Humboldt House Rehabilitation And Nursing Center
Inspection history, citations, penalties and survey trends for this long-term care facility in Buffalo, New York.
- Location
- 64 Hager Street, Buffalo, New York 14208
- CMS Provider Number
- 335164
- Inspections on file
- 25
- Latest survey
- March 27, 2026
- Citations (last 12 mo.)
- 29 (1 serious)
Citation history
Health deficiencies cited at Humboldt House Rehabilitation And Nursing Center during CMS and state inspections, most recent first.
Surveyors found that the facility failed to follow professional standards and its own policies for food storage and sanitation. In the kitchen, an active ceiling and A/C leak near the walk‑in refrigerator and freezer created standing water on the floor, while tray catties with food covers and a shelving unit with uncovered condiments and peanut butter were stored directly under the leaking area and tarp. Inspectors observed heavy grease and food debris on the commercial oven range and on the wall behind the stove and two‑bay sink, along with broken and missing wall tiles and peeled plaster. Ceiling pipes above food prep and serving stations were covered with thick dust, and a hand wash sink had a leaking drainpipe, a non‑working paper towel dispenser, and a stack of wet paper towels in the basin. The walk‑in freezer had a damaged door gasket, black debris on the window, significant condensation and ice buildup on the door, and a large ice accumulation inside. Interviews with dietary, maintenance, and administrative staff confirmed these problems had been ongoing for months and that staff were aware of the leaks, structural damage, and cleaning deficiencies.
A resident with CVA, schizophrenia, intellectual disability, and severe cognitive impairment, who required total assistance for hygiene and toileting and was incontinent of bowel and bladder, was found lying in bed on heavily urine-soaked linens, wearing only an incontinent brief, with multiple soiled linens, a soiled brief, feces, and dried food debris on the floor nearby. Despite this condition, a CNA delivered and left a lunch tray, which the resident fully consumed while still soiled. The care plan and Kardex lacked specific instructions for managing incontinence, staff acknowledged that incontinence care should occur every 2 hours and before meals, and leadership and a family member confirmed that the resident should not have been left in that undignified state, with the family member reporting ongoing issues of the resident being found soiled during visits.
A resident with a history of CVA, schizophrenia, and intellectual disability, who was severely cognitively impaired and totally dependent for personal hygiene and toileting, was found lying on a urine-soaked sheet with multiple soiled linens, feces, and dried food debris on the floor, and was served and consumed lunch without being cleaned or the room being sanitized. The resident’s care plan and Kardex lacked a bowel and bladder incontinence plan or clear incontinent care instructions, and there was no documentation of care refusal. A CNA reported providing care only once early in the morning despite an expectation for incontinent care every 2–3 hours, and video showed this CNA delivering the lunch tray while the resident remained soiled. The RN unit manager and corporate DON confirmed the resident required total assist for incontinence care and that care should have been provided regularly and before meals, while a family member reported the resident was consistently found soiled during visits.
A resident with quadriplegia, chronic kidney disease, and a history of UTIs had an indwelling Foley catheter and a care plan directing staff to keep the drainage bag below bladder level, provide catheter care each shift, and monitor and document output. Surveyors repeatedly observed the urine drainage bag, containing a large volume of amber urine with white mucus, lying directly on the floor while an LPN entered the room to administer medications and feed the resident without correcting the bag’s position. Later, despite posted enhanced barrier precautions and available supplies, a CNA wearing only gloves placed a urinal directly on the floor, emptied approximately 1,800 mL from the drainage bag while intermittently placing both the bag and urinal on the floor, left the spigot open on the floor during the process, and failed to clean the spigot tip with alcohol, contrary to facility policy and expected infection control practices.
The facility did not maintain an effective pest control program, as evidenced by multiple observations of dead mice, rodent droppings, and food debris in resident rooms and common areas. Staff and residents reported ongoing rodent sightings, and interviews revealed inconsistent awareness and response among staff. The exterior garbage compactor area was found littered with food waste and soiled items, attracting pests and flies, with no clear policy on pest control or garbage disposal in place.
A resident with chronic venous ulcers did not consistently receive wound care treatments as ordered by the physician, with multiple missed treatments and lack of documentation in the medical record. Observations showed wounds were uncovered or not dressed as ordered, and staff interviews confirmed that treatments were not always completed or properly documented, contrary to facility policy.
Two cognitively impaired residents were found engaged in sexual activity without staff knowledge, highlighting a failure in monitoring and protection. Despite policies against abuse, both residents lacked the capacity to consent, and the incident was only discovered when a CNA entered the room. The facility's investigation concluded the encounter was consensual, despite evidence of cognitive impairment.
A resident readmitted with multiple pressure and vascular ulcers did not receive a timely skin assessment, delaying treatment initiation. Facility policy required immediate assessment and treatment, but this was not followed, resulting in a two-day delay in obtaining physician orders and starting treatment.
A resident readmitted with multiple pressure and vascular ulcers did not receive a timely skin assessment, delaying treatment initiation. The facility's policy required a comprehensive skin examination upon admission, but this was not completed, leading to a lapse in care. The resident had conditions including peripheral vascular disease and protein calorie malnutrition, with several documented ulcers. A proper assessment and treatment orders were delayed by two days, contrary to the facility's protocol.
The facility failed to protect residents from abuse, including a resident threatened with scissors and two residents engaged in non-consensual sexual activity. Despite staff witnessing these incidents, appropriate actions were not taken to separate the residents or prevent further harm, leading to immediate jeopardy and substandard care.
The facility failed to report abuse and neglect incidents involving three residents in a timely manner. A resident-to-resident altercation involving a threat with scissors was not reported for three days, causing mental anguish. Additionally, two residents engaged in non-consensual sexual activity were not reported immediately, allowing the behavior to continue. Staff interviews confirmed the delay in reporting, contrary to facility policy.
The facility failed to provide a safe, clean, and homelike environment, with issues including inconsistent hot water temperatures, inadequate bathroom access, and poor maintenance. Residents reported difficulties with hygiene due to cold water, and some had to travel long distances to access bathrooms. Observations revealed soiled walls, mold, foul odors, and non-functioning call bells, indicating a failure to uphold residents' rights.
The facility failed to serve food and drinks at safe and appetizing temperatures, affecting residents on multiple floors. Meals were often cold and unpalatable, with residents reporting dissatisfaction and some relying on external food sources. Test trays confirmed that food temperatures were below required standards, posing a risk of foodborne illness.
The facility failed to maintain food safety standards in three nourishment unit refrigerators, with issues such as undated and unlabeled food items, liquid spills, and unsafe temperatures. Observations revealed that the Fourth floor Unit refrigerator lacked a thermometer and was not maintaining a safe temperature, while the Second floor Unit refrigerator also lacked a thermometer. Staff interviews indicated a failure to adhere to policies for food storage and temperature monitoring, leading to unsafe conditions.
A resident was not informed or allowed to participate in their care plan meeting, despite being cognitively intact and eager to attend. The facility's policy required advance notice for such meetings, but the responsible social worker failed to notify the resident, leading to their exclusion. Staff interviews confirmed the oversight, acknowledging the resident's disappointment.
A facility failed to treat residents with respect and dignity, as evidenced by an LPN's unprofessional behavior towards a resident and the lack of privacy in a shared bathroom. A resident was upset after an LPN used inappropriate language and slammed medication on a tray table. Additionally, a shared bathroom on the dementia unit lacked stall doors or privacy curtains, raising privacy concerns. Staff acknowledged these issues, highlighting deficiencies in resident care.
A facility failed to promptly and thoroughly investigate a resident-to-resident altercation involving a threat with scissors. The incident was not reported immediately, leading to a delayed investigation. The investigation lacked interviews with involved residents and potential witnesses, and the responsible party of the affected resident was not notified. The Director of Nursing considered the incident isolated, and the Administrator acknowledged the delay in reporting.
The facility failed to provide adequate hygiene and nail care for residents unable to perform activities of daily living. A resident did not receive timely incontinence care, leading to saturated linens and improper hygiene practices by CNAs. Another resident, dependent on staff for personal hygiene, had long, debris-filled fingernails, posing an infection risk. A third resident expressed a need for nail care, but staff only cleaned under the nails without trimming them, despite the potential harm of long nails.
A facility failed to provide adequate care and treatment for residents, including delays in antibiotic administration for a UTI, improper PICC line maintenance, and failure to administer prescribed supplements for electrolyte imbalances. These deficiencies were due to inaccurately transcribed orders, lack of supplies, and poor communication and documentation.
The facility failed to offer and document pneumococcal and influenza immunizations for several residents, as well as provide education on the benefits and side effects. Despite policies requiring documentation within five days of admission, records for residents with conditions like diabetes and COPD lacked evidence of immunization offers or education. Interviews confirmed the admitting nurse's responsibility for documentation, but the necessary records were not found.
Ongoing Kitchen Sanitation, Structural Damage, and Improper Food Storage Under Active Leaks
Penalty
Summary
Surveyors identified a deficiency in the facility’s failure to store, prepare, distribute, and serve food in accordance with professional standards and its own sanitation and food storage policies. Intermittent observations of the kitchen revealed an active ceiling leak near the walk‑in refrigerator and freezer, with a large opening in the plaster ceiling and a tarp suspended to divert water into a floor drain. An adjacent air conditioning ventilation unit was actively leaking, resulting in standing water pooled on the floor in front of the walk‑in units. Under this leaking area, staff had stationed tray catties holding numerous food covers and plate warmers, and a metal shelving unit extended under the tarp holding multiple uncovered condiments and food items such as salt, pepper, sugar, creamer packets, and containers of peanut butter. Additional observations showed widespread sanitation and maintenance problems in the kitchen. There was a significant accumulation of gray, dusty debris on ceiling pipes throughout the kitchen, including above food preparation and serving stations. The hand wash sink near the kitchen entry had an active drainpipe leak when in use, with a stack of partially wet paper towels in the basin and a non‑working paper towel dispenser above it. The wall behind the stove, oven, and two‑bay sink was heavily soiled with thick black grease and food debris and had broken and missing wall tiles, with peeled plaster in areas behind the stove, oven, and above the two‑bay sink. The commercial oven range’s exterior surfaces were heavily coated with grease and food debris, and staff acknowledged the stove should be cleaned after each meal but that it was not being cleaned properly. The walk‑in freezer also exhibited multiple structural and cleanliness issues. The freezer door gasket was not securely attached and protruded between the door and unit, and there was black debris on the freezer window, condensation and ice buildup on the interior and exterior lower sides of the door, and a large accumulation of ice on the floor and ceiling inside the unit. Interviews with the Food Service Director, Administrator, and Maintenance Supervisor confirmed that the kitchen ceiling leak and roof issues had been ongoing for months, that the freezer had required repeated service for condensation and ice buildup, and that broken and missing wall tiles had been a known issue since the prior year. Staff also acknowledged that condiments and tray catties should not be stored under the leaking ceiling, that the gasket needed replacement, that the pipes over prep areas should be cleaned, and that the wet paper towels at the hand sink should not be used, confirming ongoing noncompliance with the facility’s sanitation and food storage policies.
Failure to Provide Dignified Incontinence Care and Clean Environment During Meal Service
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to ensure a resident’s right to be treated with respect and dignity, including maintaining cleanliness and appropriate incontinence care. The resident had diagnoses of CVA, schizophrenia, and intellectual disability, was severely cognitively impaired, and required total assistance for personal hygiene and toileting, with documented bowel and bladder incontinence. The resident’s care plan and Kardex specified total assistance for hygiene and toileting but did not include specific interventions or instructions for managing bowel and bladder incontinence. On the survey date, the resident was observed in bed wearing only an incontinent brief, a small blanket, and a flat sheet that was visibly soaked and soiled with urine from shoulders to the foot of the bed. Between the bed and the wall, there were multiple soiled flat sheets, a soiled brief, a large amount of feces, and dried food debris on the floor. Later the same day, the resident remained in bed on the heavily soiled sheet while their lunch tray, which had been fully consumed, sat on the overbed table, and the soiled linens, brief, feces, and food debris remained on the floor. CNA staff reported that the resident had been washed and provided incontinence care earlier in the morning and acknowledged that incontinence care should be provided every two hours, that they had not returned to the room since the morning, and that the resident should have been cleaned before receiving lunch. Video surveillance showed that the same CNA delivered the lunch tray shortly before the resident was observed eating while still soiled. Although the bed linens were later changed, the dried food debris and large amount of feces remained on the floor behind the bed. The unit manager, corporate DON, and a family member all stated that the resident should have been provided care and that the situation was undignified, with the family member reporting that the resident was always soiled with urine and feces during visits and that prior complaints to staff had not resulted in changes.
Failure to Provide Timely Incontinent Care and Hygiene for Dependent Resident
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to provide necessary ADL services, specifically grooming and personal hygiene, to a resident who was incontinent of bowel and bladder. The resident had diagnoses including cerebral vascular accident, schizophrenia, and intellectual disability, and the MDS documented severe cognitive impairment, total assistance needs for personal hygiene, and total assistance of two staff for toileting. Despite these needs, the resident’s care plan and Kardex did not include a bowel and bladder incontinence care plan or specific instructions for incontinent care, and there was no documentation that the resident refused care. On the survey date, observations showed the resident in bed wearing only an incontinent brief, with a small blanket and a flat sheet that was visibly soaked with urine from the shoulders to the foot of the bed. Multiple soiled flat sheets and a soiled brief were found on the floor between the bed and the wall, along with a large amount of feces and dried food debris. The resident remained on the heavily soiled sheet for at least 40 minutes, during which time the lunch tray was delivered and fully consumed while the room and the resident’s bedding remained soiled. Later observation showed that although the bed linens had been changed, the dried food debris and large amount of feces remained on the floor behind the bed. Interviews confirmed that incontinent care was expected every two to three hours and that the resident should have been cleaned before receiving lunch. The CNA assigned to the resident stated they had provided incontinent care around 7:30 a.m., had not returned since, and acknowledged the resident should have been cleaned before lunch. Video surveillance showed that this CNA delivered the lunch tray shortly before 1:00 p.m., contradicting their initial statement that they had not provided the lunch tray. The RN Unit Manager stated the resident was incontinent and required total assistance, was unsure if the resident was care planned for incontinence, and confirmed that incontinent care should occur every two to three hours and before meals. A family member reported the resident was always soiled with feces and urine during visits, and the Corporate DON stated incontinent care should be completed every two to three hours and that the resident and room should have been cleaned before lunch, noting that the facility does not document ADL completion.
Improper Foley Catheter Management and Infection Control Practices
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to provide appropriate care and services for a resident with an indwelling Foley catheter, in accordance with its own urinary catheter care and enhanced barrier precautions policies. The resident had diagnoses including quadriplegia, chronic kidney disease, and depression, was cognitively intact, and had a documented history of urinary tract infections. The care plan and Kardex directed staff to monitor for signs and symptoms of urinary tract infection, position the drainage bag and tubing below the level of the bladder, provide Foley catheter care every shift, and monitor and document Foley output every shift. On multiple observations during one morning, the resident’s urinary drainage bag, containing approximately 1,000 milliliters of amber urine with a large amount of white mucus in the tubing, was seen lying directly on the floor under the bed. An LPN entered the room to administer medications and later to feed the resident breakfast, but did not correct the position of the drainage bag, which remained on the floor at 8:55 AM, 9:10 AM, 10:16 AM, and 11:26 AM. Staff interviewed acknowledged that the drainage bag should not have been on the floor and that it should have been emptied because it was full, particularly given the resident’s propensity for urinary tract infections. Later that morning, despite a sign on the resident’s door indicating the need for enhanced barrier precautions and the availability of supplies, a CNA entered the room wearing only gloves and no gown to empty the urinary drainage bag. The CNA picked the drainage bag up from the floor, placed a clean urinal directly on the floor without a barrier, opened the drainage spigot, and filled the urinal to the top. The CNA then placed the drainage bag with the spigot open back on the floor, emptied the urinal into the toilet, returned the urinal to the floor, and finished emptying the bag into the urinal. The CNA replaced the spigot into the bag holder without cleaning the spigot tip with alcohol and confirmed that 1,800 milliliters had been emptied. Facility nursing leadership and the infection preventionist stated that drainage bags should never be on the floor and that staff were expected to follow enhanced barrier precautions, including gown and glove use, when providing care to residents with Foley catheters.
Failure to Maintain Effective Pest Control and Sanitation
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to maintain an effective pest control program, resulting in the presence of rodents and evidence of rodent activity on three of four resident-use floors. Multiple observations revealed dead mice in traps, rodent droppings in resident rooms, and physical damage to room structures such as crumbled walls and exposed insulation. Food debris, such as cookie wrappers and crumbs, was found in resident drawers and on floors, often mixed with rodent droppings. Staff and residents reported recent and ongoing sightings of live mice in resident rooms, with some residents stating that rodents had been an issue for several months. Interviews with staff, including CNAs, the Housekeeping Supervisor, LPNs, and the DON, indicated inconsistent awareness and response to the rodent problem. Some staff were unaware of the extent of the droppings and dead rodents, while others acknowledged the need for immediate cleaning and pest control. The Housekeeping Supervisor was newly promoted and unfamiliar with the deep cleaning schedule, and the DON had not personally observed rodents but recognized the health concerns associated with their presence. Maintenance staff reported that rodent traps were checked and changed, and a licensed exterminator serviced the building every two weeks, but evidence of rodent activity persisted. The exterior of the facility, particularly the garbage compactor area, was found to be littered with food waste, soiled items, and garbage, attracting flies and creating conditions conducive to pest infestation. Interviews with the Food Service Director, Regional Maintenance Director, and Administrator revealed shared responsibility for maintaining the garbage area, but also a lack of clear policies on pest control and garbage disposal. Internal records and exterminator reports documented ongoing issues with food spillage, accessible garbage, and rodent activity, with some improvement noted after changing exterminators, but continued deficiencies in maintaining a pest-free environment.
Failure to Administer and Document Physician-Ordered Wound Care
Penalty
Summary
A deficiency was identified when a resident with chronic venous hypertension, lymphedema, and chronic kidney disease did not receive wound care treatments to bilateral lower extremity ulcers as ordered by the physician. The resident's care plan required treatments to be administered as ordered and for refusals to be documented and addressed, but there was no evidence in the care plan or medical record that the resident refused care. Physician orders specified cleansing the wounds with normal saline and applying Medi honey gel every evening shift, but multiple dates were identified where the treatment was not documented as completed. Observations revealed the resident's wounds were uncovered or not dressed as ordered, with visible open ulcers and dried drainage present. The resident reported that wound care was not consistently performed and that dressings were not applied on certain days. Review of treatment administration records and nursing notes confirmed that wound care was not documented as completed on several dates, and there was no documentation of resident refusal or alternative interventions. Skin and wound assessments indicated deterioration of the wounds during the period when treatments were missed. Interviews with nursing staff and facility leadership confirmed that treatments were not completed or documented as required. Staff acknowledged that the physician's orders were not always followed, and that documentation was incomplete when treatments were missed or not performed. Facility policy required all treatments to be administered as ordered and refusals to be documented, but these procedures were not consistently followed for this resident.
Failure to Protect Cognitively Impaired Residents from Sexual Abuse
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to protect residents from sexual abuse, as evidenced by an incident involving two residents who were found engaged in sexual activity without staff knowledge. Both residents were cognitively impaired and lacked the ability to consent. The facility's policy on abuse prevention and capacity to consent clearly states that residents have the right to be free from abuse, including sexual abuse, and that consent is not valid if a resident lacks the capacity to consent. Despite this, the incident occurred, indicating a failure in monitoring and protecting the residents. Resident #1, diagnosed with dementia, depression, and altered mental status, was documented as severely cognitively impaired. Their care plan noted a risk for mood and behavior problems, and they had a history of wandering and making inappropriate sexual comments. On the day of the incident, Resident #1 was found in Resident #2's room, engaged in a sexual encounter. Staff intervention was delayed as the incident was only discovered when a Certified Nurse Aide entered the room. The resident's cognitive impairment and history of disrobing and confusion about other residents being their spouse were known to the staff, yet adequate supervision was not provided. Resident #2, with diagnoses including Wernicke's encephalopathy and vascular dementia, was also severely cognitively impaired. Their care plan noted behavior problems, including disrobing and being not always redirectable. The incident was reported to law enforcement, but the facility did not receive any feedback. Interviews with staff and family members revealed that both residents lacked the capacity to consent, yet the facility's investigation concluded the encounter was consensual. This discrepancy highlights a significant oversight in assessing and ensuring the residents' safety and protection from abuse.
Plan Of Correction
Plan of Correction: Approved January 17, 2025 **NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** I. Resident #1 was discharged on [DATE] and has since passed away. a. Resident #2 had a room/floor change after the incident occurred. Resident #2's care plan has been reviewed and found to be appropriate. A psychosocial evaluation has been completed by social work and resident does not even recall the incident. b. No further incidents have occurred. II. All wandering residents who lack capacity have the potential to be affected by this deficiency. a. A 100% audit of current residents who lack capacity, that may be displaying behaviors (handholding, arms around each other, seating preferences, etc.) will be conducted. Any concerns will be brought to the IDT and the behaviors and potential relationship will be reviewed and interventions will be care planned as appropriate. III. Facility policy and procedures titled Abuse, Neglect, Exploitation and Misappropriation Prevention Program, revised (MONTH) 2021 and Identifying Sexual Abuse and Capacity to Consent, dated (MONTH) 2022 have been reviewed and found to be appropriate. a. A monthly “relationship meeting” will be held to include Administrator, DON, Social Work, and the Dementia Unit Manager/Designee to discuss/identify any residents that may be displaying behaviors that could suggest a developing relationship between residents. The Unit Manager/Designee will be the chairperson/spokesperson for all nursing employees assigned to the unit. Care plans and further interventions updated as indicated. b. All nursing staff will be educated on the establishment of the 4th floor “relationship meeting.” c. All nursing staff will be educated on identification and reporting any residents who are displaying behaviors such as (hand holding, arms around each other, seating preference, etc.). d. Any staff reports related to the identification of the potential for resident relationship development will be reported immediately to their immediate supervisor. Nursing Supervisory staff will be educated to begin the process of convening the IDT to audit the circumstance of this relationship to include resident capacity, family and MD notification, and care plan review. IV. Any changes in behavior or adverse interactions will be reported immediately to DON/Administrator or designee and brought to morning report daily for review and QAPI monthly. a. Administrator will audit the monthly relationship meetings to ensure completion and follow through monthly x 3 months, then quarterly thereafter. b. At monthly QAPI, the Administrator will review the results of the monthly relationship meeting and any other reported occurrences of potential relationships developing. V. The administrator is responsible for this plan.
Delayed Skin Assessment and Treatment for Resident with Ulcers
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure that a resident received treatment and care in accordance with professional standards of practice. Upon readmission, the resident, who had multiple pressure and vascular ulcers, did not receive a timely skin assessment that included measurements, descriptions, and staging of the ulcers. This delay resulted in a postponement in obtaining physician orders and initiating treatment. The facility's policy required a full assessment of pressure sores upon admission, but this was not completed for the resident, leading to a lack of documented treatment orders for the ulcers until two days after readmission. Interviews with facility staff, including the Assistant Director of Nursing and the Director of Nursing, revealed that skin integrity assessments should be conducted by a Registered Nurse within 24 hours of admission or readmission. These assessments should include detailed documentation of the type, location, and measurements of wounds, with treatments initiated immediately upon identification of skin integrity alterations. However, in this case, the necessary assessments and treatments were delayed, as confirmed by the facility's records and staff interviews.
Delayed Skin Assessment and Treatment for Resident with Ulcers
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure that a resident received treatment and care in accordance with professional standards of practice. Upon readmission, the resident, who had multiple pressure and vascular ulcers, did not receive a timely skin assessment that included measurements, descriptions, and staging of the ulcers. This oversight resulted in a delay in obtaining physician orders and initiating treatment. The facility's policy required a comprehensive skin examination upon admission, but this was not completed for the resident, leading to a lapse in care. The resident, who was cognitively intact, was readmitted with diagnoses including peripheral vascular disease, congestive heart failure, and protein calorie malnutrition. The resident had one Stage 3 pressure ulcer and several unstageable pressure and vascular ulcers. Despite the hospital discharge summary documenting these conditions, the initial clinical admission assessment was incomplete and unsigned, lacking necessary details about the ulcers. It was not until two days later that a Registered Nurse Assistant Director of Nursing conducted a proper skin assessment and obtained physician orders for treatment, which were initiated the following day. Interviews with facility staff confirmed that skin assessments should be conducted within 24 hours of admission, but this protocol was not followed in this case.
Failure to Protect Residents from Abuse
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to protect residents from abuse, specifically in cases involving resident-to-resident altercations and non-consensual sexual activity. Resident #129 was verbally and physically threatened by Resident #74, who was cognitively intact, with a pair of scissors. Despite the altercation being witnessed by a Certified Nurse Aide and reported to a Registered Nurse, the facility did not take immediate action to separate the residents or remove the potential weapon, allowing Resident #74 ongoing access to Resident #129. This inaction resulted in mental anguish for Resident #129, who expressed fear for their life. In another incident, Residents #104 and #122, both severely cognitively impaired and unable to consent, were observed engaging in non-consensual sexual activity. Staff witnessed the inappropriate contact but failed to separate the residents or implement protective measures. The facility's care plans for these residents did not include strategies to prevent sexual abuse, and there was no evidence of psychological evaluations or interventions following the incident. The lack of immediate action and supervision allowed the abuse to continue, highlighting a significant oversight in resident protection. The facility's policies on abuse prevention and capacity to consent were not followed, as evidenced by the staff's failure to recognize and address the abuse situations appropriately. Interviews with staff and administrators revealed a lack of understanding and adherence to procedures designed to protect residents from harm. The incidents involving Residents #129, #104, and #122 demonstrate a systemic failure to ensure resident safety and uphold their rights to be free from abuse, resulting in immediate jeopardy and substandard quality of care.
Failure to Report Abuse and Neglect in a Timely Manner
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to report alleged violations of abuse immediately, as required by policy, for three residents during an Extended Recertification and Complaint survey. Registered Nurse #1 did not report an alleged resident-to-resident abuse incident involving Resident #74 and Resident #129 to the Administrator. This incident, which involved a verbal argument escalating to a threat with scissors, was witnessed by Certified Nurse Aide #1 but was not reported until three days later. This delay resulted in continued access between the residents and mental anguish for Resident #129. Additionally, the facility failed to report non-consensual sexual activity between Residents #104 and #122, both of whom lacked the capacity to consent. Certified Nurse Aide #2 observed inappropriate sexual touching between the two residents but did not report it immediately, considering it a common occurrence. This inaction allowed the behavior to continue, resulting in potential psychosocial harm to the residents involved. The facility's policy required immediate reporting of abuse allegations to the Administrator and appropriate officials, but staff failed to adhere to this policy. Interviews with staff, including the Director of Nursing and the Administrator, confirmed that the incidents were not reported in a timely manner, which hindered the initiation of investigations and appropriate interventions.
Facility Fails to Maintain Safe and Homelike Environment
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to maintain a safe, clean, comfortable, and homelike environment for its residents, as evidenced by multiple deficiencies observed during a complaint investigation. The investigation revealed significant issues with the facility's hot water system, with temperatures in resident rooms fluctuating well below the required range, making it unsuitable for resident hygiene. Despite daily temperature checks by maintenance staff, the water temperatures were inconsistent, and residents reported difficulties in accessing warm water for personal care. The maintenance director acknowledged the need for adjustments but failed to maintain consistent water temperatures across the facility. Additionally, the facility did not provide adequate access to bathroom facilities for residents, particularly on the Fourth Floor, where several bathrooms were out of service due to drainage issues. Residents without in-room bathrooms had to travel long distances to access the only available bathroom, leading to inconvenience and potential incontinence. The maintenance director admitted that the drainage problem was a large-scale issue that had not been addressed, affecting multiple floors and requiring external contractors for repairs. The facility also exhibited poor housekeeping and maintenance practices, with observations of soiled walls, mold in shower rooms, foul odors, and windows and ceilings in disrepair. Call bells in shared bathrooms were not functioning properly, posing a safety risk for residents. The maintenance director and housekeeping staff acknowledged these issues, but there was no documentation of plans to address them. These deficiencies highlight a failure to uphold the residents' right to a safe and homelike environment, as mandated by facility policies and regulations.
Deficiency in Food Temperature and Palatability
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to provide food and drink at safe and appetizing temperatures for residents on the Second, Third, and Fourth floor Units during the Extended Recertification and Complaint survey. The policy required potentially hazardous foods to be kept at 41 degrees Fahrenheit or below when cold, or 135 degrees Fahrenheit or above when hot. However, observations and interviews revealed that meals were served at suboptimal temperatures, making them unpalatable. Residents reported issues such as cold meals, hard biscuits, and unidentifiable food, leading some to avoid eating or rely on external food sources. During the survey, test trays were used to assess the temperature and palatability of meals. On the Second floor Unit, the baked ziti was 119 degrees Fahrenheit, zucchini was 110 degrees Fahrenheit, and coffee was 124.5 degrees Fahrenheit, all below the required temperature. Similar issues were observed on the Third and Fourth floor Units, with food items like baked ziti, zucchini, milk, mandarin oranges, and coffee served at temperatures below the facility's standards. The Dietary Director acknowledged that some food temperatures were below the acceptable range, which could pose a risk of foodborne illness. Interviews with residents and family members highlighted dissatisfaction with the food quality and temperature. Residents described the food as cold, bland, and sometimes inedible, with some relying on care packages or family-provided meals. The facility's failure to maintain proper food temperatures during storage, preparation, transport, and service contributed to the deficiency, as evidenced by the observations and resident feedback.
Food Safety Deficiencies in Facility Refrigerators
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to store food in accordance with professional standards for food safety across three nourishment unit refrigerators. Observations revealed that the refrigerators contained undated, unlabeled, and expired food and drink items. Additionally, there were liquid spills and dried substances on surfaces, and the Fourth floor Unit refrigerator was not maintaining a safe food storage temperature and lacked a thermometer. The Second floor Unit refrigerator also lacked a thermometer, which is against the facility's policy that requires temperature monitoring twice a day. During the survey, it was observed that the Third floor Unit nourishment kitchen had unidentified and undated items in the freezer and fridge, including latex gloves filled with frozen liquid. The Fourth floor Unit refrigerator was found to have a thermometer displaying unsafe temperatures, and it contained unlabeled and undated items, including a bologna sandwich and nourishment bags with items that should have been distributed to residents earlier. The refrigerator was also wet with brown liquid stains, and the temperature was consistently above the safe range, reaching up to 62 Fahrenheit. Interviews with staff, including registered nurses, dietary supervisors, and technicians, revealed a lack of adherence to the facility's policies regarding food storage and temperature monitoring. The dietary staff were responsible for checking temperatures, but the records were inconsistent, and the equipment was faulty. The Interim Maintenance Director acknowledged the need for new seals for the fridge and freezer, and the Administrator confirmed that the refrigerator should be replaced due to the unsafe conditions observed.
Resident Excluded from Care Plan Meeting
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure that a resident was informed and allowed to participate in the development and implementation of their person-centered care plan. Specifically, a resident with diagnoses including benign intracranial hypertension, chronic pain syndrome, and migraine headache, who was cognitively intact, was not informed in advance about a scheduled care plan meeting. The facility's policy required that residents be given sufficient notice to participate in care planning meetings, but this was not adhered to in this case. The resident expressed disappointment at not being able to attend the meeting, which was important to them as they wanted to share their progress with their family. Interviews with facility staff, including a social worker and a nurse practitioner, confirmed that the resident was not informed of the meeting, and it was acknowledged that the resident should have been present. The social worker responsible for notifying the resident failed to provide evidence of communication or records of notification, leading to the resident's exclusion from the care planning process.
Deficiency in Resident Dignity and Privacy
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure that residents were treated with respect and dignity, as evidenced by the behavior of a staff member towards a resident and the lack of privacy in a shared bathroom. Resident #134, who was cognitively intact and had a care plan requiring calm and reassuring care, was subjected to unprofessional behavior by Licensed Practical Nurse #6. The nurse allegedly used inappropriate language, slammed medication on the tray table, and left the room in a disrespectful manner, causing the resident to become upset and cry. This incident was corroborated by other staff members who witnessed the behavior. Additionally, the facility did not provide adequate privacy for residents using a shared bathroom on the dementia unit. The bathroom, used by both male and female residents, had three toilet stalls separated by partitions but lacked stall doors or privacy curtains. Observations confirmed that residents used this bathroom independently, raising concerns about privacy and dignity. Staff interviews revealed that the lack of privacy was a known issue, with several staff members acknowledging the problem and expressing concerns about its impact on residents. The facility's failure to address these issues violated the residents' rights to be treated with respect and dignity. The lack of privacy in the shared bathroom and the unprofessional conduct of a staff member towards a resident were significant deficiencies identified during the survey. These findings highlight the need for the facility to ensure that all residents are treated with dignity and that their privacy is respected in all aspects of their care.
Delayed and Incomplete Investigation of Resident-to-Resident Altercation
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure that all alleged allegations of abuse were thoroughly investigated for two residents. Specifically, there was a delay in the initiation of an investigation for a reported allegation of resident-to-resident abuse. The incident involved a verbal argument between two residents, which escalated when one resident threatened the other with a pair of scissors. The altercation was witnessed by a Certified Nurse Aide and reported to a Registered Nurse, who did not consider it a resident-to-resident altercation and thus did not report it to the Director of Nursing or Administrator. This resulted in a delay in the investigation, which was not initiated until three days after the incident. The investigation was incomplete as it did not include interviews with the involved residents or other potential witnesses. The Director of Nursing did not obtain a statement from the resident who was sent to the hospital and returned to a different room. Additionally, there was no documented evidence that the responsible party of the affected resident was notified of the altercation. The Director of Nursing considered the incident isolated and did not interview other residents. The Administrator acknowledged that the staff should have reported the incident immediately to allow for a thorough investigation.
Deficiencies in Resident Hygiene and Nail Care
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to provide adequate care for residents who were unable to perform activities of daily living, specifically in maintaining grooming and personal hygiene. Resident #27, who was admitted with diagnoses including diabetes mellitus, anxiety, and depression, did not receive timely incontinence care. The resident's brief and bed linens were saturated with urine, and the Certified Nurse Aide (CNA) performed incomplete incontinence care without proper hand hygiene or glove changes. The CNA also touched items in the resident's room with soiled gloves, leading to potential cross-contamination and infection control issues. Resident #102, who had a history of cerebral infarction and was legally blind, was dependent on staff for personal hygiene. The resident's fingernails were observed to be long, jagged, and filled with dark debris, which posed an infection control risk, especially since the resident ate with their hands. Despite the resident's preference for short nails, there was no documented evidence of nail care being provided, and the regular CNA stated that the resident did not refuse care. The resident's contracted hand had nails pressing into the palm, causing red indentations and discomfort. Resident #105, with diagnoses including diabetes mellitus and peripheral vascular disease, also had long, jagged fingernails with dark debris. The resident expressed a desire for nail care, but staff reportedly only cleaned under the nails without trimming them. The resident's nails were noted to be long and potentially harmful, yet there was no evidence of appropriate nail care being provided. The Director of Nursing acknowledged that long nails could be an infection control issue and expected staff to consult a provider for nail care in residents with certain medical conditions.
Deficiencies in Medication Administration and Care Planning
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure that residents received treatment and care in accordance with professional standards of practice and their comprehensive person-centered care plans. For Resident #16, there was a significant delay in the administration of antibiotics for a urinary tract infection due to inaccurately transcribed physician's orders. The resident, who had an indwelling Foley catheter, experienced a nine-day delay in receiving the correct dosage of Ciprofloxacin, which was not therapeutic for the infection. Additionally, there was no comprehensive care plan developed for the resident's Foley catheter care and urinary tract infection. Resident #305 experienced issues with the maintenance of a peripherally inserted central catheter (PICC) line. The dressing for the PICC line was not changed as ordered due to a lack of available supplies, and the dressing was observed to be peeling and loose. The facility's failure to maintain the PICC line dressing as per the physician's orders posed a risk of infection, and the Director of Nursing was not informed of the inability to complete the dressing changes as required. Resident #154 did not receive prescribed supplements for electrolyte imbalances due to a lack of communication and documentation. The resident, who had a history of hypokalemia, hypomagnesemia, and hypophosphatemia, received only a fraction of the scheduled doses of supplements. The pharmacy did not dispense the required supplements, and there was no evidence that the medical providers were notified of the unavailability of these medications. This lack of communication and documentation resulted in the resident not receiving the necessary treatment for their condition.
Failure to Document and Offer Immunizations
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure that each resident was offered pneumococcal and influenza immunizations, as well as documented education regarding the benefits and potential side effects of these vaccines. This deficiency was identified during an Extended Survey, which revealed that four out of five residents reviewed did not have documented evidence of being offered or declining the immunizations, nor receiving education about them. The facility's policies required that assessments of pneumococcal vaccination status be conducted within five business days of admission and that education and declination be documented in the resident's medical record. However, this was not adhered to for residents with various medical conditions, including diabetes, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and dementia. Interviews with facility staff, including the Infection Preventionist/Assistant Director of Nursing and the Director of Nursing, confirmed that the responsibility for obtaining and documenting immunization statuses fell on the admitting nurse, with oversight by the infection preventionist. Despite this, the Regional Director of Nursing was unable to locate the necessary immunization documents for the affected residents. This lack of documentation and adherence to policy resulted in a deficiency under 10 NYCRR 415.19 (a) (1).
Latest citations in New York
A resident with spastic quadriplegic cerebral palsy, severe hypoxic ischemic encephalopathy, chronic respiratory failure, and a tracheostomy was on continuous pulse oximetry with ordered SpO2 parameters and linked Vocera alerts. When the resident’s oxygen saturation dropped significantly, the Vocera system sent sequential alarms to the primary RN, buddy RN, charge RN, and RT. The primary RN repeatedly pressed “Accept” on the alert device without assessing the resident, while the buddy RN, charge RN, and RT did not respond to the alarms, each assuming others would intervene or not recalling the alert. For approximately 25 minutes, no assigned clinician assessed the resident despite ongoing alarms, until another RN, not assigned to the resident, heard an alarm while passing the room and found the resident unresponsive and gray. A Code Blue was initiated, CPR was performed, and the resident was transferred to the hospital, where they were found to have no brain activity and later died. The facility’s investigation determined that staff failed to respond to and appropriately manage the pulse oximetry/Vocera alerts and failed to maintain and use required communication devices as expected.
A resident with Parkinson’s disease, dementia with behavioral disturbances, and known exit-seeking behaviors, care planned with a wander alarm, eloped through a 3rd floor stairwell door whose alarm had been disabled days earlier by maintenance and security while addressing a wandering system issue. A plastic barrier was placed in front of the door, but the door remained accessible and unrepaired. Video showed the resident repeatedly attempting to exit, bypassing the barrier, trying to remove the wander device, and ultimately opening the door, falling into the stairwell, and leaving the unit. Staff observed the resident at the door but did not consistently redirect them, and the resident was later found outside the building by a visitor after staff realized the resident was missing and discovered the wheelchair in the stairwell.
Two residents with psychiatric and behavioral histories were waiting by an elevator in a lobby when one, known to have prior aggressive behavior and a care plan noting risk for physical aggression, removed a wheelchair armrest and struck the other in the forehead, causing a bump and laceration that required ED evaluation. Video, staff, and security accounts confirmed that the aggressor resident was able to access and weaponize the removable armrest in a common area despite prior documented altercations and behavioral concerns, and was only on 30‑minute checks at the time, resulting in a failure to protect another resident from physical abuse.
Staff failed to respond promptly to an oxygen alert alarm for a resident with spastic quadriplegic CP, severe hypoxic ischemic encephalopathy, chronic respiratory failure, severe cognitive impairment, and total dependence for ADLs, resulting in the resident being found unresponsive with gray skin and requiring a Code Blue, CPR, and hospital transfer where no brain activity was found and life support was later withdrawn. Despite facility policy requiring alleged or suspected neglect and serious bodily injury to be reported to the State Agency within 2 hours (or within 24 hours if no serious bodily injury), the Administrator was not notified until days after the event and the NYS DOH was notified four days after the incident; the DON reported they were initially unaware of the failure to respond to alarms or of the need to report the incident, and the Administrator stated they had not been informed of the Code Blue on the day it occurred.
Surveyors found that the facility failed to implement an effective infection surveillance and reporting process during a norovirus gastroenteritis outbreak and in its routine infection tracking. During the outbreak, only a single-day tracking sheet was completed for several residents with gastrointestinal illness on two units, and daily surveillance with updated symptoms and management was not maintained as required by facility policy. Despite receiving a directive from the state health department to submit a Nosocomial Outbreak Reporting Application for the identified cluster, the DON acknowledged that the report was never submitted. Additionally, monthly infection control line lists for residents on antibiotics for various infections lacked documentation of signs and symptoms, diagnostic and lab results, precautions used, and outbreak potential, even though the IP relied on these lists for surveillance.
A resident with multiple chronic conditions and numerous scheduled medications had repeated discrepancies between scheduled morning medication times and documented administration times. On multiple days, all medications ordered for a 9:00 a.m. pass were documented as given around midday by an RN, contrary to policy requiring timely administration and immediate electronic documentation. The RN cited computer timeouts, possible late documentation, and workload pressures, while leadership acknowledged that a single nurse was responsible for passing medications to roughly 40 residents within a limited time window and that MAR review was primarily done by the passing nurse and through monthly reports, with no routine MAR review by the pharmacy consultant.
The facility did not ensure residents understood how to file grievances and failed to document and track grievances and their resolutions. Residents reported that they only voiced concerns during resident council and were unclear about the grievance process otherwise, and the designated Grievance Officer could not produce a grievance log or forms. The DON acknowledged the grievance process was informal and lacked clear documentation. In addition, a resident with significant cardiac and neurologic conditions and moderately impaired cognition had a representative who raised multiple concerns about care coordination, communication, discharge planning, call bell response, personal property, preferences, and nutrition, but these grievances were largely handled verbally, with no consistent documentation of how each concern was addressed or resolved.
Surveyors found that the facility failed to provide timely toileting assistance and call bell response for multiple residents who were dependent on staff for ADLs. A resident with Parkinson’s disease and dementia, care planned for two-hour toileting checks, was found by family with urine-saturated clothing and wheelchair cushion after a CNA admitted not changing or checking on the resident for most of a shift, and documentation showed numerous missing toileting and check entries over several months. Another resident with a history of stroke and MI, requiring maximal assist for toileting, reported long waits for morning care while the call bell rang, with staff not responding for extended periods, and the resident’s representative described multiple episodes of call bell waits exceeding an hour. Resident Council minutes, call bell audits, and observations showed repeated long call bell wait times, including bells ringing for 15–45 minutes while various staff passed the rooms without responding, and a spouse reported frequent overnight calls from a resident seeking help because call bells were unanswered.
A resident with bowel incontinence and new-onset loose, watery stools and nausea had a physician and NP order for a stool bacterial detection panel with C. difficile and a GI PCR, along with PRN Zofran. Over subsequent shifts, documentation showed the resident remained incontinent of bowel and that the ordered stool collection was repeatedly marked on the TAR as "not administered, unable to obtain" by LPNs, despite multiple incontinence episodes. There was no documentation that the NP or physician were notified that the ordered stool specimen had not been collected, even though facility policy required practitioner notification when orders were not carried out and the physician and NP later stated they expected to be informed if a lab test they ordered was not completed.
A resident with vascular dementia, behavioral disturbances, and dependence for transfers and toileting was sent to the hospital for suspected GI bleeding, with documentation indicating an unplanned hospital transfer and anticipated return. An IDT meeting held earlier did not document any discharge planning, and the resident’s care plan lacked a planned discharge. While the resident remained hospitalized, the facility issued a same-day discharge notice citing inability to meet needs and endangerment to others, based on interference from the resident’s guardians rather than documented resident behavior, and later did not accept the resident back after medical clearance. The medical record contained no IDT discharge plan and no subsequent nursing or social work notes, demonstrating a lack of documented discharge planning and coordination.
Failure to Respond to Pulse Oximetry Alarms for Tracheostomy-Dependent Resident
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to ensure that a resident requiring respiratory care and continuous pulse oximetry monitoring received services consistent with professional standards of practice and the resident’s care plan. The resident had spastic quadriplegic cerebral palsy, severe hypoxic ischemic encephalopathy, and chronic respiratory failure, was severely cognitively impaired, and was totally dependent on staff for all ADLs. The care plan and physician’s orders required mechanical ventilation with CPAP to tracheostomy collar overnight, humidified trach collar oxygen during the day, and maintenance of oxygen saturation above 92%, with pulse oximeter alarm parameters set to alert below 92%. The resident was equipped with a pulse oximeter linked to the Vocera alert system, which generated alarms at the bedside and on staff mobile devices when oxygen saturation fell outside ordered parameters. On the day of the incident, the resident’s oxygen saturation dropped to 84% at 8:58 AM, triggering an alert to the primary RN via the Patient Safe Solutions/Vocera system, followed by sequential escalation to the buddy RN, the charge RN, and the RT when not acknowledged. The Call Point Detailed Activity Report showed that an alert was sent to the primary RN at 8:58 AM, to the buddy RN at 8:59 AM, and to the charge RN and RT at 9:01 AM. The primary RN pressed “Accepted” on the device at 9:04 AM, and again when the system alerted at 9:17 AM and 9:18 AM, but did not go to the resident’s room to assess the resident and did not document any assessment or intervention. The buddy RN reported not recalling hearing the alert and stated they were administering medications and unaware of the resident’s distress until the rapid response was called. The charge RN acknowledged receiving the alert but did not respond timely, stating they expected the primary or buddy nurse to respond. The RT stated they received the alert but were busy with other residents and expected other staff to respond. From 8:58 AM to 9:23 AM, no assigned nurse or RT responded to the alarms or performed a clinical assessment of the resident, and the alarm cycle continued without intervention. At 9:23 AM, a second alert was triggered when the resident’s oxygen saturation dropped to 52%. An RN who was not assigned to the resident heard an alarm while passing the room, entered, and found the resident in a wheelchair, unresponsive with gray skin. This RN activated a rapid response/Code Blue, assisted in returning the resident to bed, and another RN began chest compressions. EMS was called and arrived at 9:44 AM; a pulse was briefly restored, and the resident was placed on a ventilator and transferred to the hospital, where they were determined to have no brain activity. Life support was later terminated and the resident expired. The facility’s own investigation concluded that nursing and respiratory staff failed to respond to alarms, failed to appropriately acknowledge and review alerts, failed to maintain accessibility to required communication devices, and failed to escalate when they were occupied or unable to respond, resulting in actual harm and Immediate Jeopardy to the resident and placing other monitored residents at risk.
Removal Plan
- Review camera footage, Patient Safe Solution phone verification notifications, and the pulse oximetry policy.
- Re-educate involved staff on pulse oximetry alarm response, notification handling, and escalation expectations.
- Send voice alarm presentation via email to all assistant nurse managers and assistant directors of nursing for review during evening and morning huddles.
- Ensure Vocera device functionality is reviewed and staff are instructed to keep devices accessible and operational.
- Have IT/MIS check and confirm monitoring equipment is functioning properly.
- Implement disciplinary action for staff involved.
- Discuss and initiate a root cause analysis.
- Review and revise the pulse oximetry policy.
- Provide leadership oversight.
- Implement an audit of alert response times.
Elopement of High-Risk Resident Through Disabled Stairwell Door Alarm
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to provide adequate supervision and maintain a safe environment for a resident with known exit-seeking behaviors and elopement risk. The resident had diagnoses of Parkinson’s disease, dementia with behavioral disturbances, and anxiety, and was assessed as having moderately impaired cognition. The resident’s MDS documented exit-seeking behaviors and daily use of a wander/elopement alarm, and the comprehensive care plan identified the resident as an elopement risk/wanderer related to disorientation to place, with an intervention for a wandering device on the ankle. A physician’s order also specified a wandering device to the right ankle with checks every shift. The 3rd floor North stairwell door alarm had been disabled by maintenance following a work order dated 07/02/2024. Maintenance and security staff attempted to address a wandering system alarm issue, and the alarm on the 3rd floor North stairwell door was turned off by removing a screw from the alarm box. A yellow plastic accordion-style barrier was placed in front of the door, and nursing staff were notified that the door was broken. However, the door itself remained accessible, and the alarm remained disabled for days prior to the elopement. Staff on the unit, including CNAs, were not all aware that the stairwell door was broken, and the door was not repaired until 07/17/2024. On the day of the incident, video footage showed the resident repeatedly exit-seeking at the 3rd floor North stairwell door over several hours. The resident moved the yellow barrier, wheeled around it, and closed it behind them. At one point, two unidentified staff observed the resident at the door, opened the barrier, and walked away without redirecting the resident. The footage documented multiple attempts by the resident to exit, including attempts to remove the wander alert bracelet and repeated efforts to push on the delayed egress bar with their leg and hands. Eventually, the resident stood from the wheelchair, pushed the crash bar, opened the door, and fell backwards into the stairwell while pulling the wheelchair through. The resident then maneuvered the wheelchair into the stairwell and exited the unit. Staff later discovered the resident missing, found the wheelchair in the stairwell, and the resident was ultimately located outside the building by a visitor and brought back inside by nursing and security. The DON’s investigation summary identified the root cause of the elopement as the 3rd floor North stairwell door alarm being disabled while the door remained broken and unsecured.
Removal Plan
- Resident #1 was placed on 15-minute safety checks and kept under line-of-sight supervision when outside of their room; continued with use of a wander alert device; and resided in a room adjacent to the nursing station for frequent observations.
- All staff were educated on the Elopement policy and what measures to take if a resident went missing, including a power point presentation and post-tests.
- All exit and stairwell doors in the facility on the 2nd and 3rd floors were repaired by an outside vendor.
Failure to Prevent Resident-to-Resident Physical Abuse in Lobby Elevator Area
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to protect a resident from physical abuse by another resident, despite a known history of aggressive behavior. One resident with paraplegia, mood disorder, major depressive disorder, and anxiety disorder had an established care plan noting potential for physical aggression and risk of being abused. Prior documentation showed that this resident had been involved in a physical altercation with another resident in June of the previous year, during which they reported being punched and stated they hit the other resident back. The care plan was updated at that time to reflect that the resident was abused by peers, with interventions including relocation as needed and a psychiatry referral, but later updates reflecting another resident-to-resident altercation did not include new interventions. On the day of the incident, video surveillance and witness statements documented that the aggressive resident and another resident were waiting at the elevator in the lobby, along with other residents. The second resident, who had diagnoses including schizophrenia and bipolar disorder, approached and stood next to the first resident’s wheelchair. The first resident was seen making hand gestures, then removed the left wheelchair armrest and used both hands to swing it toward the second resident. When the second resident reached toward the armrest, the first resident struck them on the forehead with the armrest, causing bleeding and resulting in a bump and small laceration. Staff arrived immediately after the assault and separated the residents, and the injured resident was later assessed and transferred to the hospital for evaluation. Interviews conducted after the event revealed differing accounts of the interaction leading up to the assault. The first resident reported that the second resident had previously used a racial epithet toward them and, on the day of the incident, again stood close, touched their shoulder, and repeated the racial epithet, prompting them to remove the armrest and strike the other resident. The second resident stated they were standing at the elevator, heard the first resident saying something, ignored it, and were then struck without warning. A security guard reported hearing the first resident tell the second resident not to stand close and to stop touching them, then observed the first resident swinging the armrest and hitting the second resident. Facility staff, including the RN Supervisor and DON, acknowledged that the incident occurred off the unit, that the aggressive resident had a history of verbal and physical abusive behavior toward staff, and that this was the first documented physical altercation between these two specific residents. Despite prior behavioral incidents and care plan documentation of aggression risk, the resident was on 30‑minute checks and was able to access and weaponize a removable wheelchair armrest in a common area, resulting in physical abuse of another resident.
Failure to Timely Respond to Oxygen Alarm and Report Suspected Neglect
Penalty
Summary
Facility staff failed to immediately report an alleged incident of neglect involving a resident who was dependent on respiratory support and continuous monitoring. The resident had spastic quadriplegic cerebral palsy, severe hypoxic ischemic encephalopathy, chronic respiratory failure, was severely cognitively impaired, and totally dependent on staff for all ADLs. On the date of the incident at 8:58 AM, the resident’s alert alarm indicated decreasing oxygen levels, but nursing and respiratory staff did not respond to the alarm or assess the resident in a timely manner, in deviation from the facility’s pulse oximetry escalation pathway and alarm response procedures. The resident was later found unresponsive with gray skin, and a Code Blue was initiated. CPR was started, and the resident was transferred to the hospital, where they were determined to have no brain activity; life support was later terminated and the resident expired. Although the facility’s policy required that alleged or suspected violations involving mistreatment, neglect, or other reportable events be reported to the State Survey Agency and other appropriate authorities no later than 2 hours after forming the suspicion if serious bodily injury occurred, or within 24 hours otherwise, the incident was not reported in accordance with these time frames. The incident occurred on one date, the Administrator was not notified until a later date, and the New York State Department of Health was not notified until four days after the event. The DON stated they were unaware that staff had failed to respond to the alerts until reviewing the alert system report and interviewing staff, and also stated they were unaware the incident should have been reported to the Department of Health, while the Administrator confirmed they had not been notified of the Code Blue on the day it occurred.
Failure to Implement Effective Infection Surveillance and Outbreak Reporting
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to maintain and implement an effective infection prevention and control program during a norovirus outbreak and in its ongoing surveillance activities. During a norovirus gastroenteritis outbreak, the facility identified multiple residents with gastrointestinal illness on two units, as documented on an infection control tracking sheet for a single date. The facility’s policy on routine infection control surveillance required ongoing assessment of all residents for changes in symptoms or conditions indicative of infection, but surveillance tracking was only completed for one day and was not continued or updated with symptoms or management throughout the outbreak. The DON and the Infection Preventionist (IP) both acknowledged that surveillance tracking sheets should have been completed daily during the outbreak and that they did not know why this was not done. The facility also did not comply with state reporting requirements related to the outbreak. After the cluster of gastrointestinal illness cases was identified, the NYSDOH sent an email to the DON stating that submission of a Nosocomial Outbreak Reporting Application report was required for a single case of a reportable pathogen in a nursing home resident or a cluster of cases above baseline. The DON stated they were aware of this email but confirmed that the requested outbreak report was never submitted to NYSDOH. The DON further stated that NYSDOH should have been contacted immediately when the outbreak was discovered, and that they were not the DON at the time and did not know why the previous DON failed to submit the report. In addition to the outbreak-related issues, the facility’s ongoing infection surveillance line lists for several months were incomplete. The Infection Control Line List for January, February, and March documented residents on antibiotic therapy for various infections, including wound infections, respiratory infections, urinary tract infections, bacteremia, and Clostridium difficile. However, these line lists lacked documentation of infection signs and symptoms, diagnostic tests and laboratory results, the type of precautions used, and any indication of outbreak potential. During interview, the IP confirmed that they used the line list for surveillance and monitoring of residents with infections and on antibiotics, but acknowledged that the lists did not include the required clinical details and precautions. The DON also stated that the IP was responsible for ensuring surveillance included signs and symptoms, diagnostic tests with results, and precautions to prevent outbreaks.
Incomplete and Inaccurate Medication Administration Documentation for a Resident
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to maintain complete and accurately documented medical records in accordance with accepted professional standards for one resident. For this cognitively intact resident with essential hypertension, adjustment disorder with mixed anxiety and depressed mood, major depressive disorder, and dementia, standing medication orders included multiple daily and twice-daily medications such as antihypertensives, antidepressants, an anticoagulant, a diuretic, an antianginal patch, an inhaler, and other agents. The facility’s medication administration policy required that medications be administered in accordance with physician orders, that documentation of administration be completed on the computer immediately after administration with the nurse’s initials at the corresponding date and time, and that at the end of each shift the medication nurse review the MAR, 24‑hour report, and nurses’ notes to ensure documentation is accurate and complete. Record review of the medication administration audit report for multiple dates in December 2024 showed discrepancies between the scheduled 9:00 a.m. administration times and the times documented as administered for this resident’s medications. On thirteen separate dates, all medications scheduled for 9:00 a.m. were documented as being administered after 12:00 p.m. but before 1:00 p.m. when a particular RN was passing medications to this resident. These documented times did not align with the scheduled administration time and were inconsistent with the policy requirement that medications be given at the right time and documented immediately after administration. The pattern of late documentation occurred on each of the identified dates when that RN was responsible for the medication pass for this resident. In interviews, the RN who administered the medications stated that the resident received most medications at 9:00 a.m. and some at 5:00 p.m., and described issues such as the computer timing out after about 10 minutes, logging the nurse out, and situations where medications might have been given earlier but not clicked off in the system. The RN reported that the documented times (for example, showing around 12:00 p.m.) might not be accurate, could reflect late documentation, and could be affected by computer glitches, but could not recall specific details from the December dates. The Assistant DON reported that one nurse on the unit was responsible for administering medications to approximately 38–40 residents, that the incoming nurse’s start of shift included a narcotic count and report that delayed the start of the medication pass to about 8:30 a.m., and that this left about two minutes per resident to complete the pass by 10:00 a.m. The Administrator stated that their expectation was that nurses review the MAR at the end of the shift and that unit managers run a monthly report, while the Pharmacy Consultant stated they did not review MARs and assumed nursing conducted internal auditing. These practices and conditions contributed to incomplete and inaccurate medication administration documentation for the resident on the identified dates.
Failure to Inform Residents of Grievance Process and Document Grievances and Resolutions
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure residents were informed about the grievance process and that grievances were documented and tracked in accordance with its grievance policy. The Social Services/Admissions Coordinator, identified as the Grievance Officer, reported that while they interviewed residents and emailed Administration about complaints they could not resolve, they were unable to provide a grievance log or grievance forms. During resident council, multiple residents stated they voiced concerns in the meeting but did not know how to file grievances outside of that setting, and there was no documented evidence listing grievances or the facility’s responses. The DON stated that grievances should be monitored by Social Services with documentation of the nature of the complaint and the resolution, but acknowledged that the process was informal, dependent on circumstances, and not completely clear, with no forms or documentation used to track grievance progress and resolution. For one resident reviewed for care planning, the facility did not consistently address and document multiple grievances raised by the resident’s representative. This resident had diagnoses including cerebral infarction, occlusion and stenosis of the left carotid artery, and myocardial infarction, with the admission MDS indicating moderately impaired cognition and involvement of the resident and family in assessment and goal setting. The representative reported numerous concerns regarding miscommunication between nursing and rehabilitation, discharge planning, appointment scheduling, call bell response time, personal property, resident preferences, nutrition, and proper diet, all of which were communicated to Administration via email and paper copies. Although a family meeting was held to discuss these concerns, the Social Services/Admissions Coordinator and the DON confirmed there was no documented evidence of how each grievance was addressed or resolved, and that most concerns were handled verbally without formal documentation or investigation of every complaint.
Failure to Provide Timely Toileting Assistance and Call Bell Response
Penalty
Summary
Surveyors identified a deficiency in the facility’s failure to provide necessary assistance with toileting and timely response to call bells for residents who were unable to perform activities of daily living independently. Facility policy on Activities of Daily Living required that residents receive appropriate treatment and services to maintain or improve their ability to carry out ADLs, including elimination and toileting, and the facility’s No Pass policy required all staff to respond to call lights and obtain help if they could not provide it themselves. Despite these policies, multiple observations, interviews, and record reviews showed that residents did not consistently receive timely toileting care or call bell responses. One resident with Parkinson’s disease, dementia, heart disease, severely impaired cognition, and total dependence on staff for toileting and hygiene was care planned to be checked for incontinence and changed as needed, and to have toileting needs anticipated every two hours with assistance to the toilet. Kardex instructions for several months reiterated two-hour toileting checks and assistance, and CNA documentation reports for January through March showed numerous missing entries for toileting and two-hour checks across multiple shifts. A nursing home investigative report documented that a family member found this resident with urine-saturated clothing and wheelchair cushion in the afternoon, and the Administrator confirmed the saturation. The CNA identified as responsible for ADLs and accountability tasks for that shift stated they did not change the resident at all during the eight-hour shift, did not perform end-of-day care, and did not inform anyone that they were unable to care for the resident, and also stated they did not check on the resident until late morning. There was conflicting documentation on the assignment sheet, and another CNA reported that the resident was checked every two hours and could indicate when cleaning was needed, while a second family member reported having observed a strong urine smell on three Sunday visits in recent months, which staff addressed when notified. Another resident with a history of stroke and myocardial infarction, and moderately impaired cognition, required maximal assistance with toileting and moderate assistance with bathing and dressing. During one observation, this resident’s call bell was ringing, and the resident reported having waited a long time for care and stated they had been waiting since early morning; staff did not respond until several minutes after the surveyor’s observation began, at which time morning care was provided. On another day, the shared room call bell was ringing while two residents in the room reported they were still in bed, unwashed, undressed, and waiting to get out of bed, stating they had been waiting about half an hour; staff arrived to assist approximately 18 minutes after the surveyor’s initial observation. The resident’s representative reported multiple episodes when call bell response times exceeded one hour and had communicated these concerns to staff. The DON stated that call bells should be responded to when heard and that 30–60 minutes was not acceptable, but also indicated that response time depended on staffing. Additional evidence of delayed call bell response and unmet toileting needs came from Resident Council minutes, call bell audits, and direct observations. Resident Council minutes over several months documented ongoing resident reports that call bell wait times were “on the longer side” and “too long,” and that more nursing staff were needed, particularly on weekends when residents reported only three CNAs were often scheduled. Facility call bell audits conducted in response to complaints documented 23 observations, including one call bell active for 45 minutes and another for 15 minutes in the same room. During one observation, a room call bell rang for at least 14 minutes while multiple staff, including a CNA, a medication nurse, a social work/admissions coordinator, and a unit clerk, passed the room without entering; when the CNA finally entered, the resident requested a bedpan and the CNA left and did not return with the bedpan for another 10 minutes. In another observation, a room call bell rang for at least 27 minutes while a medication nurse, social work/administration staff, and a unit clerk were present in the hallway or nearby but did not respond to the bell. A spouse reported receiving at least 10 overnight phone calls from a resident asking them to call the nurses’ station because no one was responding to the call bell, and also reported that it took a long time for the nurses’ station to answer the phone.
Failure to Collect Ordered Stool Specimen and Notify Practitioner of Uncompleted Lab Test
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to ensure that a resident received treatment and care in accordance with professional standards and practitioner orders when a stool specimen was not collected as ordered, and the ordering practitioners were not notified. The facility’s policy dated 05/2025 required that when a physician or other authorized practitioner’s order is not carried out as ordered, delayed, modified, or discontinued, the practitioner must be notified. Resident #124 had diagnoses including moderate persistent asthma, essential hypertension, and spinal stenosis, and was documented as always incontinent of bowel and dependent on staff for toileting and hygiene per the care guide, care plan, and admission MDS. On 12/11/2024, the resident developed loose, watery stools and nausea, and the physician and NP were notified, resulting in orders for a stool bacterial detection panel with C. difficile and Zofran as needed. On 12/11/2024, nursing documentation showed that the resident had an episode of loose watery stool in the morning, with the physician notified and an order given to collect stool for testing. Later that day, an RN documented that the resident had nausea and loose stool, that the NP was made aware, and that stool collection and Zofran were ordered. The NP progress note that evening documented watery stool, ordered a GI PCR to rule out gastroenteritis, and planned to monitor the resident, noting stable vitals and a mildly elevated white blood count. The functional abilities record showed the resident was incontinent of bowel on multiple shifts on 12/11/2024, 12/12/2024, and 12/13/2024. The Treatment Administration Record for December 2024 documented the stool test order on 12/11/2024 and 12/12/2024, with entries by LPN #2 and LPN #3 indicating the stool collection was “not administered, unable to obtain.” Despite repeated incontinence episodes that could have provided opportunities to obtain a specimen, there was no documented evidence that the NP or physician were notified that the ordered stool sample had not been collected. A nursing progress note on 12/12/2024 at 2:24 A.M. documented that the resident was alert, able to make needs known, had poor appetite, good fluid intake, an episode of emesis after drinking water too fast, and was feeling better afterward, but did not address the outstanding stool order. During interviews, LPN #3 acknowledged awareness of the stool collection order and documented “not administered” on two shifts but did not write a note indicating that the NP or physician had been informed that the specimen was not obtained. The LPN Unit Manager stated that whether to notify the NP or physician when a stool sample was not collected was handled on a case-by-case basis. In contrast, the Medical Director/Primary Physician and NP #1 both stated they expected to be informed if a lab test they ordered, such as a stool specimen, was not completed, and NP #1 indicated they might have added additional orders and reminded staff to collect the stool if they had known it was not obtained.
Failure to Provide Appropriate Discharge Planning and Readmission for Hospitalized Resident
Penalty
Summary
Surveyors identified that the facility failed to ensure an appropriate discharge plan for one resident who was hospitalized for a suspected gastrointestinal bleed. The resident had vascular dementia with behavioral disturbances, sequelae of cerebral infarction, constipation, and atrial fibrillation, and was dependent for toileting and transfers with documented verbal and physical behaviors toward others. After the resident vomited coffee-ground emesis, the physician ordered a transfer to the hospital emergency department to rule out a GI bleed, and the discharge MDS reflected an unplanned discharge to a short-term general hospital with return anticipated. An interdisciplinary care plan meeting held prior to the hospitalization included multiple disciplines, the resident’s companion, and two guardians, but there was no documentation that discharge planning was discussed, and the resident’s care plan contained no evidence of a planned discharge. While the resident was in the hospital, the facility issued a same-day Transfer/Discharge Notice stating that the IDT had determined the resident would be discharged that day, citing that the resident’s needs could not be met after reasonable accommodation and that the safety and health of individuals in the facility would be endangered. The notice identified interference from the resident’s two guardians as the evidence supporting these reasons, but there was no documentation that the resident personally endangered the health or safety of others. The notice included information about the right to appeal the discharge, and the discharge was appealed. When the resident was medically cleared to return, the facility did not accept the resident back. Review of the electronic medical record showed no documented IDT discharge plan and no nursing progress notes after the date of hospital transfer, and no social work progress notes after that time, indicating a lack of documented planning and coordination related to the discharge decision.
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.



