Monroe Community Hospital
Inspection history, citations, penalties and survey trends for this long-term care facility in Rochester, New York.
- Location
- 435 East Henrietta Road, Rochester, New York 14620
- CMS Provider Number
- 335197
- Inspections on file
- 23
- Latest survey
- October 24, 2025
- Citations (last 12 mo.)
- 3 (2 serious)
Citation history
Health deficiencies cited at Monroe Community Hospital during CMS and state inspections, most recent first.
A resident with a history of constipation and multiple comorbidities experienced an extended period without a documented bowel movement, despite having PRN laxative orders. Staff did not act on electronic alerts or bowel movement reports, and there was no evidence of PRN medication administration or provider notification. The resident was hospitalized with severe stool impaction and returned to the facility, where the same issues recurred. Staff interviews revealed inconsistent understanding and use of bowel management protocols, and the facility lacked a written protocol specifying monitoring and intervention parameters.
A resident with limited mobility and a history of multiple sclerosis returned from the hospital with a sacral wound, but staff failed to follow wound care instructions, did not consistently assess or document the wound, and did not notify the wound care team or provider in a timely manner. The wound deteriorated from Stage 1 to Stage 4, causing severe pain and infection, and ultimately required surgical debridement. Gaps in communication, documentation, and adherence to policy contributed to actual harm.
A resident with a history of pressure ulcers and high risk for skin breakdown was transferred to another unit without their ordered ROHO specialty mattress. Nursing staff failed to ensure the mattress was moved or alternative interventions were implemented, resulting in the development of new stage 2 and stage 3 pressure ulcers. Documentation and staff interviews confirmed the mattress was absent for several days, and the wounds were attributed to this lapse.
The facility failed to develop baseline care plans within 48 hours of admission for all residents reviewed. For some residents, there was no evidence of a care plan being developed, while for others, summaries of the care plans were not provided to residents or their representatives. Interviews with staff revealed inconsistencies in initiating and documenting care plans, with some plans lacking physician's orders. The DON acknowledged issues with the electronic care plan form, which did not confirm receipt by residents or representatives.
Two residents experienced delays in receiving care, with call lights repeatedly turned off without addressing their needs. One resident with quadriplegia and another with dementia were left unassisted for extended periods, highlighting issues with staff response and dignity in care.
A facility failed to notify the medical team of a significant change in a resident's condition, who had a tracheostomy and was dependent on care. Observations showed excessive secretions in the tracheostomy cannister and oxygen tubing, but there was no documentation of physician notification. Staff interviews confirmed the medical provider should have been informed, but this protocol was not followed, leading to the deficiency.
Failure to Implement Effective Bowel Management Protocol Resulting in Resident Harm
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure that a resident received treatment and care in accordance with professional standards of practice and the comprehensive person-centered care plan. The resident, who had diagnoses including multiple sclerosis, depression, generalized weakness, hypothyroidism, and a history of constipation, did not have a documented bowel movement for an extended period. Despite having physician orders for as needed laxatives, there was no documented evidence that these medications were administered during the period of no bowel movements. The facility's electronic medical record system was programmed to generate alerts and reports for absent bowel movements, but there was no evidence that these alerts and reports were reviewed or acted upon by staff during the relevant timeframes. The resident was eventually hospitalized after developing fever and tachycardia, where imaging revealed a severe rectal stool burden and stercoral colitis, requiring manual disimpaction. Upon return from the hospital, the resident again had no documented bowel movement for several days, and as needed bowel medications were not administered until several days later. Interviews with nursing staff and facility leadership revealed inconsistent understanding and implementation of bowel management protocols, with some staff unaware of the resident's condition or the need to act on bowel movement alerts. The facility did not have a written bowel management protocol specifying monitoring timeframes or parameters for administering as needed medications, and staff relied on inconsistent practices for reviewing and acting on bowel movement reports. Documentation showed that the resident was repeatedly listed on bowel movement reports as having no bowel movement, but there was no evidence of follow-up or intervention. Staff interviews indicated confusion about the frequency and use of bowel movement reports and alerts, and some staff were not aware of the resident's prolonged constipation or the need to notify providers. The lack of a clear, written bowel management protocol and failure to act on documented alerts and reports resulted in actual harm to the resident, as well as a likelihood of serious harm for other residents.
Removal Plan
- The facility provided a copy of the defined Bowel Management Regimen policy and procedure.
- The bowel regimen policy was observed in binders on each residential unit along with current bowel movement reports.
- The facility provided supporting documentation for nursing staff educated on the formal bowel management policy and procedure with an attestation that all remaining nursing staff would receive education prior to their next scheduled shift.
- A list of all facility residents who did not have a documented bowel movement in three days was provided.
- Supporting evidence of as needed medications offered and provided was reviewed with no identified concerns.
Failure to Provide Timely Pressure Ulcer Assessment and Care
Penalty
Summary
A resident with multiple sclerosis, depression, and generalized weakness, who was cognitively intact, experienced a significant lapse in pressure ulcer care following a hospital admission for stroke-like symptoms. Upon return to the facility, the resident had a sacral wound with specific wound care instructions from the hospital, but there was no documented evidence that new wound care orders were entered or that the wound was properly assessed and treated from the time of readmission through several weeks. Nursing documentation was inconsistent, with gaps in dressing changes, skin checks, and provider assessments. The wound was not seen by a provider or the wound care team for an extended period, despite staff being aware of the open area and pain reported by the resident. The facility's policy required comprehensive skin assessments, weekly skin checks, daily visual checks by CNAs, and prompt notification and documentation of new skin issues. However, these protocols were not followed. Staff failed to notify the wound care team or medical providers in a timely manner, and incident reports were not consistently initiated for new or worsening wounds. Communication among staff was fragmented, with some nurses and providers unaware of the resident's condition or missing documentation of assessments and interventions. The resident's wound deteriorated from a Stage 1 to a Stage 4 pressure injury, with increasing pain and signs of infection, ultimately requiring sharp debridement during a subsequent hospitalization. Interviews with staff revealed confusion about reporting requirements, inconsistent practices regarding skin checks and incident reporting, and missed opportunities for timely intervention. The resident reported prolonged periods in bed due to lack of assistance, contributing to the worsening of the wound. Observations confirmed that pain was not addressed during wound care. The cumulative failures in assessment, documentation, communication, and timely intervention resulted in actual harm to the resident and placed other residents with pressure ulcers at risk for serious harm.
Removal Plan
- All residents with pressure ulcers were reassessed and treatment plans were reviewed for appropriateness.
- The Skin Care Program policy and procedure was revised to include all new admissions and readmissions would be screened by a member of the wound care team to ensure appropriate skin care treatment plan was initiated.
- Wound Care staff received re-education on the revised policy and procedure.
Failure to Provide Ordered Specialty Mattress Results in Pressure Ulcers
Penalty
Summary
A deficiency occurred when a resident with a history of pressure ulcers and multiple risk factors, including diabetes and muscle weakness, was transferred to another unit without their prescribed specialty ROHO mattress. The resident had physician orders for the specialty mattress to be in place and checked every shift, as well as a care plan identifying them as high risk for pressure injuries. Despite these orders and the facility's policy requiring all specialty mattresses to be checked and maintained, the mattress was not transferred with the resident, and staff documented its absence on several shifts. During the period when the specialty mattress was not in place, the resident developed new pressure ulcers: a stage three full-thickness wound on the left buttock and a stage two partial-thickness wound on the right buttock. Multiple staff interviews and documentation confirmed that the mattress was not present for several days following the transfer, and that nursing staff were aware of the absence but did not ensure the mattress was moved or that alternative interventions were implemented. The facility's own investigation and wound care assessments attributed the development of these wounds to the lack of the specialty mattress during this time. Interviews with clinical staff, including the wound care nurse, physician assistant, and medical director, confirmed that the absence of the specialty mattress directly contributed to the resident's skin breakdown. The medical director specifically stated that the pressure ulcers were avoidable and that the resident's condition had been stable prior to the transfer. Documentation also showed inconsistencies in the treatment administration record, with some staff marking the mattress as 'administered' when it was not present, further indicating lapses in care and documentation.
Failure to Develop and Communicate Baseline Care Plans Within 48 Hours
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure that baseline care plans were developed within 48 hours of admission for all 11 residents reviewed during the recertification survey. Specifically, for three residents, there was no documented evidence that a baseline care plan was developed within the required timeframe. For one resident, the baseline care plan was completed after the 48-hour window, and there was no evidence that a summary of the care plan, including physician's orders, was provided to the resident's representative. Additionally, for seven residents, the facility could not provide evidence that a summary of the baseline care plan, including necessary healthcare information, was provided to the residents or their representatives. Interviews with facility staff revealed that the baseline care plans were not consistently initiated or documented as required. One nurse manager acknowledged that the baseline care plan should have been initiated upon admission, while another stated that the care plan focused primarily on nursing care and did not include physician's orders. The Director of Nursing admitted awareness of the issue with the electronic baseline care plan form, which implied but did not confirm the review or receipt of the care plan by residents or their representatives. This lack of documentation and communication led to the deficiency identified in the survey.
Deficiencies in Resident Dignity and Timely Assistance
Penalty
Summary
During a recertification survey and complaint investigation, deficiencies were identified in the treatment of two residents regarding their dignity and the timely response to their needs. Resident #640, who has quadriplegia, neurogenic bladder, and diabetes, was observed to have their call light repeatedly turned off by staff without addressing their requests for assistance. Despite being cognitively intact, Resident #640 expressed frustration and discomfort due to being left unwashed for an extended period, with a foul odor present in the room. The resident's requests for help were not promptly addressed, and it took approximately two hours before they received the necessary care. Similarly, Resident #27, who has dementia, diabetes, and high blood pressure, was observed moaning with their call light on, yet staff did not promptly respond to their needs. The resident's call light was turned off without providing assistance, and it took nearly 50 minutes before they received care. Interviews with staff revealed issues with staffing shortages and a lack of timely response to call lights, contributing to the delay in addressing the residents' needs. The facility's staff, including CNAs and the unit administrator, acknowledged the responsibility to answer call lights and meet residents' needs. However, the survey highlighted a failure to ensure that residents were treated with dignity and received timely assistance, as evidenced by the prolonged periods before the residents' needs were addressed. The Director of Nursing emphasized the importance of responding to call lights and providing care when requested, but the observations indicated a gap in practice.
Failure to Notify Medical Team of Significant Change in Resident's Condition
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to notify the medical team of a significant change in condition for Resident #186, who had a tracheostomy and was dependent on care for all activities of daily living. The resident had a history of anoxic brain damage, dysphagia, and was on aspiration precautions. Observations during the survey revealed that the resident's tracheostomy cannister contained more than 450 milliliters of tan-colored secretions, and thick tan/yellow secretions were noted in the oxygen tubing attached to the tracheostomy. Despite these observations, there was no documentation that the physician was notified of the excessive secretions or the potential aspiration risk. Interviews with staff, including LPNs and the Respiratory Therapy Manager, confirmed that the medical provider should have been notified of any significant changes, such as excessive sputum or potential aspiration. However, the physician was not informed about the possibility of tube feeding liquid in the tracheostomy tubing, which was considered a serious complication. The facility's policy required immediate consultation with the resident's physician in the event of a significant change in physical status, but this protocol was not followed, leading to the deficiency.
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.
