Neshoba County Nursing Home
Inspection history, citations, penalties and survey trends for this long-term care facility in Philadelphia, Mississippi.
- Location
- 1001 Holland Avenue, Philadelphia, Mississippi 39350
- CMS Provider Number
- 255137
- Inspections on file
- 17
- Latest survey
- February 3, 2026
- Citations (last 12 mo.)
- 10 (1 serious)
Citation history
Health deficiencies cited at Neshoba County Nursing Home during CMS and state inspections, most recent first.
Two severely cognitively impaired residents with high elopement risk scores exited a secured Alzheimer’s unit after one resident used the exit door code, triggering an alarm that staff responded to but then silenced without identifying that residents had left. Staff had last seen the residents after lunch, and one CNA went on break as the alarm occurred. One resident was later found outside on facility property and brought back in, while the other left the grounds entirely and was ultimately located off-site by law enforcement and returned. Interviews revealed that staff had previously shared the door code with family and visitors, and the eloping resident reported he knew and used the code to leave because he wanted to go home. The survey agency cited the facility under F689 at an Immediate Jeopardy level for failing to provide adequate supervision and maintain secure exits for residents at risk for elopement and wandering.
A facility failed to prevent verbal abuse towards a resident by a dietary employee, leading to daily arguments and a threat from the employee's boyfriend. Despite the resident reporting the issue, the employee continued to work at the facility, and the situation was inadequately addressed by the administration.
Failure to Prevent Elopement of Two High-Risk Residents From Secured Alzheimer’s Unit
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to provide adequate supervision and maintain a secure environment for residents identified as at risk for elopement and wandering on a locked Alzheimer’s unit. Two residents with severe cognitive impairment, both assessed with high elopement risk scores of 95, were able to exit the secured unit and the facility without appropriate staff detection or intervention. The facility’s own policy stated that residents who exhibit wandering behavior or are at risk for elopement would receive adequate supervision and care in accordance with their person-centered care plans, but this did not occur for these residents. On the day of the incident, a door alarm to the exit leading from the Alzheimer’s unit into an enclosed courtyard sounded at approximately 1:32–1:35 PM. Staff responded to the alarm, but the responding staff member did not see any residents in the courtyard and silenced the alarm. At that time, one resident had entered the door code, opened the door, and exited the unit with another resident. Staff interviews revealed that the two residents had last been seen leaving the dining area around 1:00 PM, and one CNA went on break shortly thereafter, returning a little after 1:30 PM to find the door alarm sounding. Despite the alarm and staff response, no one identified that the two at-risk residents had left the unit. Subsequently, one of the residents was observed outside on facility property at approximately 1:48 PM and was brought back inside by staff, who then discovered that the other resident was missing during a head count at approximately 1:52 PM. Interviews and the facility’s investigation showed that the missing resident had obtained or knew the door code and used it to leave the locked unit, then left the facility grounds and traveled off-site. The resident later reported that he knew the code and used it to exit because he wanted to go home, and another resident confirmed that he had opened the door and let him outside. Staff also acknowledged that door codes had been given to family and visitors in the past so they could enter and exit the unit, which contributed to the resident’s ability to obtain and use the code to leave the secured area undetected. The missing resident, who had diagnoses including cerebral infarct and schizophrenia and a BIMS score indicating severe cognitive impairment, was not located on the unit or facility property during the search. Law enforcement and the resident’s responsible party were notified, and it was determined through phone contact and law enforcement assistance that the resident had already been picked up in a vehicle and transported away from the facility. The resident was ultimately located by deputies in another county at his home address and returned to the facility later that afternoon. During this time, the resident remained unsupervised away from the facility, despite his known elopement risk and cognitive impairment, demonstrating a failure to ensure adequate supervision and secure exit controls for residents at risk for elopement. The survey agency determined that this failure to supervise and prevent elopement for residents identified as elopement and wandering risks constituted noncompliance with 42 CFR 483.25(d)(1)(2) (F689 – Free of Accident Hazards/Supervision/Devices) at a Scope and Severity level J, representing Immediate Jeopardy and Substandard Quality of Care. The Immediate Jeopardy and Substandard Quality of Care were determined to have begun on the date of the elopement event and were later classified as Past Non-Compliance based on the facility’s subsequent actions, but the deficiency itself centered on the initial failure to prevent the residents’ unsupervised exit from the secured unit and facility.
Removal Plan
- Recovered Resident #2 and returned him to the unit; placed Resident #2 on one-to-one monitoring to ensure safety.
- Performed a resident head count on the unit to account for all residents.
- Initiated Code Yellow (missing resident).
- Notified facility administration and law enforcement.
- Initiated a multi-facility property search by all departments of the nursing home and hospital.
- Obtained Resident #1’s cell phone number from the responsible party and called the resident; coordinated with law enforcement to ping the cell phone location.
- Assessed Resident #1 upon return for distress/injury and placed Resident #1 on one-to-one monitoring to ensure safety.
- Notified the Mississippi State Department of Health via hotline.
- Changed all exit door codes to the Alzheimer’s unit to secure the unit.
- Initiated Elopement and Wandering in-service with all staff; required completion before staff could work.
- Reviewed Elopement and Wandering Resident policies.
- Reviewed all Alzheimer’s Unit residents’ elopement care plans.
- Obtained and installed a doorbell on the unit to allow visitors to call for access; eliminated visitor access to unit door codes.
- Held a post-elopement event review/QA meeting to review safety measures and ongoing monitoring.
- Installed a safety alarm on the courtyard exit gate to notify staff when the gate is ajar.
- Initiated safety alarm checks every shift to ensure doors are closed and alarms function properly.
- Changed Resident #1 to every fifteen-minute checks.
- Ordered badge access for all entry/exit doors on the Alzheimer’s unit.
- Submitted a written investigation report to the Mississippi State Department of Health.
- Scheduled activity staff for increased monitoring and activities on the Alzheimer’s unit.
- Placed Resident #1 on one-to-one monitoring for increased exit-seeking behaviors.
- Installed live-view cameras with a screen at the nurses’ station for increased supervision of all entrance/exit doors to the Alzheimer’s unit.
- Ordered hallway mirrors for increased visualization of hallways and exit doors.
- Held a follow-up QA meeting to discuss the ongoing elopement plan, effectiveness, and monitoring.
Failure to Prevent Verbal Abuse by Dietary Employee
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to prevent verbal abuse towards a resident by a dietary employee. The incident occurred when the resident, who had been admitted to the facility approximately four weeks prior, frequently requested additional or different food. The dietary employee responded rudely and loudly, leading to daily arguments. Despite the resident reporting the issue to the facility administrator and nurses, the dietary employee continued to work at the facility and the verbal altercations persisted. The situation escalated when the dietary employee's boyfriend threatened the resident outside the facility, after being informed about the resident by the dietary employee, resulting in a three-day suspension for the employee. The facility's policy on abuse, neglect, and exploitation clearly states that residents must be free from abuse by anyone, including facility staff. However, the facility's response to the incident was inadequate. The administrator initially treated the incident as poor customer service rather than verbal abuse, and no written statements were obtained from witnesses. The dietary employee received only a written warning and a three-day suspension for a separate HIPAA violation, but continued to work at the facility, leading to further distress for the resident. Interviews with the resident, CNA, and other staff revealed that the dietary employee's behavior was known but not adequately addressed. The CNA who witnessed the altercation failed to remove the resident from the situation, and the administrator did not fully investigate the incident or recognize it as verbal abuse. The facility's failure to protect the resident from verbal abuse and adequately address the dietary employee's behavior resulted in ongoing distress and a threat to the resident's safety.
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.
