the necessary care. Resident #32, who had end-stage renal disease, was on a 1-liter fluid restriction as per his care plan. However, the facility failed to monitor and document his fluid intake accurately, resulting in the resident exceeding the fluid limit on multiple days. An LPN admitted to not verifying the fluid intake from meal trays, and the DON acknowledged the oversight. The MDS Nurse confirmed that the failure to monitor and document the fluid restriction was a failure to implement the care plan, which was intended to prevent complications associated with impaired renal function.
Failure to Provide Adequate ADL Care
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to provide adequate activities of daily living (ADL) care for three residents who were dependent on staff assistance. Resident #12 was observed with a thick white substance on their teeth, indicating a lack of oral hygiene care. Despite having a hospice aide visit twice a week, the responsibility for daily oral care was acknowledged by the staff, including a CNA and an RN, who admitted that the resident's oral care had been neglected. The Director of Nurses confirmed that all residents should receive proper grooming, including oral care. Resident #111, a diabetic, had long, jagged fingernails with a brown substance underneath, and expressed dissatisfaction with their condition. The resident stated that the nurse was responsible for cutting their nails, but it was unclear when this would occur. A CNA confirmed the need to notify nurses about the resident's nail care, which had not been done. Similarly, Resident #118 had long, jagged fingernails with a dark brown substance underneath, and expressed a dislike for their length. An RN confirmed the need for nail care, noting the potential risk of skin breakdown or infection. The DON acknowledged that Resident #118 was dependent on staff for personal care and should have received nail care.
Breach of Privacy Due to Unattended EMARs
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to secure electronic health records, resulting in a breach of privacy for two residents. On the [NAME] unit, a computer on a medication cart was left unattended with the Electronic Medication Administration Record (EMAR) of Resident #86 visible on the screen. This occurred when LPN #1 stepped away from the cart to assist another resident, leaving the screen open and accessible to anyone passing by. The visible information included the resident's name, medications, and room number. LPN #1 acknowledged the oversight and confirmed that the EMAR should have been closed to protect the resident's private health information. Similarly, on the same day, another incident occurred on the [NAME] Hall where Resident #104's EMAR was left visible on an unattended medication cart. LPN #1 admitted to leaving the cart unattended with the resident's information displayed, acknowledging that this was a violation of privacy. The Director of Nursing confirmed that resident information should not be left visible on unattended computers, recognizing this as a privacy issue. Both residents' admission records were reviewed, confirming their residency at the facility.
Medication Cart Left Unlocked and Unattended
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure that a medication cart was locked and medications were secured during one of the four survey days. According to the facility's policy titled 'Medication Storage,' it is the responsibility of the facility to keep the medication cart locked and secure at all times when not in use. On March 18, 2025, at 11:44 AM, an observation revealed that the medication cart in the [NAME] Wing was left unattended and unlocked by the door of room W-18. A medication cup containing six pills was found sitting on top of the cart, and two visitors walked by the unattended cart. At 11:50 AM, an LPN returned to the cart and confirmed that she had left it unlocked with medications exposed. She admitted that she had stepped away from the cart to assist in moving a bed, acknowledging that she should have secured the medications or completed her task without leaving the cart unattended. The medications in the cup were identified as Lasix, Amiodarone, Protonix, Eliquis, Tamsulosin, and Midodrine. The Director of Nurses confirmed that the facility's expectation and policy require all medication carts to be locked and medications to be kept secure when unattended, aligning with nursing standards of practice.
Failure to Document and Obtain Orders for PICC Line Care
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure accurate documentation and proper physician orders for the care of a resident with a Peripherally Inserted Central Catheter (PICC). During an observation, a Registered Nurse (RN) flushed the resident's PICC line and started an antibiotic infusion without a physician's order to do so. The resident's Electronic Medication Administration Record (EMAR) did not contain an order for flushing the PICC or changing the dressing, which was confirmed by another RN and the Director of Nursing. The resident was admitted with a medical diagnosis that included aftercare following the explantation of a knee joint prosthesis.
Failure to Maintain Effective Pest Control Program
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to maintain an effective pest control program, as evidenced by the presence of mice droppings in a resident's dresser drawers. The issue was first noticed by the resident's husband and subsequently reported to the staff. Upon inspection, a Certified Nurse Assistant confirmed the presence of numerous black substances resembling mice droppings in multiple drawers. This finding was corroborated by a Registered Nurse, who expressed concern about potential contamination of the resident's clothing with feces and bacteria. The facility's policy on pest control, effective since September 1, 2014, was not effectively implemented in this instance. The Maintenance Supervisor acknowledged receiving a work order regarding the issue, which was reported on March 15, 2025. The resident involved was cognitively intact, as indicated by a Brief Interview for Mental Status score of 15, and had been admitted with a diagnosis of Occlusion and Stenosis of an Unspecified Vertebral Artery. The presence of mice droppings in the resident's personal space posed a potential health hazard, as confirmed by the facility's Administrator.
Failure to Monitor Fluid Intake for Dialysis Resident
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to accurately monitor and document fluid intake for a resident receiving dialysis, leading to a deficiency. The resident, diagnosed with End-Stage Renal Disease, had a physician's order for a one-liter fluid restriction per day. However, a review of the resident's Electronic Medication Administration Record (eMAR) revealed that the resident exceeded this fluid intake on multiple days. The Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) responsible for documenting the fluid intake admitted to only recording the fluids she administered during her shift and was unaware of the total daily intake, leading to uncertainty about adherence to the fluid restriction. Further interviews with the Director of Nursing (DON) and a Nurse Practitioner (NP) confirmed the inconsistency and inaccuracy in the documentation of the resident's fluid intake. Both acknowledged the difficulty in determining whether the resident adhered to the fluid restriction due to unclear documentation. The DON was uncertain if the fluid provided with meals was included in the recorded intake, and the NP agreed that the failure to accurately monitor fluid intake could worsen the resident's medical condition.
Failure to Change Wound Vac Dressing as Ordered
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure a resident received treatment and services in accordance with professional standards of practice by not changing the negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) system dressing as ordered. The resident had an order for the wound vac dressing to be changed every Monday and Thursday or as needed for drainage/dislodgement. However, the dressing was not changed from 4/1/2024 to 4/10/2024, resulting in the foam from the dressing adhering to the wound bed. This was confirmed by the resident's representative, the wound care nurse practitioner, and the facility's registered nurse, who all noted the lack of documentation and the physical state of the wound upon assessment. The resident's wound vac dressing was last changed on 3/25/2024, and it was not changed again until 4/10/2024, despite the order. The wound care nurse practitioner had to debride the wound to remove the adhered foam fragments, but not all fragments could be removed. The facility's administrator acknowledged that the dressing should have been changed as ordered. The failure to follow the prescribed treatment schedule led to complications in the resident's wound care, as evidenced by the adhered foam and the need for debridement.
Failure to Implement Elopement Risk Plan
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to implement an elopement/wandering risk plan of care for a resident who had a documented history of wandering and elopement attempts prior to his admission. Despite being identified as a wanderer and wearing a wander guard since admission, the resident was able to exit the facility unsupervised and undetected by staff. The resident was missing for approximately ten to twenty minutes before being found off the facility grounds by the police and returned by a staff member. The facility's failure to provide adequate supervision and ensure the proper functioning of the wander guard system led to this incident. The resident's care plan, initiated upon admission, included interventions such as checking the placement and function of the wander guard every shift and redirecting the resident from doors. However, the Medication Administration Record (MAR) revealed multiple instances where the wander guard was not checked as required. Interviews with facility staff confirmed that the kitchen door was not properly shut, allowing the resident to leave undetected. The Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON) and the MDS/Care Plan nurse acknowledged the deficiencies in the care plan and the failure to monitor the wander guard effectively. The resident was admitted with diagnoses including senile degeneration of the brain, dementia, muscle weakness, unsteadiness on feet, abnormalities of gait or mobility, lack of coordination, and cognitive communication deficit. Despite these conditions, the facility did not adequately address the resident's elopement risk, leading to the incident. The facility's policies on care plans and elopement risk were not followed, resulting in a serious lapse in resident safety and supervision.
Removal Plan
- Resident #1 was assisted back to the facility via facility staff personal vehicle and thoroughly assessed by RN #1 with no adverse injuries/incidents found.
- RN #1 contacted the RR, the Medical Director, the facility Administrator, the facility ADON, and placed Resident #1 on one to one close observation by facility staff.
- The elopement risk assessment was updated for Resident #1 and the care plan was revised.
- The elopement book kept at the nursing station was reviewed and updated.
- Facility staff conducted room to room audits of all residents in the building to ensure safety.
- The facility conducted a Quality Assurance meeting with the Medical Director in attendance via telephone.
- Elopement drills were conducted on all three shifts.
- All residents with wander guard bracelets were checked for functionality and positioning on each shift.
- The ADM and the ADON began in-services of all staff on elopement protocol, wander guard monitoring, and Abuse and Neglect.
- All doors and windows were checked for proper functioning and operation.
- ADM began an investigation to determine how Resident #1 eloped.
- ADM called the incident in to the Mississippi State Department of Health office.
- Resident #1 was placed on one to one close observation immediately upon his return to the facility and remained on one to one by staff until his transfer.
- A staff member was placed at the front door to monitor the entrance and exits of the building 24/7 until the new wander guard alarm system was installed.
- No staff were allowed to work until they were in-serviced on elopements, Abuse/Neglect, and monitoring of wander guard systems.
- RN#1 notified the ADM, the ADON, the Maintenance Director, the RR, and the MD via telephone of the elopement of Resident #1.
- A 100% head count of all residents was conducted to ensure they were all accounted for.
- All doors were monitored by staff 24/7 until the wander guard system was found fully functioning and new punch pad systems were installed on the kitchen doors.
- Four residents with risks of elopement were reevaluated and updated to ensure all residents at risk for elopement had appropriate interventions in place.
- RN #1 and the ADM began officially investigating and obtaining statements for the Elopement of Resident #1.
- Staff in-services were initiated by RN #1, the ADON, and the ADM to include all staff on Elopement Protocols, Wander Guard checks, and Abuse/Neglect.
- A QA meeting was held via telephone with the MD, the ADON, ADM, MDS/Care Plan Nurses, Maintenance Director, Dietary Manager, Social Worker, and the QA/Infection Control Nurse.
- The Maintenance Director checked the functioning of the wander guard alarm/security system and found that the alarm was functioning properly.
- New punch pads and alarms and locks were installed on the kitchen doors.
- The ADM contacted the SA and the MS Attorney General's Office to report the elopement of Resident #1.
Resident Elopement Due to Inadequate Supervision and Door Malfunction
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to provide adequate supervision to prevent a resident, identified as an elopement and wandering risk, from exiting the facility unnoticed and unsupervised. The resident was missing for approximately ten to twenty minutes before being discovered at an apartment complex parking lot, talking to the police. The resident was returned to the facility by a staff member and was found to be uninjured and in no distress. The incident occurred because the kitchen door was not properly closed and locked, allowing the resident to leave undetected as the wander guard alarm did not sound. The resident had been identified upon admission as a wanderer and had a wander guard alarm placed on his ankle. However, the kitchen area did not have a wander guard alarm system, and no staff were assigned to that area late at night. The facility's policy on missing residents and elopement was not effectively implemented, as the door's malfunction allowed the resident to exit the facility without triggering the alarm or alerting the staff. Interviews with various staff members, including the Administrator, Assistant Director of Nursing, Certified Nursing Assistants, and the Maintenance Director, confirmed that the kitchen door was not properly shut, which allowed the resident to leave the facility undetected. The resident's care plan and elopement risk assessment had identified him as a wanderer, but the failure to secure the kitchen door and the lack of staff monitoring in that area led to the resident's unsupervised exit from the facility.
Removal Plan
- Resident #1 was assisted back to the facility via facility staff personal vehicle and thoroughly assessed head to toe by RN #1 with no adverse injuries/incidents found.
- RN #1 contacted the Resident Representative, the Medical Director, the facility Administrator, the facility ADON, and placed Resident #1 on one to one close observation by facility staff.
- The elopement risk assessment was updated for Resident #1 and the care plan was revised.
- The elopement book kept at the nursing station was reviewed and updated.
- Facility staff conducted room to room audits of all residents in the building to ensure safety.
- The facility conducted a Quality Assurance meeting with the Medical Director in attendance via telephone.
- Elopement drills were conducted on all three shifts.
- All residents with wander guard bracelets were checked for functionality and positioning on each shift.
- The ADM and the ADON began in-services of all staff on elopement protocol, wander guard monitoring, and Abuse and Neglect.
- All doors and windows were checked for proper functioning and operation.
- ADM began an investigation to determine how Resident #1 eloped.
- ADM called the incident in to the Mississippi State Department of Health office.
- Resident #1 was placed on one to one close observation immediately upon his return to the facility and remained on one to one by staff until his transfer.
- A staff member was placed at the front door to monitor the entrance and exits of the building 24/7 until the new wander guard alarm system was installed.
- No staff were allowed to work until they were in-serviced on elopements, Abuse/Neglect, and monitoring of wander guard systems.
- RN#1 notified the ADM, the ADON, the Maintenance Director, the RR, and the MD via telephone of the elopement of Resident #1.
- The facility staff conducted a 100% head count of all residents to ensure they were all accounted for.
- All doors were monitored by staff 24/7 until the wander guard system was found fully functioning and new punch pad systems were installed on the kitchen doors.
- Four residents with risks of elopement were reevaluated and updated to ensure all residents at risk for elopement had appropriate interventions in place.
- RN #1 and the ADM began officially investigating and obtaining statements for the Elopement of Resident #1.
- Staff in-services were initiated by RN #1, the ADON, and the ADM to include all staff on Elopement Protocols, Wander Guard checks, and Abuse/Neglect with no staff allowed to work until in-services were completed.
- A QA meeting was held via telephone with the MD, the ADON, ADM, MDS/Care Plan Nurses, Maintenance Director, Dietary Manager, Social Worker, and the QA/Infection Control Nurse.
- The Maintenance Director checked the functioning of the wander guard alarm/security system and found that the alarm was functioning properly and the alarm was sounding.
- The vendor installed new punch pads and alarms and locks to the kitchen doors.
- The ADM contacted the SA and the MS Attorney General's Office to report the elopement of Resident #1.
Facility Fails to Provide Safe, Clean, and Homelike Environment
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to provide a safe, clean, and homelike environment as evidenced by multiple deficiencies observed by surveyors. The East Wing hall had damaged floors with buckled, unsecured vinyl flooring, indentations, and peeling laminate, posing a hazard to residents, staff, and visitors. Additionally, the floors in the [NAME] wing hall were dirty with discarded paper, dried liquid stains, and food crumbs. The facility also failed to provide clean linens, as observed in the case of Resident #2, who was found lying in bed without sheets or a full blanket in cold weather conditions. The linen closets on the [NAME] Wing and East Wing were found to be empty, and the laundry room was backed up with dirty laundry due to only one working washer. The Administrator and staff confirmed the lack of clean linens and the ongoing issues with the laundry equipment. The facility's shower room on the [NAME] Wing had been broken for about two months, resulting in residents receiving bed baths instead of showers. Housekeeping and maintenance issues were also prevalent, with observations of unclean resident rooms, including dried brown substances and food crumbs on the floors. Housekeeping staff failed to adequately clean these areas, and there were reports of foul-smelling garbage piling up in the biohazard room on the East Wing. The Environmental Manager and housekeeping staff acknowledged the deficiencies and the need for better cleanliness and garbage disposal practices. Interviews with staff and residents revealed ongoing concerns about the cleanliness and safety of the facility. Maintenance staff confirmed multiple water leaks and inadequate repairs to the East Wing floors, which remained unlevel and hazardous. The Administrator and Director of Nursing acknowledged the deficiencies and the need for improvements in laundry, housekeeping, and maintenance practices. The facility's failure to address these issues in a timely manner resulted in an unsafe and uncomfortable environment for the residents.
Failure to Provide Adequate Bedding and Protection from Cold
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to provide a resident with adequate bedding and protection from cold temperatures. An observation revealed that the resident was lying on a bare mattress with no sheets or bedspread, covered only by a small velour throw, while the window in the room was open, and the outside temperature was 38 degrees. Interviews with the LPN and CNA confirmed the lack of clean linens and blankets in the building and the unnecessary opening of the window. The Administrator and the Director of Nurses acknowledged that the resident should have had proper bedding and that the window should not have been open in such cold weather. The resident involved was admitted to the facility with a medical diagnosis of Hypokalemia and had a BIMS score indicating moderate cognitive impairment. The deficiency was identified through staff interviews, record reviews, and direct observations, highlighting a failure to honor the resident's right to a dignified existence and proper care. The lack of clean linens and the open window in cold weather were significant factors contributing to the deficiency.
Failure to Implement Comprehensive Care Plans for Residents
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to implement a comprehensive care plan for three residents requiring assistance with Activities of Daily Living (ADLs). Resident #6 was observed to be disheveled, with oily hair and unshaven facial hair, and reported not having had a shower in about two weeks. The Treatment Nurse and the Minimum Data Set (MDS) Nurse confirmed that the resident's care plan, which required extensive assistance with bathing and personal hygiene, was not being followed. The Director of Nursing (DON) also confirmed that the staff was not adhering to the care plan, resulting in the resident not receiving the necessary care. Resident #1, who requires extensive assistance with toileting due to weakness and debility, reported having to wait for a female Certified Nursing Aide (CNA) to provide care, sometimes waiting up to eight hours while wet. The resident had complained to both the head nurse and the administrator about not wanting a male CNA, but the issue persisted. The resident's care plan indicated the need for assistance with ADLs, but the facility failed to provide timely and appropriate care. Resident #3, who has an ADL self-care deficit related to chronic debilitation and weakness, reported mainly receiving bed baths and not being taken to the bathroom during the day. The resident preferred showers but could not remember the last time he had one. The DON confirmed that residents were mainly given bed baths because some aides found it easier, and acknowledged that not all nursing staff were meeting basic care expectations. The resident's care plan required extensive assistance with toileting, but the facility did not follow through with the necessary care.
Inadequate Staffing Leads to Poor Resident Care
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to provide sufficient staff to meet the needs of residents, resulting in inadequate assistance with bathing, grooming, and personal hygiene for three residents. Certified Nurse Aides (CNAs) reported that the night shift staffing was reduced from four to three aides per wing, making it difficult to provide timely care. One resident had to wait up to eight hours for a female CNA to provide incontinent care due to her preference for female staff, which was not accommodated promptly. Another resident had not been shaved or given a shower for about two weeks, and a third resident reported receiving mainly bed baths and not being taken to the bathroom during the day as needed. Interviews with staff confirmed the staffing issues, with one Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) stating that the workload was overwhelming and that residents did not receive showers as they should. The Director of Nurses (DON) acknowledged that some staff were not meeting basic care expectations and that bed baths were more common due to aides finding them easier. The Workforce Manager admitted to insufficient training in scheduling, leading to low staffing levels on certain days and a lack of adjustments for call-ins or one-on-one care requirements. The Administrator was unaware of the Workforce Manager's lack of training and the resulting staffing concerns. The facility's policy on Activities of Daily Living (ADLs) was not followed, as residents did not receive care in accordance with accepted standards, their care plans, or their preferences. The deficiency was evident through observations, interviews, and record reviews, highlighting the facility's failure to provide adequate staffing and care for its residents.
Non-Functioning Call Lights in Resident Rooms
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure that call lights were functioning in all resident rooms, as evidenced by the non-functioning call lights in the rooms of two residents. An observation revealed that the call light in one resident's room was on but did not make any noise to alert staff. The resident confirmed that there were no call light cords in the room and that he had never had a bell to use. The LPN confirmed the issue and stated that a work order needed to be put in. Another observation showed that the call light cords were present but did not make any noise when activated. The LPN was unaware of the issue and stated that maintenance needed to be notified. The maintenance staff confirmed that they had not been made aware of the broken call light. Another resident confirmed that the staff responded when he called for them, but when he pressed his call light, it did not work. The treatment nurse present in the room confirmed the malfunction. The Administrator and DON confirmed that the call light would come on but not make any noise at the nurse's station, and a work order should have been submitted. The DON acknowledged that non-functioning call lights could lead to problems for residents if they are unable to call for help. Both residents involved were cognitively intact, as indicated by their BIMS scores of 13 on their respective MDS assessments.
Latest citations in Mississippi
A resident with hemiplegia, hemiparesis, and cognitive impairment had a care plan directing staff to apply and remove a right ankle splint at specific times each day and to provide passive stretching to prevent decline in ROM. Observation found the splint not in use and lying on a chair, and the resident was unsure when it was last applied. A PTA reported the resident had developed foot drop and that the splint could no longer be applied without additional therapy, attributing this to the splint not being used daily as ordered. The DON confirmed that staff failed to follow the established care plan for splint application and ROM management.
A resident with hemiplegia and hemiparesis after a cerebral infarction, and severe cognitive impairment (BIMS 5), had physician and therapy orders for right-hand and right-ankle splinting with passive ROM to manage contractures and maintain ROM. Surveyors observed a foot splint lying unused and the resident’s right hand contracted into a fist without a hand roll. The resident could not recall when the foot splint was last applied and reported never having a hand roll. An LPN was unaware of the need for the splint and confirmed no hand roll was in use. Records showed the hand splint order was discontinued at the responsible party’s request due to pain, but OT was not notified and no alternative such as a hand roll was initiated. PT had documented improved ankle ROM and recommended a PODUS boot, while a PTA later reported the resident had developed foot drop related to the ankle splint not being applied as ordered. The DON confirmed that daily ankle splint orders existed and that the hand splint was discontinued without alternative interventions to prevent contracture.
The facility failed to protect resident narcotic medications from misappropriation when an LPN handed over a medication cart’s narcotic keys to an RN without performing required narcotic counts before and after the transfer, and the cart was later found unlocked in the nurses’ station. During the subsequent shift change count, staff discovered multiple missing doses of oxycodone-acetaminophen and hydrocodone-acetaminophen prescribed PRN for pain to four residents with conditions including dementia, COPD, dysphagia, and diabetic neuropathy. Review of individual controlled drug logs showed corrected balances to account for the missing tablets, confirming that controlled substances were unaccounted for during the period of unsecured cart access and improper key control.
Two ambulatory residents with dementia, severe cognitive deficits, and known wandering behavior, each wearing a wander guard bracelet, were able to exit through a unit door when a visitor held it open, despite the door alarm sounding and prior observations that they frequently walked together and approached doors. An LPN responded to the alarm and, along with other staff, initiated a search when the residents could not be found on the unit; staff ultimately located the residents across a four-lane highway and returned them to the building without injury. The incident occurred despite facility policies requiring use of a security system for residents unable to protect themselves from harm by wandering, and staff and leadership acknowledged that the residents had a history of walking the halls together and going to doors, and that increased monitoring and restricting visitor access to door codes could have prevented the elopement.
A cognitively impaired resident with dementia, agitation, and a history of wandering was previously assessed by the IDT as not being at risk for elopement and did not have elopement precautions in place. On one occasion, a visitor exited through the front door without realizing the resident followed outside, and staff later discovered the resident alone on the front porch after being missing for several minutes. An LPN and CNA participated in locating and returning the resident, and the incident revealed that supervision and elopement risk assessment were insufficient for this resident.
A resident with Type 2 DM and moderately impaired cognition had two unstageable heel DTIs documented on the MDS and physician orders for treatment to both heels, but the comprehensive care plan did not include any problem, goals, or interventions related to these pressure injuries. LPNs responsible for MDS and care plan completion acknowledged the omission and stated that although they periodically audit by comparing orders to the care plan, this situation was missed. The DON reported she expected the wound care nurse to update the care plan with new wound treatment orders, while an RN stated she could update interventions but had not been trained to create a new focused care plan and was unaware it was her responsibility to add the DTI treatment orders to the care plan.
A controlled substance prescribed for a cognitively intact resident with a left femur fracture was delivered and signed for by an LPN but was not entered on the narcotic accountability record or narcotic box package count and was later found to be missing. One LPN reported receiving the blister pack of thirty Hydrocodone/Acetaminophen 10-325 mg tablets from another LPN, placing it on the nurses’ station, and leaving the area, while both LPNs stated they were in the medication room as the medication remained unattended. The DON and Administrator confirmed that staff failed to secure the controlled medication as required by facility policy and that the missing tablets could not be located.
Surveyors found that staff failed to properly secure and store medications for two residents. For one resident, an LPN received a delivery of Hydrocodone-Acetaminophen, passed it to another LPN, and the controlled medication was left unattended at the nurses’ station instead of being immediately locked and entered into the narcotic count, after which it could not be located. For another resident, two bottles of Lorazepam oral concentrate, documented on the narcotic record and labeled to be protected from light and refrigerated, were observed stored in a locked medication cart rather than in the designated medication refrigerator, even though staff acknowledged knowing the manufacturer’s refrigeration requirement.
A resident with hemiplegia and hemiparesis following cerebral infarction was transferred by facility van to a psychiatric hospital for evaluation and was later determined by the facility to be discharged due to aggressive behavior and threats, with staff stating they could not meet the resident’s needs. The Administrator and Social Services Director communicated with the psychiatric facility and the resident’s family about finding alternative placement and informed the family the resident would not be allowed to return, but no formal involuntary discharge notice or written appeal rights were provided, and no physician discharge order was documented, contrary to facility policies requiring a completed transfer form and written notice of transfer/discharge with appeal information.
The facility did not adequately investigate, address, or resolve repeated grievances about food quality and temperature raised through Resident Council meetings. Over several months, residents reported that weekend meals were bad, food was consistently cold, beverages lacked sufficient ice, and breakfast items were hard or unpalatable. While limited steps such as using temperature-holding containers, sending trays out faster, and in-servicing dietary staff were noted, there was no documented monitoring, follow-up, or evaluation of effectiveness. Cognitively intact residents continued to report cold, poor-tasting food, and staff, including the Dietary Manager and Social Services, acknowledged awareness of the complaints without evidence of thorough follow-up or resolution.
Failure to Implement Care Plan for Ankle Splint and ROM Management
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to implement a comprehensive, person-centered care plan for contracture management and splinting to prevent decline in range of motion for one resident. The facility’s policy on prevention of decline in range of motion required that, based on the comprehensive assessment, the facility provide interventions, exercises, and/or therapy to maintain or improve ROM. The resident’s care plan, initiated on 8/1/25, identified an ADL self-care performance deficit related to stroke, hemiplegia, and immobility, placing the resident at risk for functional decline. The care plan interventions directed staff to apply a splint to the right ankle after breakfast, provide passive stretch to the right ankle after applying the splint, remove the splint at lunchtime, reapply the splint after supper with passive stretch, and remove the splint at bedtime. On observation, the resident’s ankle splint was not in use and was found lying in a chair in the resident’s room, and the resident was unsure when the splint was last applied. The PTA reported that the resident had developed foot drop and that the ankle splint could no longer be placed without additional therapy, confirming this was related to the splint not being applied daily as ordered. The DON stated that the care plan was used to inform staff how to care for the resident and verified that staff failed to follow the care plan when they did not apply the ankle splint. Record review showed the resident was admitted with hemiplegia and hemiparesis following a cerebral infarction affecting the right dominant side, and an MDS assessment indicated a BIMS score of 5, reflecting cognitive impairment at the time of the deficiency.
Failure to Implement ROM and Splinting Orders Resulting in Contractures and Foot Drop
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to provide ordered range of motion (ROM) and splinting interventions to prevent decline in ROM for a resident with hemiplegia and hemiparesis following a cerebral infarction affecting the right dominant side. The resident was admitted with these diagnoses and had physician orders and therapy recommendations for contracture management and splinting. An OT evaluation documented decreased ROM in the right upper extremity and recommended a resting hand splint and a restorative splint and brace program, with a subsequent OT evaluation recommending continuation of the contracture management and splinting program. A physician order directed staff to apply a right-hand splint after breakfast, provide passive stretch to the right elbow, wrist, and hand once daily, and remove the splint before dinner. Another physician order required application of a right ankle splint after breakfast and after supper with passive stretching following application. The facility’s own policy stated that residents without limited ROM should not experience a reduction in ROM unless clinically unavoidable. During observation, surveyors noted a foot splint lying unused in the resident’s chair and the resident’s right hand contracted into a fist without a hand roll in place. The resident reported not knowing when the foot splint was last applied and stated she had never had a hand roll. An LPN stated she did not know why the splint was in the room, believed the resident was not required to wear it, and confirmed the resident did not have a hand roll. Record review showed the right-hand splint order was discontinued at the responsible party’s request due to pain, but the OT reported she had not been notified of this discontinuation and stated a hand roll should have been initiated when the splint was stopped; she further stated the resident’s hand was now contracted into a fist. A PT discharge summary documented improved right ankle ROM with therapy and recommended a PODUS boot daily for up to five hours, while a PTA later reported the resident had developed foot drop and that the ankle splint could no longer be applied without additional therapy, confirming this was related to the splint not being applied daily as ordered. The DON verified that there were physician orders for daily ankle splinting and acknowledged that the right-hand splint was discontinued without alternative interventions to prevent contracture. The resident’s MDS showed a BIMS score of 5, indicating severe cognitive impairment.
Failure to Secure Narcotic Medications and Maintain Key Control
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to protect resident medications from misappropriation on one of four medication carts, resulting in missing controlled substances for four residents. The facility’s abuse, neglect, and exploitation policy defines misappropriation of resident property as the deliberate misplacement, exploitation, or wrongful use of a resident’s belongings or money without the resident’s consent. On a specific date, during the 7:00 PM shift change narcotic count, staff identified that multiple doses of Percocet and Norco (hydrocodone-acetaminophen) were missing from the narcotic box on a single medication cart. Prior to this discovery, the assigned LPN had confirmed that the narcotic count was correct earlier in the day. The events leading to the deficiency included the LPN giving her medication cart narcotic keys to an RN while she left the area to perform a urine specimen collection. The LPN did not complete a narcotic count before or after transferring the keys, which was not in accordance with facility expectations for key control and chain of custody. When the LPN returned, she observed the medication cart in the nurses’ station and unlocked. The RN later confirmed that she had moved the cart into the nurses’ station but denied administering any medications during the time she had possession of the keys. During the subsequent 7:00 PM narcotic count, discrepancies were identified, and a search of the cart and nurses’ station did not locate the missing medications. Record review showed that four residents’ controlled medication logs required corrections to reflect missing tablets. One resident with dementia had an order for oxycodone-acetaminophen 5-325 mg every 12 hours as needed for pain; the narcotic log initially showed a remaining balance of 20 tablets after a documented administration, but was later corrected to 16 tablets to account for four missing tablets. A second resident with COPD had an order for oxycodone-acetaminophen 10-325 mg every eight hours as needed; the log was corrected from a remaining balance of five tablets to four, indicating one missing tablet. A third resident with dysphagia had an order for hydrocodone-acetaminophen 5-325 mg every 24 hours as needed; the log showed two tablets on hand after the resident returned from pass with no administrations documented, and was later corrected to zero, indicating two missing tablets. A fourth resident with type 2 diabetes mellitus with diabetic neuropathy had an order for hydrocodone-acetaminophen 7.5-325 mg every six hours as needed; the log was corrected from a remaining balance of eight tablets to seven, indicating one missing tablet. These discrepancies, combined with the unsecured cart and improper key transfer without counts, led to the determination that resident medications were not protected from misappropriation.
Failure to Prevent Elopement of Two Cognitively Impaired Wanderers
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to provide adequate supervision and prevent elopement for two residents with known wandering and elopement risk. Both residents were ambulatory, frequently walked throughout the facility together, and were known to staff as wanderers. Each resident had a diagnosis of dementia with severe cognitive deficits documented on their MDS assessments, and both had Wander/elopement alarms (wander guard bracelets) in place and used daily. The facility’s elopement/wandering policy stated that residents who are incapable of adequately protecting themselves and unable to determine when they are at risk for harm by wandering out of the facility should be placed on the resident security system to ensure safety. On the day of the incident, video surveillance later reviewed by the Administrator showed that a visitor entered an exit door on the B Unit at approximately 6:20 PM. The two residents at risk for elopement approached the door, and the visitor held the door open, allowing them to walk out of the building. The residents were wearing wander guard bracelets, and when they exited, the door alarm sounded. A nurse responded immediately to the alarm, exited the facility, and went down the walkway but did not see the residents. Staff were then alerted that the residents were missing, and a facility-wide search was initiated. Staff interviews and the facility’s documentation confirmed that the residents had previously been observed walking together throughout the facility and approaching doors, including the exit door involved in the incident. The Administrator reported that review of the video showed the two residents had approached the same door together two or three times prior to the elopement event. Despite their known patterns of wandering, severe cognitive impairment, and prior door-approach behavior, the residents were able to exit the facility unnoticed and unsupervised when the visitor held the door open. Staff ultimately located the residents across a four-lane high-capacity highway approximately 528 feet from the exit door and returned them to the facility, where body audits and assessments documented no injuries and intermittent confusion. The State Agency determined that the facility’s failure to provide adequate supervision to prevent the elopement of these residents, who had exhibited exit-seeking behaviors, placed them and other residents at risk for wandering and elopement in a situation likely to cause serious injury, harm, impairment, or death and cited the facility at F689 with Immediate Jeopardy and Substandard Quality of Care. The residents’ medical records and elopement reports documented that both were confused, had impaired memory, and were identified as wanderers. One resident had a BIMS score of 3 and the other a BIMS score of 0, both indicating severe cognitive deficits. Progress notes and elopement reports recorded that staff were notified when the residents were not on the unit and could not be located, that all staff were engaged in searching, and that the residents were ultimately found outside and assisted back into the building. Interviews with CNAs and an LPN described hearing a Code W called, running outside, and seeing the residents across the street after they had crossed the four-lane highway. The DON acknowledged that the residents were always walking in the facility, often together, and that they had wandered to doors and looked out, and agreed that increased monitoring and not allowing visitors to have door codes could have prevented the residents from leaving the building.
Removal Plan
- Conducted a facility search.
- Notified police of missing residents.
- Director of Nursing interviewed staff and residents.
- Notified the Medical Director and residents’ families.
- Administrator and Director of Nursing checked the wander guard system and facility doors to ensure proper functioning.
- Returned Resident #1 and Resident #2 to the facility.
- Completed an incident report.
- Completed an emergency Quality Assurance meeting.
- Initiated in-service training for all staff on the elopement policy, including a quiz to validate comprehension, and required staff (including contract staff) to complete the in-service before working their next scheduled shift, with Administrator monitoring compliance.
- Responded immediately to the door alarm by sending staff outside to locate residents and notifying additional staff to assist with the search.
- Reviewed video surveillance and confirmed a visitor held the door open allowing residents to exit.
- Held an emergency Quality Assurance meeting with the Medical Director, Director of Nursing, Administrator, Regional Director, involved staff, and Infection Preventionist.
- Changed the main entry door code.
- Verified entrance door signage was in place instructing not to allow residents to exit unaccompanied.
- Identified residents at risk for elopement and ensured elopement bracelets/transmitters were functional and doors were locking appropriately.
- Reviewed care plans for residents at risk for elopement.
- Completed body audits on Resident #1 and Resident #2.
- Conducted audits verifying resident location, elopement risk, and wander guard bracelet function.
- Medical Records updated care profiles of residents at risk for wandering.
- Assistant Administrator began audits of all doors for function and security.
- Provided in-services on elopement policy and procedure, Resident Rights, and incident and accident reporting.
- Conducted elopement drills on each shift.
- Implemented monitoring systems to sustain compliance.
- Director of Nursing to monitor wander guard system checks three times weekly for four weeks or until substantial compliance is attained.
- Director of Nursing to monitor resident behavior for elopement attempts via incident reports, observations, and communications weekly for four weeks or until substantial compliance is attained.
- Quality Assurance Committee to meet for four weeks to review compliance with the plan of action, then continue routine Quality Assurance monitoring if no further concerns are noted.
- Administrator to hold follow-up Quality Assurance meetings monthly for two months then quarterly thereafter to ensure sustained compliance.
- Updated entry screening kiosk to include an additional reminder and attestation to ensure resident safety, requiring visitors to agree that no resident comes in or out with them and triggering a staff alert if the visitor refuses.
- Administration spoke directly with the visitor to confirm visitor policies and procedures.
Elopement of Cognitively Impaired Resident Due to Inadequate Supervision
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to provide adequate supervision to prevent a cognitively impaired resident with a history of wandering from exiting the building unattended. The resident had diagnoses including dementia with agitation and a BIMS score of three, indicating severe cognitive impairment. The resident had been readmitted from a geriatric psychiatric hospitalization and was known by the DON to have a history of wandering. Despite this, the interdisciplinary team had previously determined that the resident was not at risk for elopement, and no elopement interventions such as a wander guard were in place at the time of the incident. On the day of the event, a visitor observed the resident standing near the front door and exited the facility without realizing the resident followed him outside. Staff later became aware that the resident was missing, and an LPN assisted in locating the resident. A CNA ultimately found the resident outside on the front porch and returned the resident to the facility, with the investigation determining the resident had been outside unattended for approximately five minutes. Staff interviews confirmed that the resident ambulated in the halls and had not previously attempted to exit the building, and that the resident was only reassessed and provided with a wander guard after the incident.
Failure to Care Plan for Pressure Injuries and Treatment Orders
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to develop a comprehensive person-centered care plan for a resident with pressure injuries. The facility’s undated Care Plan Policy and Procedure stated that each resident’s care plan would remain current and inform staff of needs, strengths, goals, and approaches, and that a comprehensive person-centered care plan would be completed as needed. Record review showed that the resident was admitted with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus with ketoacidosis without coma and, per the Discharge MDS with an ARD of 1/19/26, had a BIMS score of 12 indicating moderately impaired cognition. Section M of the MDS documented two unstageable pressure injuries presenting as deep tissue injuries (DTIs). Physician orders dated 12/10/25 directed treatment to right and left DTI pressure ulcers. Despite these documented DTIs and treatment orders, review of the resident’s comprehensive care plan revealed no care plan addressing the DTIs on the left and right heels, which was inconsistent with the physician orders. During interviews, two LPNs responsible for MDS and care plan completion confirmed that the care plan did not include the DTIs and stated that care plans are developed based on the MDS and physician orders, and that audits comparing orders to care plans are done periodically but this had been missed. The DON stated her expectation that the wound care nurse update the care plan with new wound care treatment orders. An RN reported she could update care plan interventions but had not been trained to develop a new focused care plan and had not added the physician’s DTI treatment orders to the care plan, and she was not aware it was her responsibility to do so.
Unsecured Controlled Medication Left Unattended and Lost
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to prevent misappropriation of resident property when a controlled substance prescribed for a resident was left unattended and subsequently went missing. Facility policies on abuse and neglect defined misappropriation of resident property to include missing prescription medications or diversion of resident medications, including controlled substances, and the Medication-Controlled Substances policy required that only authorized licensed nursing and pharmacy personnel have access to controlled medications, that all controlled substances be stored in a locked cabinet or compartment, and that accurate accountability of all controlled drugs be maintained. Despite these policies, a pharmacy courier delivered thirty Hydrocodone/Acetaminophen 10-325 mg tablets for a resident with a left femur fracture, and the medication was signed for by an LPN but was not signed onto the narcotic accountability record, was not documented on the narcotic box package count, and could not be located. The resident, who was cognitively intact with a BIMS score of 15 and had a physician’s order for Hydrocodone/Acetaminophen, was later informed that the tablets delivered had been lost. Interviews revealed that one LPN received the blister pack of thirty Hydrocodone/Acetaminophen tablets from another LPN and placed it on the nurses’ station before leaving the area, leaving the controlled medication unattended. Both LPNs reported being in the medication room while the medication remained unattended at the nurses’ station. The DON reported being notified that the medication was missing and that an investigation confirmed the medication could not be located and had been left unattended, and the Administrator confirmed staff failed to ensure controlled medications were secured and accessible only to authorized personnel and that the facility was unable to determine the location of the missing medication.
Failure to Secure Controlled Drugs and Follow Refrigerated Storage Requirements
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to store and secure medications, including controlled substances, in accordance with professional standards and manufacturer instructions. For Resident #1, who was admitted with a left femur fracture and was cognitively intact with a BIMS score of 15, the physician ordered Hydrocodone-Acetaminophen 10-325 mg tablets. A facility investigation documented that a pharmacy courier delivered 30 tablets of this controlled medication, which were received and signed for by an LPN but were never documented in the narcotic count system and were later unable to be located. One LPN reported that after receiving the Hydrocodone-Acetaminophen from another LPN, she left the medication unattended at the nurses’ station while she completed other tasks instead of immediately securing it in the locked medication cart. The LPN who initially received the medication from the courier confirmed that the controlled medication had not been immediately secured in the locked cart following delivery. For Resident #3, who was admitted with heart disease and had a BIMS score of 10 indicating moderately impaired cognition, the physician ordered Lorazepam (Ativan) oral concentrate. The narcotic record showed that two containers of Lorazepam were signed into the narcotic record on the date of admission. Manufacturer prescribing information for the Lorazepam oral concentrate specified that it must be protected from light and stored refrigerated at 36–46°F. During a controlled drug count, surveyors observed that two bottles of Lorazepam oral concentrate for this resident were stored in the locked medication cart rather than in a refrigerator, despite the label instructions requiring refrigeration. One LPN confirmed the manufacturer’s storage instructions on the label but was unsure why the medication had not been refrigerated, and another LPN acknowledged awareness that the medication required refrigeration but confirmed it had been stored in the medication cart instead of the designated medication refrigerator.
Failure to Provide Required Involuntary Discharge Notice and Appeal Rights
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to provide required written notice of an involuntary discharge, including appeal rights, and to obtain a physician’s discharge order before refusing readmission of a resident following a hospital transfer. Facility policy titled “Transfer Form” stated that it is the policy of the facility to provide a completed and accurate transfer form to residents transferred or discharged from the facility, and the policy titled “Appealing a Transfer or Discharge Notice” stated that residents have the right to appeal transfer or discharge notices and, upon notice of transfer or discharge, will be provided with a statement of their right to appeal. Record review showed that the resident, admitted with hemiplegia and hemiparesis following cerebral infarction, left the facility by facility van to be admitted to a psychiatric hospital for evaluation. Progress notes dated several days after the transfer documented that the resident had been discharged from the facility due to aggressive behavior and that, per conversation with the psychiatric hospital, the Administrator and Social Services Director would assist in finding alternative placement and home health if needed. Documentation further indicated that, due to threats made, the facility stated it was unable to meet the resident’s needs and communicated with the resident’s family that the resident would not be allowed to return. During interview, the Administrator confirmed that neither the resident nor the family was provided a formal involuntary discharge notice or information on appeal rights and that no physician order for discharge could be located, acknowledging that the formal notice, appeal rights, and physician order should have been obtained prior to discharge.
Failure to Investigate and Resolve Ongoing Food-Related Grievances
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure that grievances voiced through the Resident Council regarding food quality and temperature were thoroughly investigated, addressed, and resolved. Resident Council minutes over multiple months documented repeated complaints that weekend food was "bad," tasted sweet, and that food was cold by the time it reached residents. Additional concerns included insufficient ice in water and tea, hard breakfast biscuits and toast, and cold grits. Although the facility’s grievance policy stated that residents and families could voice grievances without reprisal and that the facility would make prompt efforts to resolve grievances, there was no documentation that the initial complaint about weekend food quality was addressed, and subsequent complaints continued without evidence of thorough investigation or resolution. Resident Council Department Response Forms showed limited actions, such as placing food in containers to maintain temperature, conducting an in‑service for dietary staff, sending food out faster, and instructing staff to pass trays promptly, but there was no documentation of monitoring, follow‑up, or evaluation of whether these measures were effective. Residents interviewed, all cognitively intact per their MDS BIMS scores, consistently reported that the food remained cold and did not taste good, with one resident noting that staff would reheat food only if requested. The Dietary Manager acknowledged awareness of the complaints and stated he had spoken with weekend staff and made changes like replacing tray carts and providing guidance on food preparation, but confirmed there was no documentation of ongoing monitoring or additional interventions. Social Services and the Administrator both acknowledged awareness of the complaints and that additional follow‑up and resolution efforts should have occurred, yet no evidence of such follow‑up was present in the records.
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.



