Shaire Nursing Center
Inspection history, citations, penalties and survey trends for this long-term care facility in Lenoir, North Carolina.
- Location
- 1450 Shaire Center Drive, Lenoir, North Carolina 28645
- CMS Provider Number
- 345483
- Inspections on file
- 15
- Latest survey
- August 13, 2025
- Citations (last 12 mo.)
- 6
Citation history
Health deficiencies cited at Shaire Nursing Center during CMS and state inspections, most recent first.
A resident with moderate cognitive impairment who used a wheelchair as her primary mobility device was observed with a damaged left armrest, which caused skin irritation. Despite the issue being visible and reported by a nurse aide to rehabilitation staff, the repair was not communicated to the maintenance department, and the problem persisted. Staff interviews revealed a lack of awareness and communication regarding the repair process, resulting in the resident continuing to use the wheelchair in disrepair.
A resident with anxiety disorder and severely impaired cognition had an active PRN lorazepam order without the required 14-day stop date, despite staff awareness of CMS guidelines. The order remained in effect for over a month, even after the resident was started on scheduled lorazepam, due to an oversight by the Medical Director and Consultant Pharmacist.
Two residents had inaccuracies in their MDS assessments: one was incorrectly coded as having an indwelling catheter and frequent urinary incontinence after the catheter had been discontinued, and another was coded as receiving anticoagulants despite not receiving them during the required look-back period. The MDS Coordinator and DON confirmed the coding errors.
A Consultant Pharmacist did not identify or report a drug regimen irregularity for a resident with anxiety disorder and severely impaired cognition, who had both a PRN and scheduled lorazepam order without a stop date for the PRN medication. The PRN order remained active but unused after the scheduled dose began, and the omission was attributed to pharmacist oversight despite facility expectations and CMS guidelines.
Three staff members failed to wear gowns as required by Enhanced Barrier Precautions (EBP) while performing or assisting with wound care for two residents with open wounds. Despite EBP policies, signage, and prior education, staff either misunderstood the requirements or neglected to use gowns during high-contact care activities, resulting in noncompliance with infection control protocols.
Staff failed to immediately report a resident's allegation of being hit, resulting in delayed notification to the DON and Administrator, and subsequent delays in reporting to authorities and initiating an investigation, contrary to facility policy.
A resident with heart failure and diabetes was discharged from hospice care, but the facility failed to complete a Significant Change in Status Assessment. The MDS Coordinator was not informed of the discharge, and assessments continued to be coded for hospice care. The Administrator and DON were unaware of the discharge, leading to inaccurate MDS coding.
A facility failed to accurately code MDS assessments for three residents, leading to deficiencies in hospice care, falls, and discharge documentation. One resident was incorrectly coded as receiving hospice care after discharge, another's fall history was not reflected in their MDS, and a planned discharge was inaccurately marked as unplanned. These errors were attributed to communication gaps and human oversight by the MDS Coordinator.
Failure to Maintain Wheelchair in Good Repair for Resident
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to maintain a resident's wheelchair in good repair, resulting in a torn, ripped, and cracked vinyl cover on the left armrest. The resident, who had moderate cognitive impairment and relied on a wheelchair as her primary mobility device, was observed on multiple occasions with her left arm in contact with the damaged armrest. The resident reported that the damaged armrest irritated her skin at times and expressed a desire for it to be fixed. Weekly skin assessments indicated her skin was intact during the review period, and staff confirmed there was no redness or open areas at the time of observation. Despite the visible damage, nursing and aide staff either did not notice the issue or, when it was noticed, did not ensure the repair was reported and addressed. The nurse aide stated she had reported the issue to rehabilitation staff weeks prior, but the rehabilitation director denied receiving any such report. The maintenance department, responsible for repairs, was not made aware of the problem and did not conduct routine checks for wheelchair repair needs, instead relying on staff to submit work orders. Facility leadership, including the DON and Administrator, expected staff to be attentive to residents' mobility devices and to report repair needs promptly, but this did not occur in this instance.
PRN Psychotropic Medication Order Lacked Required 14-Day Stop Date
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure that a PRN (as needed) psychotropic medication, lorazepam, prescribed for a resident with anxiety disorder, included a required 14-day stop date as per CMS guidelines. The resident, who had severely impaired cognition and a history of anxiety, was admitted with both scheduled and PRN orders for lorazepam, both entered by the Medical Director without a stop date for the PRN order. Review of the medication administration records showed that the PRN lorazepam order remained active for over a month without being administered, even after the resident was started on a scheduled lorazepam regimen. Staff interviews revealed that nursing staff were aware of the ongoing PRN lorazepam order and the requirement for a 14-day stop date for PRN psychotropic medications. However, the nurse involved believed the rules may have changed when she noticed the missing stop date. The DON and Administrator both confirmed that the PRN lorazepam order should have included a 14-day stop date and attributed the oversight to the Medical Director and Consultant Pharmacist, rather than a systemic failure.
Inaccurate MDS Coding for Bladder, Bowel, and Medication Status
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to accurately code Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessments for two residents in the areas of bladder and bowel status, and medication administration. For one resident, the nursing progress note indicated that a urinary catheter was discontinued per order without difficulty or complaint, yet the admission MDS assessment incorrectly coded the resident as having an indwelling catheter and being frequently incontinent of urine. The MDS Coordinator acknowledged that the assessment should have reflected the absence of a catheter and that the incontinence status was auto-populated based on nurse aide responses. For another resident, the quarterly MDS assessment was coded to indicate the use of anticoagulant medication. However, a review of the Medication Administration Record showed that the resident only received an anticoagulant for three days, and not during the required 7-day look-back period for the assessment. The MDS Coordinator confirmed that the resident should not have been coded as receiving anticoagulants, as the medication had been discontinued prior to the look-back period. The Director of Nursing also confirmed that both assessments should have been coded accurately.
Consultant Pharmacist Failed to Identify and Report PRN Lorazepam Order Irregularity
Penalty
Summary
A Consultant Pharmacist failed to identify and report a drug regimen irregularity for one of five residents reviewed for unnecessary medications. The resident in question was admitted with an anxiety disorder and had severely impaired cognition. Physician orders included both a PRN (as needed) lorazepam 0.5 mg every 4 hours for anxiety and a scheduled lorazepam 0.5 mg four times daily, both initiated on the same date. The PRN lorazepam order did not have a stop date and remained active in the electronic health record, although it had not been administered since the scheduled lorazepam was started. During the monthly Medication Regimen Review, the Consultant Pharmacist did not make any recommendations regarding the lack of a stop date for the PRN lorazepam order, despite being aware of CMS guidelines requiring such a stop date. Interviews with facility staff, including the DON and Administrator, confirmed their expectation that the Consultant Pharmacist would identify and report such irregularities. The Consultant Pharmacist acknowledged the oversight and could not explain why a recommendation was not made.
Failure to Follow Enhanced Barrier Precautions During Wound Care
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to follow its infection control policies and procedures for Enhanced Barrier Precautions (EBP) during wound care for residents who met the criteria for these precautions. Specifically, three out of six staff members observed and reviewed for infection control practices did not wear a gown while performing or assisting with wound care, as required by the facility's EBP policy. The policy mandates the use of gloves and gowns for high-contact resident care activities, including wound care for residents with open wounds or indwelling medical devices, even if the resident is not known to be infected or colonized with a multidrug-resistant organism (MDRO). During wound care for a resident with a stage 2 pressure ulcer, a nurse was observed performing hand hygiene and using gloves but did not don a gown at any point during the procedure. The nurse later stated she believed a gown was unnecessary because the wound was not open, although she acknowledged the resident should have been on EBP. Another nurse who regularly performed wound care for the same resident was unaware that EBP was required for residents with open wounds and had not been informed by the Infection Preventionist. The Infection Preventionist was also unaware that the resident's pressure ulcer was open and confirmed that EBP should have been initiated when the wound was identified. In a separate incident, another nurse and a nurse aide performed wound care on a different resident without wearing gowns, despite EBP signage and PPE being available outside the resident's room. The nurse aide believed gowns were only necessary for incontinence care, and the nurse admitted he forgot to wear a gown due to being in a hurry, though he knew it was required. Both staff members had previously received education on EBP, but failed to comply with the policy during the observed wound care procedure.
Failure to Immediately Report and Investigate Abuse Allegation
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure that staff implemented the abuse policy and procedure regarding immediate reporting, investigation, and protection following an allegation of abuse. Specifically, when a resident was found with a bruise on her right shoulder and reported being hit by a woman, nurse aides promptly informed a nurse, who then informed the Nurse Supervisor. However, the Nurse Supervisor delayed reporting the allegation to the Director of Nursing (DON) and the Administrator, as required by facility policy, which defines 'immediately' as within two hours for abuse allegations. The DON and Administrator were not made aware of the incident until informed by the surveyor, resulting in a delay in notifying the State Agency, local law enforcement, and Adult Protective Services (APS), as well as a delay in initiating an investigation. Interviews with staff revealed that the resident gave inconsistent accounts of the incident, but staff acknowledged that the policy required immediate reporting regardless of the resident's changing statements. The DON stated that she would have suspended any suspected staff and begun an investigation had she been notified in a timely manner. The Administrator confirmed that he would have reported the allegation to the appropriate authorities within the required timeframe if he had been informed. The failure to follow the established abuse reporting protocol led to a delay in protective actions and regulatory notifications for the resident involved.
Failure to Complete Significant Change in Status Assessment After Hospice Discharge
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to complete a Significant Change in Status Assessment for a resident who was discharged from hospice care. Resident #3, who had diagnoses including heart failure and diabetes, was admitted to hospice services with a life expectancy of less than six months. The resident was discharged from hospice services and switched to hospice palliative care, which was later discontinued. However, there was no facility documentation indicating that hospice palliative care services had been ordered or discontinued. The MDS Coordinator was not informed about the discharge from hospice and palliative care services, and the most recent assessments continued to be coded for receiving hospice care. The MDS Coordinator stated that a significant change in status assessment should have been completed when hospice services ended. The Administrator and DON were also unaware of the resident's discharge from hospice services and expected the MDS assessments to be coded accurately. This lack of communication and documentation led to the failure to complete the necessary assessment.
Inaccurate MDS Coding for Hospice, Falls, and Discharge
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to accurately code the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessments for three residents, leading to deficiencies in the documentation of hospice care, falls, and discharge status. Resident #3 was incorrectly coded as receiving hospice care on quarterly MDS assessments, despite being discharged from hospice and palliative care services. This error was due to a lack of communication to the MDS Coordinator, who relied on nurses and resident charts for information. The Administrator and Director of Nursing were unaware of the discharge, highlighting a gap in communication and documentation. Resident #40's MDS assessment failed to reflect a history of falls with major injury, despite being readmitted to the facility after a fall resulting in a neck fracture. The MDS Coordinator admitted to oversight and human error in not checking the correct boxes. Similarly, Resident #50's discharge was inaccurately coded as unplanned, although it was a planned discharge with home health referrals and follow-up appointments arranged. The MDS Coordinator acknowledged this as another oversight, and the Director of Nursing confirmed the discharge should have been coded as planned.
Latest citations in North Carolina
A cognitively impaired, exit-seeking resident with dementia, insomnia, gait abnormalities, orthostatic hypotension, and high fall risk repeatedly wandered at night and was known by staff to push on an emergency exit door. On two consecutive nights, the resident left the building unsupervised through a west hall emergency exit that had been manually left unlocked and with its door alarm turned off, so no alarm sounded when it was used. After the first elopement, the nurse and NA did not verify that the door’s lock and alarm were re-engaged, and no new monitoring was implemented, allowing the resident to exit again a few hours later. Maintenance later confirmed the door hardware and alarm were functioning properly and could only be disabled manually, meaning staff actions and inactions in securing and monitoring the door directly enabled both elopements.
Surveyors identified multiple failures in food labeling, storage, and sanitation, including dirty water spigots above the cooking range, a scoop stored with its handle in direct contact with rice, and unsealed croissants without open or use-by dates in a walk-in cooler. In three nourishment rooms, open food items such as a half-eaten creme pie with used forks, a reusable container of dressing, a pudding cup, a fast-food sandwich, and a milkshake were found without required open and/or use-by dates. The Dietary Manager reported that all nourishment room food must be labeled with both an open date and a 7-day use-by date and noted that new staff and nursing staff were not consistently labeling items as required.
A resident with severe cognitive impairment who used a wheelchair for mobility was observed being quickly pulled backward down a hallway while reclined in a geriatric chair, instead of being pushed forward in a dignified manner. The NA reported he pulled the chair backward because he felt it was harder to push forward, and he was unaware of any equipment problems. A SW later tested the same geriatric chair and found it functioned properly. Facility leadership, including the Staff Development Director, DON, and Administrator, stated that staff are educated on residents’ rights, dignity, and wheelchair use, and confirmed the expectation that residents be pushed forward in wheelchairs and geriatric chairs at a normal, dignified pace.
A resident with severe cognitive impairment and ADL deficits, including dependence on staff for bathing and grooming, was observed multiple times with long, stringy, visibly greasy and dirty hair despite being scheduled for twice-weekly showers. Nursing staff reported providing bed baths instead of full showers and only wetting the resident’s hair, while hospice staff provided intermittent bed baths with no-rinse shampoo and were unsure of the facility’s regular shower routine. The resident had not been to the beauty shop for hair care in over two months due to being mistakenly left off the beauty shop list. Facility leadership expected that the resident’s hair would be properly washed on scheduled shower days but could not identify when the hair was last washed, resulting in a failure to provide appropriate hair washing services.
Staff failed to follow Enhanced Barrier Precautions (EBP) by not wearing gowns during high-contact care activities for two residents on EBP. In one case, a nurse provided catheter care to a resident with an EBP sign and available PPE but wore only gloves, later stating she believed gowns were needed only when changing the catheter. In another case, two NAs used a mechanical lift to transfer a resident with a gastrostomy tube, again with EBP signage and PPE present, but wore only gloves; one NA stated he did not view transferring as high-contact care, and the other reported she did not always use gowns for transfers. These actions conflicted with the facility’s EBP policy and posted instructions requiring both gown and gloves for high-contact activities such as catheter care and transfers.
The facility failed to obtain and document informed consent for psychotropic medications for three residents. One resident with dementia and behavioral symptoms received quetiapine and divalproex, including a dose increase, without documented evidence that the responsible party was informed of risks and benefits or consented. Another resident with anxiety and depression, severe cognitive impairment, and disruptive behaviors was started on duloxetine and given multiple doses of PRN lorazepam, again without documentation that the responsible party was informed or consent obtained. A third cognitively intact resident with depression and anxiety received escitalopram 20 mg daily with no record that she was informed of the medication’s risks and benefits or that she consented. The Nurse Team Lead, identified as responsible for obtaining psychotropic consents, and the DON both confirmed that the expected notifications and consent documentation were not present in the medical records.
A resident with intact cognition was discharged to the community without a complete discharge summary that recapitulated the course of treatment. The electronic Transfer/Discharge Report contained basic demographic and clinical data but left key sections blank, including advanced directives, diet type/texture/fluid consistency, and resident-specific information on behaviors, ambulation, bladder/bowel status, feeding, and usual level of functioning, and lacked a signed acknowledgment that a copy was provided to the resident or representative. The SW reported she arranged post-discharge services, provided a medication list and satisfaction survey, and documented discharge arrangements, but was unaware that a comprehensive discharge summary with a recapitulation of the stay was required, and the Administrator confirmed the form used did not include this required summary with interdisciplinary input.
A resident admitted with bipolar disorder and receiving routine antipsychotic and antidepressant medications had only a prior Level I PASRR on file, with no Level II PASRR request submitted despite ongoing documentation of an active psychiatric diagnosis and psychotropic treatment in MDS assessments, NP notes, and the care plan. The SW confirmed she verified the existence of a PASRR before admission but did not request a Level II evaluation, believing it was only necessary if the resident exhibited behaviors, and the administrator acknowledged that no Level II PASRR request was made for this resident with a mental health diagnosis.
A resident with severe cognitive impairment and multiple comorbidities, including Alzheimer's disease, diabetes, severe protein-calorie malnutrition, chronic kidney disease, and hypertension, was not seen face-to-face by a physician within 30 days of admission as required. The resident was evaluated by a PA and later by an NP, but the Nurse Team Lead relied on a tracking report that combined all provider visits (NP, PA, and physician) without distinguishing physician-required visits. As a result, the resident did not appear on the physician-visit list when the physician was on-site and was inadvertently overlooked, a fact confirmed by both the Nurse Team Lead and the Administrator.
A resident with dementia, osteoporosis, and prior femur fracture experienced an unwitnessed fall and subsequently developed severe hip pain and decreased ability to ambulate and transfer. Nursing staff failed to document the fall on the day it occurred, did not complete comprehensive lower‑extremity or mobility assessments, and repeatedly charted pain scores of 0 despite the resident’s complaints and nurse aide reports of significant pain with movement and increased assistance needs. An NP evaluated the resident for hip pain but was not informed of the fall, did not assess the hips or legs, and treated the pain as baseline neuropathic discomfort. Over several days, PRN acetaminophen was given intermittently without consistent pain scoring, multiple shifts lacked progress notes or assessments, and aides assumed nurses were aware of the resident’s worsening pain and functional decline. Bilateral hip x‑rays were eventually ordered after internal communication about hip pain, and the report later showed an acute displaced femoral neck fracture, after which the resident was sent to the hospital and underwent a left hip hemiarthroplasty.
Unsecured Emergency Exit Allows Repeated Elopement of High-Risk Resident
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to keep an emergency exit door secured and alarmed, which allowed a cognitively impaired, exit-seeking resident at high fall risk to leave the building unsupervised on two consecutive nights. The resident had dementia with psychotic disturbance, severe cognitive impairment, a history of wandering and exit-seeking, orthostatic hypotension, gait abnormalities, and muscle weakness. Care plans and assessments identified wandering, exit seeking, fall risk, and insomnia, and interventions included a wander guard bracelet, frequent safety checks, environmental monitoring, and redirection from exits. Despite this, the resident routinely wandered at night, roamed the halls, entered other residents’ rooms, and was known by staff to push on the emergency exit door in attempts to leave. On the first night, in the early morning hours while it was still dark, the nurse noticed the resident was no longer in the hallway or in his room. The assigned NA, positioned near the west hall emergency exit, reported hearing a door slam but assumed it was a nearby resident’s room door because the emergency door alarm had not sounded. When the nurse checked the emergency exit, he found it unlocked and non-alarming, exited through it, and after walking several minutes from the back of the building to the front, located the resident standing at the main entrance. The resident’s wander bracelet triggered the main entrance door alarm when they re-entered, confirming the bracelet was in place. The nurse believed the emergency door locked and re-armed automatically and did not verify the lock or alarm status of the door after the incident or before the end of his shift, and no additional monitoring or new interventions were implemented at that time. On the second night, the same nurse observed the resident in bed at approximately 1:30 AM, but by about 2:00 AM the resident was again missing from his room. The nurse immediately went to the same west hall emergency exit and saw the resident outside through the door’s glass, walking away from the building. The door was again unlocked and did not alarm when opened. The nurse brought the resident back inside through that door and assessed him with no injuries noted. Staff interviews and maintenance inspection confirmed that the emergency exit door’s magnetic lock was controlled by a wall switch and the red alarm box on the door could only be turned on or off with a key; the system did not malfunction and could not be defeated by holding the push bar. This meant the door’s lock and alarm had been manually disabled by staff on at least one prior shift, and staff on subsequent shifts, including nurses and NAs who were aware of the resident’s exit-seeking behavior and the first elopement, did not verify that the door was secured and alarmed, allowing the resident to exit a second time without staff knowledge.
Removal Plan
- Identify recipients who have suffered, or are likely to suffer, a serious adverse outcome as a result of the noncompliance
- Ensure Resident #89 has a wander bracelet in place
- Pursue or redirect Resident #89 back into the facility if he exits
- Assess Resident #89 for acute distress or injury after an elopement event
- Administer scheduled bedtime medications for insomnia (melatonin 3 mg and trazodone 50 mg) as ordered
- Initiate an order for checks of Resident #89’s whereabouts
- Document completion of checks on the Medication Administration Record
Improper Food Labeling, Storage, and Sanitation in Kitchen and Nourishment Rooms
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to properly label, date, and store food items and to maintain cleanliness in food preparation and nourishment areas. During an initial kitchen tour with the Dietary Manager, surveyors observed visible dirt and grime buildup on three water spigots above the cooking range and found a plastic scoop left in a rice bin with the handle and bottom in direct contact with the rice. In walk-in cooler #2, a cardboard flat of croissants had been cut open, with seven croissants already used, and the remaining croissants were not resealed or labeled with an open or use-by date. The Dietary Manager acknowledged that the open croissants had been missed by kitchen staff and that the rice scoop should have been stored in its designated holder on the bin. In three nourishment rooms, surveyors found multiple food items that were open but not properly labeled with open and/or use-by dates. In one nourishment room refrigerator, there was a half-eaten creme pie with three used plastic forks left in the pan and a small reusable container of ranch dressing, both open and unlabeled. In another nourishment room refrigerator, a vanilla pudding cup and a wrapped fast-food sandwich were open and labeled only with open dates, but no use-by dates. In a third nourishment room refrigerator, a fast-food milkshake was open with no open or use-by date. The Dietary Manager stated that all nourishment room food items were required to be labeled with both an open date and a use-by date set seven days after opening, and reported that some new staff were not labeling items correctly and that nursing staff often left items in nourishment refrigerators without appropriate labeling.
Resident Dignity Compromised During Transport in Geriatric Chair
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves a failure to maintain a resident’s dignity and right to a dignified existence and self-determination when a nurse aide transported the resident in a manner inconsistent with facility expectations. The resident, who had clear speech but severe cognitive impairment and required a wheelchair for mobility, was observed during a continuous observation being quickly pulled backward approximately 30 feet down the South Hall from the day room to her room while reclined in a geriatric chair. A reasonable person would have expected to be treated with dignity and to be wheeled forward in the chair. During interviews, the nurse aide stated he chose to pull the resident backward because he felt it was harder to push the reclined geriatric chair forward and reported no awareness of problems with the chair. The social worker later pushed the same geriatric chair forward and backward in the hallway and noted no functional concerns, stating the chair worked fine and needed no repairs. The Staff Development Director reported that staff receive education on residents’ rights, dignity, and wheelchair use, including speed and footrest use, and acknowledged the resident should not have been pulled backward in the geriatric chair. The DON and Administrator both stated they expected staff to push residents in wheelchairs and geriatric chairs forward, at a normal pace, and in a dignified manner.
Failure to Provide Adequate Hair Washing for Dependent Resident
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to provide adequate hair washing services for a dependent resident with ADL deficits. The resident was admitted with senile degeneration of the brain, COPD, and heart failure, and had a care plan identifying ADL deficits due to generalized weakness, with interventions including setup for hair and oral hygiene daily and assistance with bathing and dressing. An annual MDS showed the resident was severely cognitively impaired and required extensive staff assistance for ADLs, with no behaviors or rejection of care documented. The shower schedule indicated the resident was to receive showers twice weekly on specific mornings. However, multiple observations over several days showed the resident in bed with long, stringy, visibly greasy and dirty hair that was stuck flat against her head, including on a scheduled shower day. Record review showed documentation that the resident received a shower on one of the observed days, but the NA assigned that day reported she actually provided a bed bath rather than a full shower and typically only wet the resident’s hair, noting it was becoming tangled, especially in the back. The NA stated a hospice bathing team visited a couple of times a week and used a no-rinse shampoo, but she was unsure of their specific care for this resident. The hospice nurse confirmed providing bed baths with no-rinse shampoo a couple of times a week and was unsure of the facility’s regular shower routine for the resident. The beauty shop operator and unit secretary both indicated it had been longer than two months since the resident’s last beauty shop visit, and the unit secretary acknowledged the resident’s name had been left off the beauty shop list by mistake. The DON stated NAs were expected to bathe the resident twice weekly and was unaware of when the resident’s hair was last washed, while the administrator stated his expectation that the resident’s hair would be properly washed on scheduled shower days.
Failure to Use Required Gowns Under Enhanced Barrier Precautions During High-Contact Care
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to follow its own Enhanced Barrier Precautions (EBP) policy requiring the use of gowns and gloves during high-contact resident care activities for residents on EBP. The written policy, revised on 7/26/2022, defined EBP as an infection control intervention to reduce transmission of multidrug-resistant organisms (MDRO) by using gowns and gloves during high-contact activities such as dressing, bathing, transferring, providing hygiene, changing linens or briefs, assisting with toileting, and device care or use, including urinary catheters and feeding tubes. Facility signage for EBP instructed staff to don a gown and gloves for high-contact resident care activities, and personal protective equipment (PPE), including gowns, was made available in holders at resident room doors. During an observation of catheter care for Resident #132, who was on EBP and had an EBP sign and PPE bin with gowns posted outside the room, Nurse #5 entered the room without wearing a gown. She washed her hands, donned gloves, removed the resident’s brief, and provided catheter care, then discarded supplies and gloves and washed her hands. In a subsequent interview, Nurse #5 acknowledged awareness that the resident was on EBP but stated she believed a gown was only required when changing the catheter, not when providing catheter care, and indicated she must have misunderstood the EBP instructions despite having received infection control training. In a separate observation, Resident #161’s room also had an EBP sign and PPE holder on the door, and the resident had a gastrostomy tube with tube feeding formula hanging at the bedside. When the resident returned from an outside appointment in a wheelchair, two nurse aides entered the room with a mechanical lift to transfer the resident to bed. Both aides wore gloves but did not wear gowns while completing the mechanical lift transfer. One aide stated he knew the resident was on EBP due to the gastrostomy tube but believed a gown was only required when performing “some type of care” and did not consider transferring to be a high-contact activity, even when shown the sign indicating gowns and gloves were required for transfers. The other aide, who usually worked on a different unit, stated she followed EBP signage but sometimes used a gown for transfers and not all the time, and both aides had previously received EBP and PPE training. The Infection Preventionist, DON, and Administrator each stated that staff should have worn gowns in these situations according to the posted EBP signage and facility expectations.
Failure to Obtain and Document Informed Consent for Psychotropic Medications
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to obtain and document informed consent for psychotropic medications prior to initiation or dose changes for multiple residents. For one resident with unspecified dementia, anxiety disorder, depression, and delusional disorder, the physician ordered quetiapine for anxiety and agitation and later ordered divalproex for dementia with aggression and agitation, with a subsequent dose increase. The resident’s MDS showed moderate cognitive impairment, use of antipsychotic, antidepressant, and anticonvulsant medications, and behavioral symptoms including rejection of care. Record review showed these medications were administered as ordered, but there was no documentation that the responsible party was informed in advance of the risks and benefits of starting or increasing these psychotropic medications or that consent was obtained. Another resident with anxiety disorder and depression was started on duloxetine for depression and later had PRN lorazepam ordered for daytime and bedtime anxiety with agitation. The MDS indicated severe cognitive impairment, behavioral symptoms that interfered with social interactions and disrupted care, and use of anti-anxiety and antidepressant medications. The MAR confirmed that duloxetine was given as ordered and lorazepam was administered on multiple days. However, the electronic medical record contained no documentation that the responsible party was informed in advance of the risks and benefits of initiating duloxetine or lorazepam or that consent was obtained. The Nurse Team Lead, who was responsible for obtaining psychotropic consents, could not locate any consent forms for this resident and could not recall whether the responsible party had been called. A third resident with major depressive disorder and generalized anxiety disorder, and intact cognition per the MDS, had an active order for escitalopram 20 mg daily for depression and anxiety. The MDS showed no behavioral symptoms and receipt of antidepressant medication. Review of the medical record revealed no documentation that this resident was informed in advance of the risks and benefits of initiating escitalopram and consented to the treatment. In interviews, the Nurse Team Lead consistently stated she was responsible for obtaining psychotropic consents when new orders were received from providers, but she was unable to find consent forms for the involved residents or explain what had occurred. The DON described a process in which providers communicated new or changed psychotropic orders to the Nurse Team Lead, who was expected to notify residents or responsible parties and document the notification, but acknowledged that for these residents the required documentation and consent forms were missing.
Failure to Complete Required Discharge Summary With Recapitulation of Stay
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to complete a required discharge summary that included a recapitulation of the resident's stay for one resident who was discharged to the community. The resident was admitted to the facility and had a 5-Day MDS showing intact cognition and active discharge planning. A subsequent discharge-return not anticipated MDS documented that the resident was discharged to the community. Review of the electronic medical record showed an undated Transfer/Discharge Report containing demographic and clinical information such as date of birth, admission date, age, insurance, allergies, primary contact and physician information, diagnoses, most recent vital signs, and immunization history, with a notation to refer to the MAR for current medications. However, several sections of this report were left blank, including advanced directives, diet type/texture/fluid consistency, and resident-specific information on behaviors, ambulation, bladder/bowel status, feeding, and usual level of functioning. There was also no signature or date indicating the resident or representative received a copy of the Transfer/Discharge Report. In interviews, the SW reported she was responsible for long-term resident discharges while a Discharge Planner/Case Manager handled short-term discharges. The SW described her discharge process as arranging post-discharge needs such as follow-up appointments, home health, or equipment, providing a satisfaction survey and a list of medications with administration times, and documenting a progress note outlining discharge arrangements. She stated that when follow-up appointments were arranged, records including provider notes, therapy notes, and medication lists were faxed to the receiving provider. The SW also indicated she was not aware that a discharge summary including a recapitulation of the resident's course of treatment in the facility was required. The Administrator acknowledged that the Transfer/Discharge Report in use contained some required components but did not summarize the resident's course of treatment and that a discharge summary with input from all disciplines should have been completed per regulatory guidelines.
Failure to Request Level II PASRR for Resident With Bipolar Disorder
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to submit a request for a Level II PASRR evaluation for a resident with a serious mental health diagnosis. The resident was admitted with a diagnosis that included bipolar disorder and had only a Level I PASRR documented from an evaluation completed in 2022. The admission MDS indicated the resident was not considered by the state Level II PASRR process to have serious mental illness or intellectual disability, despite documenting an active bipolar disorder diagnosis and routine antipsychotic use. Subsequent psychiatric NP progress notes in 2024 and 2026 confirmed an active bipolar disorder diagnosis and ongoing treatment with aripiprazole and bupropion. The annual MDS again indicated the resident was not considered by the Level II PASRR process to have serious mental illness or intellectual disability, while also documenting routine antipsychotic and antidepressant use and a care plan addressing psychotropic medications related to bipolar disorder. The social worker, who had been in the role for five years and was responsible for ensuring newly admitted residents had a PASRR prior to admission, verified that she checked the state PASRR system before admission and confirmed the presence of a PASRR, but did not request a Level II evaluation at or after admission. She stated she was aware of the resident’s bipolar diagnosis and psychiatric referral but believed a Level II PASRR was only needed if the resident demonstrated behaviors, and she was not aware that a Level II evaluation was required when a resident was admitted with a mental health diagnosis and had only a Level I PASRR. The administrator also confirmed that no Level II PASRR request was made when the resident was admitted with a mental health diagnosis.
Failure to Ensure Timely Physician Visit After Admission
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure that a resident was seen face-to-face by a physician within 30 days of admission, as required. The resident was admitted with multiple significant diagnoses, including Alzheimer's disease, dementia with agitation, diabetes, severe protein-calorie malnutrition, chronic kidney disease, and hypertension, and had severe cognitive impairment per a quarterly MDS assessment. Review of the electronic medical record showed no evidence that the resident had been seen by a physician within the required timeframe. Instead of a physician visit, the resident was seen by a PA and later by an NP shortly after admission. The Nurse Team Lead, who was responsible for tracking when physician regulatory visits were due, used a report from the computer system that listed the last date residents were seen by any provider (NP, PA, or physician). She manually marked which provider conducted the visit and used this list to inform providers which residents needed to be seen. Because the system did not distinguish physician visits from NP/PA visits on the tracking report, the resident did not appear on the physician-visit list when the physician was in the facility, and therefore was not scheduled for a physician visit. Both the Nurse Team Lead and the Administrator confirmed that the resident had not been seen by the physician and that this was an oversight.
Failure to Assess and Respond to Post‑Fall Hip Pain and Mobility Decline
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to comprehensively assess, recognize, and respond to a resident’s severe hip pain and functional decline following a reported unwitnessed fall. The resident had dementia, osteoporosis, and a history of femur fracture, and was previously able to transfer and ambulate with limited assistance. On the date of the unwitnessed fall, there was no nursing progress note, no documentation of a fall, no pain complaint, and no assessment of the lower extremities or of transfers, ambulation, or mobility. Nursing documentation on that date reflected a pain score of 0, and the nurse assigned to the resident did not recall any fall, pain, or assessment. The quarterly MDS showed severe cognitive impairment and a prior fall, but no pain assessment. On the following night, a nurse documented that the resident was having “a lot of pain” in her hip and placed a note in the doctor’s book, but did not call the on‑call provider, did not document administration of any pain medication, and did not record a pain score with the complaint. The nurse aide on that shift did not recall changes, but the nurse later reported that the aide had told her the resident was unable to ambulate, which was a change from baseline. The next day, another nurse documented in a late entry that the resident reported she had fallen the previous day, pulled herself up, and had not told anyone, and that the resident screamed in pain when moved. This nurse contacted the NP, who, according to the note, stated the resident complained of pain all the time; the nurse informed him that this pain was not typical. The progress note did not include a pain level, a lower extremity assessment, or documentation that the unwitnessed fall was communicated to the NP. The NP’s own note documented nonspecific hip pain, a sleepy and groggy presentation, and neuropathic/hip pain, but did not include an assessment of the legs or hips. The NP later stated he was unaware of the fall, did not assess the hips or legs, and did not inquire about changes in condition such as pain with movement or ambulation. Over the next several days, multiple nurses documented pain scores of 0 on the MAR despite intermittent administration of PRN acetaminophen and reports from nurse aides that the resident had significant pain with transfers, ambulation, and repositioning. Nurse aides reported that the resident, who had previously been able to get up and ambulate, now required increased assistance, had difficulty transferring and ambulating, and grimaced and winced in pain during movement. One aide kept the resident in bed and provided all care in bed due to pain with movement, while another aide did not report the pain to the nurse, assuming the nurse was already aware. There were no nursing progress notes on some days documenting any assessment of the lower extremities or of the resident’s ability to transfer, ambulate, or move, and some assigned nurses did not enter any assessment notes at all. A nursing supervisor received a Stop and Watch communication about hip pain, obtained an order for bilateral hip x‑rays, but did not complete a comprehensive assessment and did not document a pain level or lower extremity assessment. The x‑ray order was entered, and bilateral hip x‑rays were completed, but pain scores of 0 continued to be documented on the MAR by nursing staff, and the unit manager assigned for part of one day did not assess the resident. A nurse aide who assisted with the x‑ray reported that repositioning the resident in bed was difficult due to pain and observed grimacing and wincing. The x‑ray report later showed an acute left femoral neck fracture with displacement. The nurse who came on duty the next day found the x‑ray report on the fax machine, noted the fracture, and contacted the provider, after which the resident was sent to the emergency department. The hospital history and physical documented that the resident endorsed hip pain on arrival and was treated with analgesics and later underwent a left hip hemiarthroplasty. The NP and Medical Director both acknowledged that there was potential for complications when a fracture remained undiagnosed for several days while the resident continued to be moved, transferred, and assisted with ambulation. The DON confirmed that the facility’s investigation determined that a nurse had been informed of an unwitnessed fall and failed to report the incident, resulting in a delay in treatment, and emphasized the importance of thorough assessment and documentation.
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.
