The Citadel At Myers Park, Llc
Inspection history, citations, penalties and survey trends for this long-term care facility in Charlotte, North Carolina.
- Location
- 300 Providence Road, Charlotte, North Carolina 28207
- CMS Provider Number
- 345008
- Inspections on file
- 30
- Latest survey
- February 12, 2025
- Citations (last 12 mo.)
- 0
Citation history
Health deficiencies cited at The Citadel At Myers Park, Llc during CMS and state inspections, most recent first.
A resident in a secured unit physically assaulted another resident, and the facility's response was inadequate, leading to further incidents. Initial protective measures, such as 30-minute checks, were ineffective, and the facility failed to follow its abuse policy, resulting in ongoing immediate jeopardy.
A cognitively impaired resident was physically abused by another resident in a LTC facility. The aggressive resident, with a history of potential physical aggression, threw the wandering resident out of his room, causing the latter to hit his head. Despite staff presence, immediate protective measures were not effectively implemented, and the facility's response was delayed and inadequate.
A resident was unsafely transported back to the facility after dialysis, resulting in a fall from his wheelchair due to improper securing by the driver. Additionally, the facility failed to accurately assess a resident's smoking safety, leading to unsupervised smoking, and lacked electronic monitoring devices for residents at risk of wandering, posing potential safety hazards.
The facility did not submit direct care staffing information to CMS for Q4 FY 2024 due to an oversight by the corporate office. The Administrator was unaware of the error, as the corporate team handled submissions. The President of Operations confirmed the data sheet was prepared but not submitted.
The facility failed to maintain food safety and sanitation standards, with expired and spoiled food found in a cooler and unclean nourishment rooms. Staff interviews revealed unclear responsibilities for maintaining cleanliness and monitoring food safety.
The facility failed to maintain sanitary conditions around two outdoor trash receptacles next to the kitchen exit. Observations showed one dumpster with an open lid and trash debris on the ground. Old furniture was also found leaning against the building and dumpsters. Interviews with the DON and Administrator confirmed the area was not maintained as per facility policies, with expectations for closed dumpster doors and cleanliness unmet.
A resident with severe cognitive impairment and multiple diagnoses required assistance with daily living activities. Observations revealed brown debris under her fingernails, indicating inadequate grooming. Despite noticing the issue, staff did not clean the nails immediately, deferring the task until a scheduled shower. The DON and Administrator expected daily grooming, but staff inaction led to a deficiency in care.
A facility failed to communicate a resident's code status change from CPR/Full Code to DNR after transitioning to Hospice care. The discrepancy between the physical MOST form and the EMR was due to a lack of communication among staff, including the Medical Records Coordinator, Social Worker, and Director of Nursing, leading to inconsistent documentation.
A resident with Alzheimer's and dementia was thrown to the floor by another resident, hitting his head. Nurse #6 witnessed the incident but failed to inform NP #1 of the head injury, only mentioning an altercation. NP #2 later assessed the resident and recommended hospital evaluation, where no injuries were found. The administrator expected NP #1 to be informed of the fall and head injury, highlighting a communication breakdown.
Two residents experienced deficiencies in wheelchair maintenance, with one resident's wheelchair having a damaged armrest and another's missing an armrest, causing discomfort. Additionally, window blinds in a resident's room were in disrepair, affecting privacy. Staff failed to notice or report these issues, and the Maintenance Director, new to the role, acknowledged the need for repairs. The DON and Administrator expected all equipment to be in good repair to prevent issues and protect privacy.
The facility failed to report and document abuse allegations properly. In one case, a resident used physical force on another, resulting in a fall, but the incident was not reported as abuse immediately. In another case, an alleged sexual abuse incident between two residents was not reported to the Administrator or investigated. Both incidents highlight deficiencies in the facility's abuse policies and procedures.
The facility failed to update care plans for two residents, leading to deficiencies in care management. A resident with Alzheimer's and severe cognitive impairment did not have a required electronic wander guard alarm documented in their care plan, despite physician orders and staff acknowledgment of its necessity. Another resident's care plan was not updated to reflect a change to Do Not Resuscitate (DNR) status after transitioning to hospice care, despite the DNR form being signed and the resident's severe cognitive impairment. Both the MDS Nurse and Social Worker acknowledged the oversight.
A resident with Alzheimer's disease was intubated against his and his Responsible Party's (RP) wishes due to the facility's failure to update the Medical Orders for Scope of Treatment (MOST) form. The outdated form indicated full treatment, including intubation, despite a discharge summary stating the RP's request for Do Not Intubate (DNI). The facility's interdisciplinary team did not discuss the specifics of the MOST form during a care conference, leading to the resident being intubated during a hospital evaluation.
A resident with severely impaired cognition experienced an unwitnessed fall, and the facility staff failed to conduct ongoing neurological assessments. Initial assessments showed no signs of injury, but no further checks were documented. The resident was later found unresponsive and diagnosed with a life-threatening subdural hematoma, leading to hospitalization and eventual transition to hospice care. Staff interviews revealed a lack of communication and follow-through on necessary assessments.
A resident in hospice care with a history of dementia and wandering sustained significant injuries, including black eyes and a nasal fracture, after being found in another resident's room. The incident was unwitnessed, and staff failed to report it to administration or APS within the required timeframe. Despite the severity of the injuries, the facility did not immediately investigate the incident as potential abuse, leading to a deficiency in handling such cases.
A resident with dementia and a history of smoking-related incidents left the facility unannounced to buy cigarettes, due to frustration over smoking supervision. Despite being independent in mobility, the resident's unsteady gait and seizure history raised safety concerns. The facility initiated a search and notified the police after discovering the resident's empty wheelchair. The resident was found at a behavioral health clinic and returned by police.
A resident with dementia and other medical conditions fell from her wheelchair in a transportation van while unsupervised. The driver, a CNA, moved the resident back into her wheelchair before calling 911, contrary to facility policy requiring residents to remain in place for assessment after a fall. The incident highlighted a failure to follow established protocols for resident safety and care.
A resident with dementia and bilateral amputations fell in a transportation van after being left unsupervised by the driver, who was also a CNA. The resident unbuckled her seatbelt and fell, resulting in a hospital visit for a head injury. Another resident, assessed as an unsafe smoker, smoked a cigarette in her room unsupervised after staff left residents alone during a smoke break. These incidents highlight the facility's failure to provide adequate supervision to prevent accidents.
A resident with glaucoma and ocular hypertension was recommended for an ophthalmology consultation after a fall resulted in right eye swelling and pain. The facility failed to follow up on this recommendation, as neither the assigned nurse nor the nurse supervisor reviewed the hospital discharge summary or processed new physician orders. The unit manager attempted to fax a consultation request but did not confirm receipt or follow up. The DON acknowledged the delay in follow-up, and both the NP and MD expected the facility to ensure the appointment was made.
The facility failed to provide mechanically altered diets as ordered for residents with dysphagia, serving large pieces of stew beef instead of ground or chopped meats. This resulted in residents struggling to chew and consume their meals, contrary to the National Dysphagia Diet guidelines. Staff interviews confirmed the meat did not meet the required texture, attributing the issue to the quality of meat received.
The facility failed to maintain sanitary conditions in the dumpster area, with open dumpster doors and trash scattered around, including an incontinent brief and blue latex gloves. The Maintenance Assistant, responsible for the area, was busy with construction oversight and later on vacation, leaving the Floor Technician to manage the area. However, the Technician was not present on one of the days, resulting in unsanitary conditions. The Administrator confirmed that maintenance and housekeeping staff were responsible for the area.
A facility failed to update a care plan for a resident with nicotine dependence and hypertension, who was identified as an unsafe smoker requiring supervision. Despite a smoking assessment indicating the need for supervision, the care plan inaccurately reflected the resident as an unsupervised smoker. Interviews with facility staff confirmed the care plan should have been revised to reflect the need for supervision.
A resident with a history of cerebral infarction and hypertension was not receiving the prescribed 150 ml water flushes every four hours as ordered by the physician. Instead, the pump was set to deliver only 75 ml, as observed over two days. Nursing staff acknowledged the error, and the facility's RD confirmed the order, noting no significant hydration concerns due to additional flushes with medication.
A resident with multiple health issues continued to receive aspirin despite hospital recommendations to discontinue it due to fall risk. The facility staff failed to review and implement the hospital's discharge instructions, leading to a deficiency in medication management.
Failure to Implement Effective Abuse Prevention Measures
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to implement its abuse policy effectively following an incident of resident-to-resident physical abuse, which placed all residents on the secured unit at risk. On January 27, Nurse #6 witnessed Resident #64 physically assault Resident #84 by lifting and throwing him out of the room, resulting in Resident #84 hitting his head on the floor. Despite this serious incident, the facility's response was inadequate, as they only implemented 30-minute monitoring checks for Resident #64, which proved ineffective in preventing further abuse. On February 1, Resident #64 was involved in another incident where he pushed Resident #18 as she walked past his room. This incident highlighted the failure of the facility's initial protective measures, as Resident #64 continued to pose a threat to other residents. The Director of Nursing (DON) and the Administrator were not fully informed of the severity of the initial incident until the following day, which delayed the implementation of more effective protective measures. The facility's policy on abuse, neglect, and exploitation was not adequately followed, as it required increased supervision and potential room or staffing changes to protect residents from the alleged perpetrator. The facility's failure to implement these measures promptly and effectively resulted in ongoing immediate jeopardy, as the risk of further abuse remained present and unaddressed.
Removal Plan
- Resident #64 was placed on 1:1 supervision via nurse aides or designee during wake hours until further notice and 1-hour checks by nurse and 30-minute checks by nursing assistant or designee to be completed while resident is sleeping.
- A follow-up call to the NP for resident #64 was placed by the DON and new orders were received for labs and psych consult due to escalated behaviors.
- The NP for resident #64 started the resident on Seroquel (antipsychotic medication) 25 mg daily for behavior management and diagnosis of adjustment disorder with depressed mood.
- A Root Cause Analysis was completed by the LNHA and the DON with input from Interdisciplinary Team (IDT) and consultants.
- Resident #64 was placed on 1:1 supervision by his nurse.
- The facility's policy titled Abuse, Neglect, and Mistreatment was reviewed by the administrator with no changes indicated.
- The abuse policy was reviewed again by the LNHA and the regional clinical consultant and no changes were made.
- Verbal education was provided by the Regional Director of Operations and Regional Clinical Consultant to LNHA and DON regarding procedures of thoroughly completing an investigation of alleged abuse, unusual events, monitoring for and identifying precipitating behaviors that could lead to possible resident to resident altercations and ensuring protection for all residents.
- Nurse aides and licensed nurses received education from the Licensed Nursing Home Administrator/Designee that included direction to stay with the aggressive resident to promote and maintain safety for other residents within the facility.
- Immediate verbal education was initiated by LNHA/designee related to types of abuse including resident to resident altercations, abuse identification, abuse prevention, abuse reporting, and maintaining resident safety, with all nursing facility staff.
- Additional ongoing whole nursing home staff education is being coordinated by the Regional Director of Operations with psych providers or designee related to dealing with difficult behaviors and monitoring interventions, to be completed monthly with all staff.
Failure to Prevent Resident-to-Resident Abuse
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to protect a cognitively impaired resident, Resident #84, from physical abuse by another resident, Resident #64. On the day of the incident, Resident #84, who had a history of wandering due to severe cognitive impairment, entered Resident #64's room. Resident #64, also cognitively impaired, reacted aggressively by lifting Resident #84 and throwing him out of the room, resulting in Resident #84 hitting his head on the floor. Despite the presence of staff, including Nurse #6 who witnessed the incident, immediate protective measures were not effectively implemented to prevent such an altercation. Resident #64 had a documented history of potential physical aggression due to poor impulse control, as noted in his care plan. However, the facility's monitoring records indicated no behaviors of concern in the days leading up to the incident. This lack of documented behavioral issues may have contributed to the staff's unpreparedness for Resident #64's aggressive response. Additionally, the care plan for Resident #84 identified his wandering behavior, yet interventions to protect him and others were insufficiently executed, as evidenced by his unsupervised entry into Resident #64's room. The facility's response to the incident was delayed and inadequate. Although Nurse #6 reported the incident to the Director of Nursing and Unit Manager, the initial assessment and subsequent actions did not immediately address the severity of the situation. Resident #84 was not promptly sent for a medical evaluation despite exhibiting signs of potential injury, such as guarding his arm and head. The facility's failure to recognize and act upon the immediate jeopardy posed by the resident-to-resident altercation highlights a significant deficiency in ensuring resident safety and preventing abuse.
Removal Plan
- Resident #64 was placed on increased monitoring via nurse aides and via licensed nurse.
- Resident #64's orders and care plans were reviewed and updated by the DON and Unit Manager to reflect checks by nurse aides and checks by licensed nurses.
- Resident #64 was escalated to a 1 on 1 supervision during wake hours via nurse aide or designee.
- Education was initiated by Licensed Nursing Home Administrator/designee related to types of abuse including resident to resident altercations, abuse identification, abuse prevention, and maintaining resident safety, with all nursing home staff.
- Education included scenarios and quizzes for demonstration of staff competency.
- Education further included redirecting residents, monitoring for and identifying precipitating behaviors that could lead to possible resident to resident altercations.
- No staff will work without having had this education.
- Additional ongoing whole nursing home staff education is being coordinated by the Regional Director of Operations with Telos psych providers or designee related to dealing with difficult behaviors and monitoring interventions, to be completed with all staff.
Transportation and Supervision Deficiencies in LTC Facility
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure the safe transportation of a cognitively intact resident who was receiving dialysis and prescribed an anticoagulant. During transport, the driver from a contracted transportation company did not secure the resident with a lap and shoulder belt, leading to the resident being thrown from his wheelchair to the floor of the van after hitting bumps in the road. The driver did not contact emergency services and left the resident on the floor of the van until they returned to the facility. Upon arrival, a nurse assessed the resident and found no injuries, but the incident had a high likelihood of causing serious harm. The facility also failed to complete an accurate safe smoking assessment for a resident with a history of smoking-related incidents, resulting in the resident being unsupervised while smoking. Observations revealed the resident smoking without supervision, with cigarette ashes on his coat, indicating a potential safety hazard. The facility's policy required residents with a history of smoking-related incidents to be supervised, but the assessment inaccurately deemed the resident as an independent smoker. Additionally, the facility did not have electronic monitoring devices in place for two residents with a history of wandering, despite physician orders and care plans indicating the need for such devices. The devices were on backorder, and the facility implemented increased monitoring as a temporary measure. However, the lack of electronic monitoring devices posed a risk of elopement for these residents. Another resident on a secured unit was found to have wandered unattended to another floor, highlighting a lack of adequate supervision to prevent accidents.
Failure to Submit PBJ Staffing Data for Q4 FY 2024
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to electronically submit direct care staffing information based on payroll data to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) for the fourth quarter of fiscal year 2024. This deficiency was identified during a review of the Payroll Based Journal (PBJ) Staffing Data report from the Certification and Survey Provider Enhanced Reports (CASPER) database. The Administrator was unaware of the reporting error, as the responsibility for submitting the data lay with the corporate team. The President of Operations confirmed that the corporate office was responsible for submitting the PBJ staffing data for all facilities within the corporation and acknowledged that the data sheet was created but not submitted due to an error by the corporate office.
Deficiencies in Food Safety and Sanitation Practices
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to maintain proper food safety and sanitation standards in its kitchen and nourishment rooms. During an inspection, expired and spoiled food items were found in a reach-in cooler, including mayonnaise, coleslaw dressing, barbeque sauce, yogurt, mushrooms, tomatoes, and turkey lunchmeat. These items were either past their expiration dates or not labeled and dated as required. The Cook acknowledged the oversight, attributing it to leftover items from previous staff and a lack of proper labeling and dating practices. Additionally, the nourishment rooms on the first and second floors were found to be unclean, with leftover meal trays and food debris present. Meal trays from previous days were left on counters, and refrigerators contained expired and improperly stored food items. Interviews with staff, including a Nurse Aide, the Dietary Manager, and the Director of Nursing, revealed a lack of clarity regarding responsibilities for maintaining cleanliness and monitoring food safety in these areas. The Administrator expected adherence to policies and procedures, but the deficiencies indicated a breakdown in communication and accountability among the staff.
Improper Disposal of Garbage and Debris
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to maintain sanitary conditions around two outdoor trash receptacles located next to the kitchen exit. Observations on two separate days revealed that one of the dumpsters had its top lid open, and there was a significant amount of trash debris lying on the ground around the dumpsters. Additionally, old furniture, including a clothing closet, bedside table, nightstand, and eight wooden pallets, were found leaning against the building and the dumpsters. Interviews with the Director of Nursing (DON) and the Administrator confirmed that the area was not being maintained according to the facility's policies and procedures. The DON explained that the facility was in the process of refurbishing rooms, which led to the accumulation of old furniture outside. Both the DON and the Administrator expected the dumpster doors to be closed and the area to be clean, but this was not the case during the observations.
Failure to Provide Adequate Nail Care for Resident
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to provide adequate nail care for a resident who was unable to perform activities of daily living independently. The resident, who was admitted with diagnoses including cerebrovascular accident, diabetes mellitus, dementia, and Alzheimer's disease, required substantial to maximal assistance with all activities of daily living except eating. Observations over several days revealed that the resident had brown colored debris under her fingernails, indicating a lack of proper grooming and hygiene care. Despite multiple observations of the resident's dirty fingernails, staff members, including nurse aides and the unit manager, did not take immediate action to clean the resident's nails. Interviews with staff revealed that they had not noticed the debris or had not prioritized cleaning the resident's nails, even when it was brought to their attention. The unit manager acknowledged the issue but deferred cleaning the nails until the resident's scheduled shower later in the day. The Director of Nursing and the Administrator expressed expectations for daily grooming and care, especially for residents with dementia who are unable to care for themselves. However, the staff's inaction and lack of immediate response to the resident's grooming needs resulted in a deficiency in providing necessary care and assistance for activities of daily living.
Failure to Communicate Code Status Change
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to effectively communicate changes in a resident's code status, leading to a discrepancy between the physical and electronic medical records. Resident #25, who had a history of cerebral infarction, diabetes, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, was admitted with a CPR/Full Code status as indicated on the Medical Orders for Scope of Treatment (MOST) form. However, after transitioning to Hospice care, the resident's code status was changed to Do Not Resuscitate (DNR) in the electronic medical record (EMR), but this change was not reflected in the physical MOST form. Interviews with facility staff revealed a lack of communication and coordination regarding the update of the resident's code status. The Medical Records Coordinator was unaware of the change and did not update the EMR, while the Social Worker, responsible for updating the care plan, was also uninformed about the transition to Hospice and the code status change. The Director of Nursing acknowledged the discrepancy and noted that the Unit Manager had updated the EMR alert banner, but the physical documents were not aligned. The Administrator expected consistency between the physical and electronic records but was unsure why the discrepancy occurred.
Failure to Notify Physician of Resident Abuse Incident
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to notify the physician with specific details of a resident abuse incident that resulted in a fall and potential head injury. Resident #84, who has Alzheimer's disease and dementia, was thrown to the floor by another resident, hitting his head. Nurse #6 witnessed the incident and heard a cracking sound as the resident's head hit the floor. Despite this, the nurse did not provide detailed information about the fall and head injury to NP #1, who was only informed of an altercation and advised to use nursing judgment for further evaluation. Consequently, NP #1 was not aware of the head injury and did not order an immediate evaluation. Later, NP #2 assessed Resident #84 and, upon learning of the fall and head impact, recommended sending the resident to the emergency department for evaluation. The emergency department conducted a CT scan and chest x-ray, which showed no abnormalities, and the resident was discharged back to the facility in stable condition. The administrator expected that NP #1 would have been informed of the fall and head injury, indicating a communication breakdown in the notification process.
Deficiencies in Wheelchair and Window Blind Maintenance
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to maintain wheelchairs and window blinds in good repair, affecting two residents and one room. Resident #38, who has moderately impaired cognition and impairment on one side of the lower extremity, was observed sitting in a wheelchair with a damaged left armrest. The armrest had a torn, cracked, and ripped covering with sharp edges, which the resident's left arm came into contact with. Despite frequent care from staff, the disrepair went unnoticed until the survey, and the resident expressed a desire for the issue to be fixed. Additionally, the window blinds in Resident #38's room were in disrepair, with missing components that prevented them from being adjusted. The resident reported feeling exposed due to the inability to control the blinds, which had been broken since his admission. Staff members, including a nurse aide and a nurse, failed to notice the issue or report it to maintenance, resulting in the blinds remaining unfixed. Resident #87, also with moderately impaired cognition, was observed in a wheelchair missing a left armrest, causing discomfort as she rested her arm on the metal frame. Despite regular care, staff did not notice the missing armrest until the survey. The Maintenance Director, new to the position, acknowledged the need for repairs but relied on staff to report issues. The Director of Nursing and the Administrator both expressed expectations for all equipment and living environments to be maintained in good repair to prevent issues such as skin irritation and to protect residents' privacy.
Failure to Report and Document Abuse Allegations
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to adhere to its abuse policies and procedures by not immediately reporting an allegation of resident abuse to the Administrator. Nurse #6 witnessed Resident #64 use physical force to remove Resident #84 from his room, resulting in a fall. Despite receiving abuse training, Nurse #6 did not report the incident as abuse at the time it occurred, instead informing the Director of Nursing (DON) that it was an unwitnessed fall. The Administrator was not made aware of the details until the following day, and the initial 24-hour report contained incorrect information regarding the date the facility became aware of the incident and lacked sufficient details about the abuse. In another incident, the facility failed to report an allegation of resident-to-resident sexual abuse involving Resident #82 and Resident #88. Nurse #1 documented the incident in the nursing progress notes but did not notify the Administrator or the DON. The incident was not investigated, and the facility's abuse prevention policy was not followed. The Administrator was unaware of the situation until reviewing the notes months later, indicating a lapse in communication and oversight. Both incidents highlight the facility's failure to implement its abuse policies and procedures effectively, affecting the safety and well-being of the residents involved. The lack of immediate reporting and accurate documentation in both cases demonstrates a significant deficiency in the facility's handling of abuse allegations.
Care Plan Deficiencies for Residents with Cognitive Impairments
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to update the care plan for two residents, leading to deficiencies in their care management. Resident #63, who was admitted with Alzheimer's disease, heart failure, and seizure disorder, had a severe cognitive impairment and was identified as a wanderer. Despite having a physician's order for an electronic wander guard alarm to be checked every shift, the care plan did not include this intervention. The MDS Coordinator acknowledged the omission and stated that the wander guard should have been included in the care plan. Interviews with nurse aides and the Director of Nursing confirmed the necessity of the wander guard for Resident #63's safety, yet it was not documented in the care plan. Similarly, the facility failed to update the care plan for Resident #25 to reflect a change in code status to Do Not Resuscitate (DNR) after transitioning to hospice care. Despite the DNR form being signed and the resident's severe cognitive impairment, the care plan was not updated to indicate the new code status. The MDS Nurse and Social Worker both acknowledged the oversight, with the Social Worker indicating a change in responsibility for updating care plans. The Director of Nursing and the Administrator both expected the care plan to be updated timely, but it was not, resulting in a deficiency.
Failure to Update Advanced Directive Leads to Unwanted Intubation
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to update an advanced directive to reflect the wishes of a resident and his Responsible Party (RP) for the resident not to be intubated for mechanical ventilation. This failure resulted in the resident, who had a history of Alzheimer's disease and was severely cognitively impaired, being intubated during an Emergency Department evaluation. The intubation was against the resident's and the RP's documented wishes due to being transferred with an outdated Medical Orders for Scope of Treatment (MOST) form. The resident was admitted to the facility with a diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease and had been readmitted multiple times. A physician's order for Do Not Resuscitate (DNR) was in place, but the MOST form on file indicated full scope of treatment, including intubation. Despite a discharge summary from a previous hospitalization indicating the RP's wishes for Do Not Intubate (DNI), the facility did not update the MOST form. The interdisciplinary team failed to discuss the specifics of the MOST form during a care conference, and the social worker did not verify the RP's wishes regarding intubation. The resident experienced an unwitnessed fall and was later found unresponsive, leading to a transfer to the hospital with the outdated MOST form. The hospital intubated the resident based on the MOST form, contrary to the RP's wishes. The facility's staff, including the Director of Nursing and Administrator, were unaware of the code status change requested by the RP. The failure to update the MOST form and communicate the RP's wishes resulted in the resident being intubated and later extubated, with the RP having to make the difficult decision to discontinue life support.
Removal Plan
- A full review of all resident MOST forms was conducted by the Administrator or designee with the responsible party, for compliance with the MOST form accurately reflecting the resident's wishes.
- A review of Advance Directives policy procedure will be completed by the Administrator or designee, and changes, as needed, will be made by the QAA committee.
- The administrator or designee will educate the interdisciplinary care plan team and all licensed professional nurses on the requirements of completing and maintaining an accurate MOST form at least annually and following hospitalizations, quarterly, or annually, as indicated or discussed with the responsible party before the staff's next worked shift.
- In the event that the information on the MOST form is updated, the previous MOST form will be placed into archived documents within the medical record by the Medical Records staff or designee.
- Current and accurate MOST forms will be provided to EMS staff and sent with the transferring resident, by the licensed nurse or designee, at the time of transfer from the facility.
- The Administrator or designee will track the completion of all education provided to ensure the staff completes it before they work.
- The facility administrator assumes responsibility for the immediate jeopardy removal plan.
Failure to Conduct Ongoing Neurological Assessments After Unwitnessed Fall
Penalty
Summary
The facility staff failed to complete ongoing neurological assessments after an unwitnessed fall for a resident with severely impaired cognition. The incident occurred when a nurse aide heard a loud noise and found the resident on the floor beside his wheelchair. The resident was assessed by a nurse who noted no signs of injury, and the resident was assisted back into his wheelchair and then to bed. However, no further neurological checks were documented in the medical record after the initial assessment. During the night, the resident was checked for incontinence every 2 to 3 hours by a nurse aide, who noted that the resident was snoring but roused easily until the last round. The following morning, the resident was found unresponsive to tactile and verbal stimuli, prompting the dispatch of emergency medical services. A CT scan at the hospital revealed a life-threatening subdural hematoma, and the resident was intubated for mechanical ventilation. The resident's condition deteriorated, leading to a decision to transition to hospice care, where the resident later died. Interviews with facility staff revealed that there was a lack of communication and follow-through regarding the need for ongoing neurological assessments after the fall. The nursing staff assumed that the weekend Nursing Supervisor would continue the assessments, but this was not done. The Director of Nursing later acknowledged that the resident's vital signs, neuro checks, and assessments should have been continued since the fall was unwitnessed, indicating a miscommunication between the staff involved.
Removal Plan
- A full review by the DON or designee of all unwitnessed falls incident reports, documented neurological assessments and progress notes will be completed.
- The facility has identified residents who are at risk for an adverse outcome because the facility has not provided ongoing neurological assessment after an unwitnessed fall.
- The director of nursing will complete this review.
- The DON or designee instructed all licensed nurses with verbal education to complete a head-to-toe assessment on any identified resident who is at risk for an adverse outcome.
- Following the assessment, the licensed nurse is required to notify the resident's physician of the findings.
- A review of the Fall policy and procedure and the Neurological Assessment policy and procedure will be completed and communicated to the QAA committee by the Administrator or designee.
- Changes, if needed, will be made as identified by the QAA committee.
- All licensed professional nurses will receive education from the Administrator or designee on the policy and procedure regarding neurological assessment completion after an unwitnessed fall before their next shift via verbal education.
- Any licensed professional nurses not having had this education will be removed from the schedule until education is received.
- All certified nursing assistants will receive education from Administrator or designee on symptoms to look for after an unwitnessed fall and the reporting process if any of the symptoms are identified.
- Certified Nursing Assistants will be notified by the licensed nurse or designee, that an unwitnessed fall with ongoing neurological assessment is actively being completed on a specified resident.
- All certified nursing assistants not having had this education will be removed from the schedule until education is received.
- For all education provided, the administrator or designee will track completion to ensure the education is completed before the staff working.
- Staff will complete a written quiz to validate competency of all licensed nursing staff and certified nursing assistants.
- The quiz will be administered and reviewed by the administrator or designee.
Failure to Report and Investigate Injury of Unknown Origin
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to identify and immediately report an injury of unknown origin for a resident who sustained significant injuries, including bilateral traumatic periorbital ecchymosis and a nasal fracture. The resident, who was under hospice care and had a history of Alzheimer's dementia and wandering, was found with these injuries after being removed from another resident's room. The incident was unwitnessed, and the staff did not report it to the administration or Adult Protective Services (APS) within the required timeframe. The incident report and nurse progress notes indicated that the resident was found with a nosebleed and discoloration around both eyes, but the staff did not consider these injuries as resulting from abuse or an unknown origin. The resident was described as having wandered into another resident's room, where it was suspected that he was kicked by the other resident, although this was not witnessed. Despite the severity of the injuries, the staff did not immediately notify the administration or initiate an abuse investigation, and the incident was not reported to APS. Interviews with various nursing staff revealed a lack of clarity and communication regarding the incident. The staff involved did not witness the event and had differing opinions on whether the injuries were due to a fall or potential abuse. The facility's Director of Nursing and Administrator acknowledged that the incident should have been investigated as abuse and reported immediately, but this did not occur. The failure to report and investigate the incident promptly led to a deficiency in the facility's handling of potential abuse cases.
Resident Elopes from Facility Due to Smoking Supervision Issues
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to adequately monitor the whereabouts of a cognitively intact resident diagnosed with dementia, leading to an incident where the resident left the facility unannounced. The resident, who had a history of smoking-related incidents and required supervision while smoking, left the facility to purchase cigarettes from a convenience store located 0.8 miles away. Despite being independent in mobility, the resident's unsteady gait and history of seizures raised concerns about his safety when ambulating alone. On the day of the incident, the resident expressed a desire to smoke and was informed by the staff that he would have to wait for supervision. However, the resident became frustrated and decided to leave the facility on his own. Staff members, including a nurse aide and a nurse, observed the resident in the hallway shortly before his disappearance but did not prevent his departure. The facility initiated a search and notified the police after discovering the resident's empty wheelchair by the elevator. The resident was eventually found at a behavioral health emergency clinic and returned to the facility by the police. Interviews with staff and the resident revealed that the resident left because he was upset about not being able to smoke when he wanted. The facility's failure to supervise the resident adequately and ensure his safety resulted in the resident leaving the premises without notifying staff or signing out, which was against the facility's policy.
Failure to Follow Protocol After Resident Fall in Transportation Van
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to provide appropriate treatment and care for Resident #12 following a fall from her wheelchair in a transportation van. Resident #12, who had a history of non-Alzheimer's dementia, mild neurocognitive disorder, end-stage renal disease, and bilateral lower extremity amputation, was left unsupervised in a parked van with the engine and air conditioning on. During this time, she unbuckled her seatbelt and fell face down on the floor of the van. Driver #1, who was responsible for the transportation, witnessed the fall and observed a knot forming on Resident #12's forehead. Despite the visible injury, Driver #1 moved Resident #12 back into her wheelchair before calling 911, contrary to the facility's policy of leaving residents in place for clinical assessment after a fall. The incident report and interviews revealed that Driver #1, a certified nursing assistant, was the only staff member on the van at the time of the incident. After securing Resident #12 in her wheelchair, Driver #1 left the van to assist another resident, during which time Resident #12 fell. Upon returning to the van, Driver #1 moved Resident #12 from the floor to her wheelchair, citing the hot floor as a reason for the move. This action was taken before emergency medical services arrived, which was against the facility's protocol that required residents to remain in place until assessed by a licensed professional. Interviews with the facility's staff, including the Director of Nursing and the Administrator, confirmed that the standard procedure was not followed. The Administrator instructed Driver #1 to make Resident #12 comfortable and call 911, but was not aware that Resident #12 had been moved before the paramedics' arrival. The Director of Nursing and the Medical Director acknowledged the deviation from protocol but understood the rationale given the circumstances. However, the failure to adhere to the established procedure resulted in a deficiency in the quality of care provided to Resident #12.
Removal Plan
- The Administrator re-educated Driver #1 on facility van transportation policies and completed a Transportation Skills Assessment of the Transportation Aide/ CNA with no concerns noted.
- An Ad Hoc meeting was held with the following in attendance: the Administrator, the Director of Nursing, the Nurse Managers, the Rehab director, the MDS nurse, the Activity Director, and the Wound Care Nurse. The Medical Director was updated by the Administrator of the meeting's agenda and findings. Other resident incidents were reviewed during this meeting. There were no incidents identified in which a resident was moved before being assessed by licensed professionals.
- The President of Clinical Services provided education to Director of Nursing (DON) and Nursing Home Administrator (NHA) regarding facility policy of the following: In the event of a transportation related incident, resident is not to be moved until a licensed professional can assess for injuries. No changes to policy were necessary.
- DON provided in person one on one education to facility Driver #1 regarding facility policy of the following: In the event of a transportation related incident, resident is not to be moved until a licensed professional can assess for injuries in person. Driver #1 is an employee of the facility; no other drivers are employed. Driver #1 is directly supervised by the facility Administrator, who received in person education regarding facility policy by the President of Clinical Services.
- Individual interviews were conducted with all residents with a BIMS 13 or above who were transported by the facility transporter by the DON and Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON) to ensure no unreported incidents occurred during facility transportation requiring assessment by a licensed professional.
- Education was started with all staff, including agency staff by the ADON/Nurse Managers on the following: If the transport driver notifies the facility regarding a transportation related incident, inform them to contact emergency services and not move resident until a licensed professional can assess them. The facility Administrator and Director of Nursing's contact information is posted at all three nurse's stations. No staff will be allowed to work, including any new hires and agency staff, without receiving this education. This information will also be added to the new hire orientation. The Administrator will notify the Assistant Director of Nursing and/or Nurse Manager of this responsibility.
- Any newly hired facility van drivers will be educated during orientation by the DON/Administrator regarding facility policy: In the event of a transportation related incident, resident is not to be moved until a licensed professional can assess for injuries.
- An in person Ad hoc Quality Assurance Performance Improvement (QAPI) meeting was held. The Administrator, the Director of Nursing, the Nurse Manages, the Rehab director, the MDS nurse, and the Wound Care Nurse attended this meeting to review the incident and credible allegation for the removal of the immediate jeopardy.
- The Administrator will be responsible for ensuring implementation of this immediate jeopardy removal for this alleged non-compliance.
Inadequate Supervision Leads to Resident Fall and Unsupervised Smoking
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to adequately supervise a resident diagnosed with dementia and bilateral amputations, leading to a fall incident. The resident was left unsupervised in a transportation van by the driver, who was also a CNA, while the van was parked with the engine running. During this time, the resident unbuckled her seatbelt, leaned forward, and fell face down onto the floor of the van. The driver returned to the van upon hearing the horn sound and found the resident on the floor, complaining of head pain. The resident was subsequently transported to the hospital, where she was diagnosed with a tiny acute hemorrhage and a subcutaneous hematoma. Another deficiency involved the facility's failure to supervise a resident who required supervision when smoking cigarettes. This resident, who was assessed as an unsafe smoker, managed to smoke a cigarette in her room unsupervised. The resident admitted to taking smoking materials back to her room after a supervised smoke break, as staff had left the residents unsupervised during the break. This incident was not reported to upper management by the nurse supervisor on duty at the time. Both incidents highlight the facility's failure to provide adequate supervision to prevent accidents, as evidenced by the unsupervised fall of a resident in a transportation van and the unsupervised smoking of another resident in her room. These deficiencies were identified during observations, record reviews, and interviews with residents and staff, indicating a lack of adherence to the facility's policies and procedures for resident supervision.
Removal Plan
- The Administrator re-educated Driver #1 on facility van transportation policies and completed a Transportation Skills Assessment of the Transportation Aide/CNA with no concerns noted.
- An Ad Hoc meeting was held with the Administrator, the Director of Nursing, the Nurse Managers, the Rehab director, the MDS nurse, the Activity Director, and the Wound Care Nurse to discuss the incident and findings.
- The number of residents the transportation aide/CNA would now transport for appointments will be two residents, allowing the driver to keep the residents in eyesight during boarding and offloading.
- Any resident with a predetermined need for additional supervision due to cognitive impairment, history of behaviors, or functional limitations will be escorted by facility staff/designated individuals during transportation.
- The Administrator initiated audits of the boarding and off-loading residents onto the van to ensure that the residents were secured appropriately in their chairs. This audit was weekly for a total of four weeks with no concerns noted.
- The Director of Nursing provided one on one education to the transportation aide/CNA regarding the need for supervision for residents who are identified as requiring supervision during transportation.
- The transportation aide/CNA will be accompanied by an additional staff member, a CNA or a personal care assistant (PCA) for the supervision of more than 1 resident who require supervision as determined by a review to the resident's cognitive status, past or current behaviors and their latest functional ability assessment.
- The Director of Nursing assessed all residents with a BIMS of 9 or below, past or active behaviors, and the resident's most recent functional ability assessment to determine the need for supervision during transportation.
- All residents identified as needing supervision will be supervised by facility staff/designated individuals during transportation.
- A CNA or a personal care assistant (PCA) will be scheduled to serve as an additional staff member for the supervision of the residents.
- This information will be posted on the transportation schedule that is posted at each nursing station daily.
- Care plans were updated as appropriate by the Director of Nursing/Assistant Director of Nursing and the Administrator, for any resident requiring this supervision.
- The Administrator held an in person Ad Hoc Meeting with the Interdisciplinary Team (IDT) to discuss incident and the credible allegation for the immediate jeopardy removal plan.
- The Assistant Director of Nursing, and the Nurse Managers began training all facility staff including agency staff on the facility process for residents who are transported by the facility van that have the need for supervision.
- Staff will use the resident's most recent BIMs and the most recent functionality assessment which shows how a resident.
- This education included that when transporting more than one resident, there will be an additional staff member provided, how this information is determined, and where this information is posted for staff information.
- No staff will be allowed to work, including any new hires and agency staff, without receiving this education.
- This education will also be added to the new hire orientation for the facility.
- The Administrator notified the Assistant Director of Nursing and the Nurse Managers of this responsibility.
- The Administrator will be responsible for ensuring implementation of this immediate jeopardy removal for this alleged non-compliance.
Failure to Follow Up on Ophthalmology Consultation
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to follow up on a hospital recommendation for an ophthalmology consultation for a resident who was admitted with neurovascular glaucoma and ocular hypertension of the left eye. After a fall, the resident was taken to the hospital, where a discharge summary recommended an outpatient ophthalmology consultation due to swelling and pain in the right eye. Upon returning to the facility, the resident was assessed by the assigned nurse and the nurse supervisor, but neither reviewed the hospital discharge summary or processed any new physician orders, including the recommendation for an ophthalmology consultation. The unit manager later stated that she faxed a request for an eye consultation but did not keep the fax confirmation and did not follow up when the facility did not receive a return call to schedule the appointment. The director of nursing confirmed that the facility did not follow up on the eye doctor appointment until much later, acknowledging that there should have been earlier follow-up. The resident was observed with mild swelling around the eyes but did not report any pain at the time of the observation. Interviews with the nurse practitioner and the medical doctor revealed that they expected the facility to make the necessary referral and follow up to ensure the appointment was made. The medical doctor noted that while ophthalmology consults could take months to schedule, he expected better follow-up from the facility to secure the appointment. The lack of timely follow-up on the hospital's recommendation for an ophthalmology consultation constitutes a deficiency in the facility's care for the resident.
Failure to Provide Mechanically Altered Diets
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to provide food in a form that met the individual needs of residents with physician orders for mechanically altered diets. Specifically, six residents with orders for mechanically chopped or ground meats were served large pieces of stew beef that were not in compliance with the National Dysphagia Diet (NDD) guidelines. These guidelines require meats to be ground or minced into pieces no larger than one-quarter inch, moist, and easily mashed with a fork. Observations revealed that residents struggled to cut and chew the large pieces of beef, resulting in inadequate food intake. Resident #338, who had a history of oropharyngeal dysphagia and cognitive impairments, was observed having difficulty with the stew beef served during lunch. Despite attempts to cut the meat with a fork, the resident was unsuccessful and consumed less than 25% of the beef. Similarly, Resident #337, with a history of swallowing problems and cognitive deficits, also struggled with the large pieces of beef and required assistance from staff to cut the meat, which was still too tough to chew. Both residents had diet orders for mechanically soft diets, which were not adhered to during the meal service. Additional residents, including Resident #41, Resident #27, Resident #57, and Resident #7, were also served large cubes of stew beef contrary to their diet orders for mechanically altered diets. Observations indicated that these residents either refused the meat or required assistance to cut it into smaller pieces. Interviews with staff, including the Certified Dietary Manager and the Speech Therapist, confirmed that the stew beef did not meet the required texture for a mechanical soft diet. The facility's dietary staff attributed the issue to the quality of meat received from the vendor, which did not turn out as tender as expected.
Improper Waste Disposal and Sanitation Issues
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to maintain proper sanitary conditions in the dumpster area, as observed during a survey. On multiple occasions, the doors of two commercial dumpsters were found open, and the surrounding area was littered with trash, including an incontinent brief and blue latex gloves. These observations were made in the presence of the Certified Dietary Manager and the Director of Maintenance, who acknowledged the issues. The Director of Maintenance stated that the Maintenance Assistant was responsible for monitoring and cleaning the area but was occupied with overseeing construction during the time of the survey. Further interviews revealed that the Maintenance Assistant was on vacation, and the Floor Technician was assigned to monitor the area in his absence. However, the Floor Technician was not working on one of the days when the issues were observed. The Administrator confirmed that both maintenance and housekeeping staff were responsible for ensuring the dumpster area remained clean and that the dumpster doors were closed. Despite these responsibilities, the area was not adequately maintained, leading to unsanitary conditions.
Failure to Revise Care Plan for Supervised Smoking
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to revise the care plan for a resident with nicotine dependence and hypertension, who was identified as an unsafe smoker requiring supervision. The resident was admitted to the facility and was cognitively intact, requiring extensive assistance for most activities of daily living. A quarterly smoking assessment conducted on June 29, 2024, indicated that the resident was an unsafe smoker needing supervision. However, the care plan, last revised on March 7, 2024, inaccurately reflected the resident as an unsupervised smoker. Interviews with the MDS coordinator, Director of Nursing, Assistant Director of Nursing, and the Administrator confirmed that the care plan should have been updated to reflect the need for supervision following the smoking assessment results.
Failure to Follow Physician's Order for Tube Feeding
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to adhere to a physician's order for a resident who was dependent on tube feeding. The resident, who had a history of cerebral infarction, hypertension, and hypotension, was admitted with a care plan that included a risk for dehydration. The physician's order specified that the resident should receive 150 ml water flushes every four hours to prevent dehydration. However, observations on two consecutive days revealed that the resident's pump was set to deliver only 75 ml every four hours, contrary to the physician's order. Interviews with nursing staff revealed a lapse in following the physician's order. Nurse #1 acknowledged the error upon reviewing the resident's orders and noted that the third shift had changed the tube feeding and hydration bag but failed to set the pump correctly. Nurse #2, who worked the third shift, admitted to possibly not setting the pump as per the order. The facility's Registered Dietician confirmed the order for 150 ml flushes and noted that despite the error, there were no significant hydration concerns due to additional flushes with medication. The Director of Nursing and the Administrator both expressed that the expectation was for staff to follow the resident's orders accurately.
Failure to Discontinue Aspirin as Recommended by Hospital
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to discontinue aspirin for a resident as recommended by the hospital, leading to a deficiency in medication management. The resident, who had end-stage renal disease, chronic heart failure, and hypertension, was admitted to the facility with a prescription for low-dose aspirin. After a fall resulting in a head injury, the hospital recommended discontinuing the aspirin due to the resident's fall risk. However, upon returning to the facility, the aspirin was not discontinued, and the resident continued to receive it for several days. The deficiency occurred because the hospital discharge summary, which included the recommendation to discontinue aspirin, was not properly reviewed or acted upon by the facility staff. Both the assigned nurse and the nurse supervisor failed to process the new orders from the hospital discharge summary. The nurse supervisor mentioned that residents sometimes returned without an after-visit summary, which might have contributed to the oversight. Despite the hospital's clear instructions, the aspirin was administered to the resident on multiple occasions after their return. Interviews with facility staff, including the DON, NP, and MD, revealed a lack of communication and follow-through in implementing the hospital's recommendations. The DON acknowledged the error but did not recall re-educating the staff involved. The NP and MD both agreed that the aspirin should have been discontinued upon the resident's return, as continued administration posed a risk, albeit small, for further bleeding. This oversight highlights a breakdown in the facility's process for reviewing and implementing hospital discharge instructions.
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.



