Swaim Health Center
Inspection history, citations, penalties and survey trends for this long-term care facility in Newville, Pennsylvania.
- Location
- 210 Big Spring Road, Newville, Pennsylvania 17241
- CMS Provider Number
- 395375
- Inspections on file
- 19
- Latest survey
- July 23, 2025
- Citations (last 12 mo.)
- 4
Citation history
Health deficiencies cited at Swaim Health Center during CMS and state inspections, most recent first.
Three residents did not receive care and services as ordered, including missed wound care, foot cradle checks, provider notifications for weight changes, and incomplete documentation and administration of IV medications and PICC line care. The DON confirmed that required care and documentation were not completed as per physician orders and facility policy.
Surveyors identified that three residents' MDS assessments did not accurately reflect their clinical status, including incorrect documentation of medication administration and the origin of a pressure injury. These errors were found through review of clinical records and staff interviews.
Two residents with significant pressure injuries did not have their prescribed wound care treatments consistently documented as completed, including applications of Betadine, medical grade honey, and dressing changes. The facility's records and staff interviews confirmed these lapses in care and documentation for residents with chronic conditions such as diabetes, edema, and muscle weakness.
A resident with chronic pain and muscle weakness experienced significant weight loss, and the facility failed to consistently document required weekly weights and administration of prescribed enhanced shakes. The NHA was unable to provide explanations for the missing documentation, despite expectations that these actions should have been completed.
A resident with dementia and mobility issues sustained a skin tear during a transfer when two nurse aides failed to follow the care plan requiring a mechanical lift. Instead, they attempted a manual stand/pivot transfer, resulting in injury. The aides were aware of the care plan but did not seek assistance to reposition the lift pad, leading to the resident's harm.
The facility failed to monitor and maintain kitchen equipment temperatures according to professional standards. Observations revealed that the dish machine's wash and rinse cycle temperatures were consistently below safe levels, with no corrective actions recorded. Additionally, there were multiple instances of unrecorded temperatures for kitchen and cafe refrigerators and freezers, indicating a lack of consistent monitoring.
A facility failed to document the implementation of restorative care programs for a resident with limited mobility, chronic pain, anxiety, and a left above-the-knee amputation. The resident's care plan included scheduled sessions for active range of motion and grooming, but documentation was missing for several dates. The DON confirmed the absence of records indicating whether the programs were implemented or refused.
The facility failed to ensure timely review and action on medication irregularities for two residents. One resident's medication addition was delayed due to late receipt and return of the MRR, while another resident's lorazepam assessment was delayed due to late receipt of the MRR. These issues highlight a failure in timely communication and response to pharmacist recommendations.
Failure to Provide and Document Care According to Physician Orders and Facility Policy
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to provide care and services in accordance with professional standards and physician orders for three residents. For one resident with diabetes and neuropathy, there were multiple instances where wound care and foot cradle checks were not documented as completed according to physician orders. The Treatment Administration Records showed several dates where required wound care and foot cradle checks were either not signed or not completed, and the Director of Nursing confirmed that this care and documentation should have occurred as ordered. Another resident with congestive heart failure and Parkinson's disease had physician orders for daily weights and required provider notification for specific weight gains. The clinical record revealed several occasions where the resident experienced weight gains that met the criteria for provider notification, but there was no evidence that the provider was notified as required by the orders. The Director of Nursing was unable to provide documentation or evidence that these notifications took place. A third resident, admitted with an infection related to a hip prosthesis and receiving IV antibiotics via a PICC line, had multiple missing entries in the Medication Administration Record and Treatment Administration Record for administration of antibiotics, saline flushes, and PICC line care. The records also showed incomplete documentation of PICC line dressing changes and measurements, with one instance of a measurement being recorded as zero, which was not accurate. The Director of Nursing confirmed the missing documentation and that staff should have completed and documented all required care and measurements as per policy and physician orders.
Inaccurate Resident Assessments Identified
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure that resident assessments accurately reflected the residents' clinical status for three of nineteen residents reviewed. For one resident with diabetes mellitus and neuropathy, the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment did not indicate that the resident received an anticonvulsant medication, despite the Medication Administration Record (MAR) showing administration of gabapentin during the assessment period. For another resident with dementia and anxiety disorder, the MDS was coded to show receipt of a hypnotic medication, but the MAR did not document administration of such medication during the same period. Additionally, a third resident with type 2 diabetes mellitus and edema was found to have an unstageable pressure injury to the right heel that originated after admission. However, two MDS assessments incorrectly indicated that the pressure injury was present upon admission. These discrepancies were identified through clinical record reviews and staff interviews, demonstrating a failure to ensure the accuracy of resident assessments as required.
Failure to Document and Provide Ordered Pressure Ulcer Care
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure that residents with pressure ulcers received necessary treatment and services consistent with professional standards of practice. For two residents with pressure injuries, there were multiple instances where prescribed wound care treatments were not documented as completed on the Treatment Administration Records (TARs). Specifically, one resident with stage 3 pressure injuries to both heels had missing documentation for Betadine swabstick applications and for a regimen involving cleansing, skin prep, medical grade honey, calcium alginate, and bordered gauze. Another resident with an unstageable pressure injury to the right heel had missing documentation for wound care treatments involving cleansing, Betadine application, and dressing changes as ordered by the physician. The clinical records and wound care tracking confirmed the presence of significant pressure injuries in both residents, with relevant diagnoses including chronic pain, muscle weakness, type 2 diabetes mellitus, and edema. During an interview, the Nursing Home Administrator was unable to provide additional information regarding the missing wound care documentation and acknowledged that wound care should have been documented as completed. The findings were based on policy review, clinical record review, and staff interviews.
Failure to Monitor and Document Resident's Nutrition and Hydration Status
Penalty
Summary
A resident with diagnoses including chronic pain and muscle weakness experienced a significant weight loss of 9.52% over approximately one month. The dietician acknowledged this weight loss and implemented a plan to monitor the resident's weight weekly for one month, with corresponding physician orders to weigh the resident weekly on Tuesdays. However, there was no documentation of the resident's weight being recorded on one of the scheduled dates. Additionally, the resident had a physician's order for an enhanced shake to be provided three times daily to support nutritional intake. Review of the Treatment Administration Record (TAR) revealed that the enhanced shake was not documented as given at several scheduled times. During interviews, the Nursing Home Administrator was unable to provide explanations for the missing weight and shake documentation, though she confirmed that these actions were expected to have been completed and recorded.
Failure to Follow Transfer Protocols Results in Resident Injury
Penalty
Summary
The facility was found to be non-compliant with the requirement to ensure a resident environment free of accident hazards and to provide adequate supervision and assistance devices to prevent accidents. This deficiency was identified following an incident involving a resident with dementia, gait abnormalities, and muscle weakness, who sustained a skin tear during a transfer. The resident's care plan required a two-person assist using a mechanical lift for transfers, but this protocol was not followed. On the day of the incident, two nurse aides were involved in transferring the resident. They discovered that the lift pad was not properly positioned under the resident, which led them to decide on a stand/pivot transfer instead of using the mechanical lift as per the care plan. One of the aides, acting alone, lifted the resident by himself, resulting in the resident sustaining a significant skin tear on the right forearm. The aides were aware of the care plan requirements but chose to proceed with the manual transfer, believing it to be safer under the circumstances. The incident was further complicated by the fact that one of the aides did not assist with the transfer and only observed the process. The aides later admitted to not following the care plan and failing to seek assistance from a nurse to reposition the lift pad. The skin tear required treatment, and the resident experienced pain as a result of the injury. The facility's management expected the staff to adhere to the care plan and seek help if needed, which was not done in this case.
Failure to Monitor and Maintain Kitchen Equipment Temperatures
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to monitor and utilize kitchen equipment in accordance with professional standards, specifically regarding the dish machine in the main kitchen. Observations on August 12, 2024, revealed that the dish machine's wash cycle temperature was consistently below the minimum safe temperature of 160 degrees Fahrenheit, and the rinse cycle temperature was below the minimum safe temperature of 180 degrees Fahrenheit on several occasions. Despite these discrepancies, no corrective actions were recorded in the temperature logs for the dates when the temperatures were outside the acceptable range. Interviews with the Food Service Director and a Dietary Employee indicated that the dish machine might need more time to heat up to reach the required temperatures. However, the temperature logs from August 2024 and previous months, including May, June, and July 2024, showed repeated failures to meet the minimum temperature requirements during various meal shifts. Additionally, there were multiple instances where temperatures were not recorded at all for the kitchen and cafe refrigerators and freezers, indicating a lack of consistent monitoring. The facility's failure to maintain proper temperature logs and address the dish machine's temperature issues was further highlighted by the absence of any recorded corrective actions. This lack of adherence to professional standards for food service safety was acknowledged by the Nursing Home Administrator, who expressed an expectation for kitchen equipment to be properly utilized and monitored.
Failure to Document Restorative Care for Resident with Limited Mobility
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure that a resident with limited mobility received appropriate services and assistance to maintain or improve mobility. The facility's policy, titled Restorative Care Program, mandates that restorative services should prevent or slow functional decline and maintain the resident's highest practicable level of functioning. However, the facility did not adhere to this policy for a resident with chronic pain, anxiety, and a left above-the-knee amputation. The resident's care plan included restorative nursing programs for active range of motion to upper and lower extremities and dressing and grooming scheduled twice daily. Upon review of the resident's point of care documentation, it was found that there were multiple instances where the minutes or tolerance for the restorative programs were not documented. Specifically, there was a lack of documentation for the 7:00 AM sessions on several dates in July 2024, and for the 3:00 PM sessions on other dates in July and August 2024. Additionally, there were days when documentation was missing for both scheduled times. An interview with the Director of Nursing confirmed the absence of documentation and no evidence was provided to indicate that the resident's restorative program was implemented or refused on those dates.
Delayed Response to Pharmacist Recommendations
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure timely review and action upon medication irregularities reported by the licensed pharmacist for two residents. For one resident with diagnoses including dementia, anxiety, and osteoarthritis, a Medication Regimen Review (MRR) recommended the addition of a calcium and vitamin D supplement. Although the physician agreed with the recommendation, the order was not signed until over a month later, and the medication was not ordered until even later. The delay was attributed to the facility not receiving the pharmacy recommendation until two weeks after the MRR date, and further delays occurred in the return of the MRR by the Medical Director. For another resident with chronic pain, anxiety, and depression, an MRR noted the need for an assessment of lorazepam dosage related to regulations for a gradual dose reduction. The physician provided the rationale for no dosage reduction over a month after the MRR date. The delay was due to the facility not receiving the MRR from the pharmacy until nearly three weeks after it was dated. These delays indicate a failure in the timely communication and response to pharmacist recommendations, as required by the facility's policies.
Latest citations in Pennsylvania
A resident with dementia, psychotic disturbance, mood disturbance, and anxiety, residing on a locked unit with a wander guard, was able to leave the secured area by closely following a housekeeper through coded double doors and out a side door without being noticed. Staff did not check for residents before and after exiting the unit, and the resident left the premises, traveled into the community, and purchased food and a drink before being located by local police and returned without injury. The facility’s elopement policy required monitoring for missing residents and initiation of emergency procedures, but these measures were only implemented after the resident was discovered missing and an elopement alarm was activated.
Surveyors observed that dietary staff did not follow the facility’s personal hygiene policy requiring hair restraints, as two dietary employees worked over uncovered food on the tray line with uncovered mustaches. In the same food preparation area, equipment including a large mixer with an uncovered bowl, a Robot-coupe mixer, and a blender were stored and used beneath window frames with peeling paint, and a nearby window blind had dried food debris along its length. Another window frame above a storage rack of meal trays also had peeling paint, demonstrating unsanitary food storage and preparation conditions.
Surveyors determined that the facility failed to provide required written notices of transfers and discharges to multiple residents and/or their representatives, and did not notify the State LTC Ombudsman when residents were transferred to the hospital after changes in condition or left against medical advice. Record reviews showed repeated absence of documentation that residents or responsible parties received written information about the transfers, and that the Ombudsman was informed. The Administrator confirmed that these notifications were not sent.
The facility failed to address repeated grievances regarding slow responses to resident call bells. The grievance policy required acknowledgment and active resolution of both written and verbal complaints, yet multiple residents reported that call bells often went unanswered for more than 30 minutes. Resident council minutes over several consecutive months documented ongoing complaints about delayed call bell response, and grievance records showed multiple similar complaints over an extended period. The DON and the administrator acknowledged a pattern of complaints about slow call bell responses and confirmed that the facility had not responded to these grievances.
Surveyors found that the facility did not ensure a safe, clean, and comfortable environment on two nursing units, noting a shattered clear plastic fire extinguisher cover in a hallway between resident rooms, holes in bathroom walls, a dented and misshaped room entrance doorframe near the floor, a hole in the wall between resident beds, and dented, crumbling wallboard near a bathroom entrance. These conditions were cited under state regulations for licensee responsibility and management.
A deficiency was identified when a resident’s MDS assessment did not accurately reflect the resident’s need for corrective lenses. The resident had a history of diabetes mellitus and falls and was care planned for impaired vision with a requirement for glasses. Despite this, the MDS indicated that no corrective lenses were needed during the look-back period, while direct observation showed the resident wearing glasses, and the Administrator later confirmed the inaccuracy of the MDS documentation.
A resident with chronic kidney disease and DM was documented on the MDS as alert and frequently incontinent of urine, and the CAA indicated that urinary incontinence should be addressed in the care plan. Review of the resident’s current care plan showed no interventions related to urinary incontinence, and the DON confirmed there was no documented evidence that this identified care area was included in the plan.
A resident with chronic kidney disease, polyneuropathies, and muscle weakness, who had no cognitive impairment and required substantial staff assistance for showers and total assistance for transfers, was scheduled to receive showers twice weekly on the evening shift. Over a 30-day period, there was no documentation that showers were provided, offered, or refused, and the resident reported not having had a shower since admission. The DON confirmed the absence of documentation that shower care was offered or provided, resulting in a deficiency related to nursing services and ADL care.
Surveyors found that staff did not follow multiple physician orders for three residents. A resident with diabetes received ordered insulin even when blood glucose readings were below the ordered hold parameter. Another resident with cerebral palsy, DM, and heart failure had repeated significant overnight weight gains without evidence that the physician was notified as ordered. A third resident with anemia and CKD had ordered CBC and CMP lab tests that were not documented as completed. The DON confirmed there was no documentation that these physician orders were carried out.
Staff failed to follow facility policy and physician orders requiring documentation of non-pharmacological interventions (NPI’s) before administering PRN oxycodone for two residents. One resident with osteoarthritis, hip pain, and diabetes had orders for NPI documentation each shift and PRN oxycodone for moderate to severe pain, yet received the narcotic multiple times in a month without any recorded attempt of NPI’s beforehand. Another resident with a history of stroke, diabetes, hemiplegia, and hemiparesis also had orders to document NPI’s prior to PRN pain medication, but similarly received PRN oxycodone several times without documentation that NPI’s were tried first, resulting in noncompliance with state pharmacy and nursing service regulations.
Failure to Prevent Elopement From Secured Unit
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves a resident with unspecified dementia without behavioral disturbance, psychotic disturbance, mood disturbance, and anxiety who was admitted to the facility in November 2025 and resided on a locked, secured unit requiring a code to exit. The facility had a written "Wandering and Elopements" policy that directed staff, when a resident was missing, to initiate the elopement/missing resident emergency procedure, determine if the resident was on an authorized leave, search the building and premises if not authorized to leave, and notify administration, the resident’s representative, the attending physician, and law enforcement if the resident was not located. On the date of the incident, the resident closely followed a housekeeper through double doors on the ground floor into a back hallway and then out a side door, leaving the secured unit without authorization. The housekeeper was unaware that the resident had followed through the door, and staff failed to ensure the resident’s safety by not checking for residents before and after exiting the unit. An elopement alarm was later activated after the resident was found to be unaccounted for on the secured unit, and the facility’s established protocols were then initiated, including notification of local law enforcement. The resident was subsequently located off premises by local police, sitting in a relaxed manner, conversing appropriately with officers, holding a beverage, and with no visible injuries, and he denied pain or discomfort. Facility documentation showed that the resident had been able to travel far enough to purchase food and a drink at a restaurant, as evidenced by a receipt from a nearby McDonald’s. A progress note recorded that the resident had been noted not on the unit, an immediate search was conducted, administration and proper authorities were notified, and the resident was returned safely, with a skin check completed and the resident later observed in his room eating dinner. In an interview, the resident stated that it was taking too long to get out of the building, that he waited for an opportunity and took it, and that he wanted to leave and go back to his place. In a separate interview, the Nursing Home Administrator confirmed that staff failed to ensure the resident’s safety by not checking for residents before and after exiting the unit, leading to the elopement from the secured environment.
Unsanitary Food Storage and Staff Hygiene Practices in Dietary Department
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to store and handle food in a sanitary manner in the dietary department in accordance with its own policy and professional standards. The facility’s “Personal Hygiene” policy dated February 2, 2026, required all staff to wear hair restraints to effectively keep hair from contacting exposed food. During observation of the lunch meal service tray line on April 15, 2026, from 11:30 a.m. to 12:03 p.m., two dietary employees were observed working directly over uncovered food on the tray line with uncovered mustaches. In the same area, the window frame above the shelf where a large mixer with an uncovered bowl, a Robot-coupe mixer, and a blender were stored had peeling paint, while the Robot-coupe mixer and blender were actively being used to prepare resident food. Additionally, the blind in this window frame had dried food debris along its length, and another window frame above a storage rack of resident meal trays also had peeling paint. These conditions were cited under 42 CFR 483.60(i) Food Safety Requirements and 28 Pa. Code 201.14(a) Responsibility of licensee, and had been previously cited on March 26, 2025. No specific residents, medical histories, or clinical conditions were described in the report; the deficiency focused on environmental and staff hygiene practices in the dietary department during food preparation and tray line service.
Failure to Provide Required Written Transfer Notices and Ombudsman Notification
Penalty
Summary
Surveyors found that the facility failed to provide required written notifications of transfers and discharges to residents and/or their representatives, and failed to notify the Office of the State Long-Term Care Ombudsman for six residents who were transferred out of the facility. Clinical record review showed that one resident was transferred to the hospital after a change in condition on December 26, 2025, without documented evidence that the resident or responsible party received written information regarding the transfer or that a copy of the transfer notice was sent to the Ombudsman. Another resident was transferred to the hospital after a change in condition on January 9, 2026, with no documented evidence that the Ombudsman was notified of the transfer. Additional record reviews revealed that three more residents were transferred to the hospital after changes in condition on March 30, 2026, and March 12, 2026, without documentation that the residents and/or their responsible parties or legal representatives were provided written information regarding the transfers, or that the Ombudsman was notified. One resident left the facility against medical advice on February 3, 2026, and there was no documented evidence that the Ombudsman was notified of this transfer. In an interview on April 17, 2026, the Administrator confirmed that notifications of transfers were not sent to the residents and/or their representatives and that written notices of the transfers and discharge were not sent to the Office of the State Long-Term Care Ombudsman.
Failure to Address Repeated Grievances About Slow Call Bell Response
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to address ongoing grievances related to slow response times to resident call bells, as required by its grievance policy. The policy, last reviewed on February 24, 2026, stated that grievances could be either formal written complaints or verbal complaints to staff, and that the facility was to acknowledge and actively work toward resolution of such complaints. During a confidential resident group interview on April 14, 2026, all four participating residents reported that call bells were answered slowly, often taking more than 30 minutes. Review of resident council minutes from September 8, 2025, through December 11, 2025, showed repeated complaints about slow call bell responses at each monthly meeting, with no evidence that any resident council minutes were recorded in 2026. Additionally, review of resident grievances from October 31, 2025, through March 23, 2026, revealed multiple complaints about slow call bell responses on several dates in late 2025 and early 2026. In an interview on April 17, 2026, the DON and Nursing Home Administrator confirmed there was a pattern of complaints about slow call bell responses and that the facility had failed to respond to those grievances. These findings demonstrate that the facility did not honor residents’ rights to have grievances acknowledged and addressed, despite repeated verbal and written complaints documented through resident council minutes and the grievance process.
Damaged Walls, Doorframes, and Fire Extinguisher Cover Compromise Safe, Homelike Environment
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to maintain a safe, clean, comfortable, and homelike environment on two of five nursing units, specifically the [NAME] and [NAME] units. During observations conducted over two days, surveyors noted that the clear plastic fire extinguisher cover in the hallway between rooms 135 and 137 was shattered. In one resident bathroom, there were holes on the left and right walls, and the doorframe at the entrance to another resident room was dented and misshaped near the floor. Additionally, there was a hole in the wall between the beds in another resident room, and the wallboard at the bottom of the wall to the right of the entrance to a bathroom in yet another room was dented and crumbling. These environmental deficiencies were directly observed in resident care areas and common hallways and were cited under 28 Pa. Code 201.14(a) regarding the responsibility of the licensee and 28 Pa. Code 201.18(e)(2.1) regarding management responsibilities.
Inaccurate MDS Documentation of Resident’s Need for Corrective Lenses
Penalty
Summary
A deficiency occurred when the facility failed to ensure that the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment accurately reflected a resident’s current status. Clinical record review showed that Resident 139 had diagnoses including diabetes mellitus and a history of falls, and the resident required glasses to correct impaired vision. The resident’s care plan documented a problem with impaired vision and indicated that glasses were required beginning March 8, 2022. However, the MDS assessment dated [DATE] documented in Section B (Hearing, Speech, and Vision) that the resident did not require corrective lenses during the previous seven days. On observation on April 14, 2026, at 11:00 a.m., Resident 139 was noted to be wearing glasses. In an interview on April 17, 2026, at 1:00 p.m., the Administrator confirmed that the MDS assessment for this resident was inaccurate, as it did not reflect the resident’s actual need for and use of corrective lenses during the assessment look-back period.
Failure to Include Urinary Incontinence in Comprehensive Care Plan
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to develop a comprehensive care plan that addressed an identified care area for one resident. Clinical record review showed that this resident had chronic kidney disease and diabetes mellitus, and a Minimum Data Set completed on February 20, 2026, documented that the resident was alert and frequently incontinent of urine. The Care Area Assessment summary dated the same day specified that the resident’s urinary incontinence was to be addressed in the care plan. However, review of the current care plan revealed no evidence that interventions for urinary incontinence were included. In an interview on April 17, 2026, at 10:25 a.m., the Director of Nursing confirmed that there was no documented evidence that this identified care area was addressed in the resident’s care plan.
Failure to Provide Scheduled Showers and Document ADL Care
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to provide and document assistance with activities of daily living, specifically showering, for one resident who was dependent on staff for this care. The resident was admitted on March 12, 2026, with diagnoses including chronic kidney disease, polyneuropathies, and muscle weakness. A Minimum Data Set assessment dated March 19, 2026, showed the resident had no cognitive impairment, required substantial staff assistance for showers, and was totally dependent on staff for transfers. Facility documentation indicated the resident was scheduled to receive showers on Wednesdays and Saturdays during the evening shift. However, the resident reported on April 14, 2026, that they had not had a shower since admission, and review of the clinical record showed no evidence that a shower had been provided, offered, or refused during the previous 30 days. The DON confirmed on April 16, 2026, that there was no documented evidence that showers were offered or provided to this resident. This deficiency was cited under 28 Pa. Code 211.12(d)(1)(5) related to nursing services.
Failure to Follow Physician Orders for Insulin, Weight Monitoring, and Lab Tests
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to implement and follow physicians’ orders for three residents. For one resident with diabetes mellitus, a physician ordered Novolog insulin to be administered in the morning prior to breakfast, with instructions to hold the insulin if the resident’s blood sugar was less than 80 mg/dL. Review of the April 2026 MAR showed that staff administered the insulin on three occasions when the resident’s blood sugar was below 80 mg/dL, contrary to the physician’s order. Another resident with cerebral palsy, diabetes mellitus, and heart failure had a physician’s order to be weighed every night shift and to notify the physician if the resident gained more than 2 lbs in 24 hours or 5 lbs in one week. Clinical records showed multiple instances of significant weight gains over 24-hour periods, including gains of 4.7 lbs, 3.4 lbs, 6 lbs, 2.3 lbs, 5.8 lbs, 4 lbs, 2.4 lbs, and 3.3 lbs, without documented evidence that the physician was notified as ordered. A third resident with anemia and chronic kidney disease had a physician’s order for two blood tests (CBC and CMP), but the clinical record contained no documentation that these lab tests were obtained. The DON confirmed there was no documented evidence that care and services were provided in accordance with these physicians’ orders.
Failure to Document Non-Pharmacological Interventions Before PRN Narcotic Administration
Penalty
Summary
Facility staff failed to follow the facility’s pain management policy and specific physician orders requiring documentation of non-pharmacological interventions (NPI’s) and their effectiveness prior to administering as-needed narcotic pain medication for two residents. The policy, last reviewed February 24, 2026, required staff to document NPI’s and their effectiveness for patients receiving pain interventions. For a resident with left knee osteoarthritis, right hip pain, and diabetes, a physician ordered on March 17, 2026, that NPI’s be documented every shift, and on April 6, 2026, ordered oxycodone every four hours as needed for moderate to severe pain. Review of the MAR showed that this resident received as-needed oxycodone 23 times in April 2026 without documented evidence that NPI’s were attempted prior to administration. Another resident with diagnoses including cerebral infarction (stroke), diabetes, hemiplegia, and hemiparesis had a physician order dated February 7, 2026, directing staff to document NPI’s used before administering as-needed pain medication, and an order dated April 3, 2026, for oxycodone every four hours as needed for moderate to severe pain. MAR review revealed this resident received as-needed oxycodone nine times in April 2026 without documented evidence that NPI’s were attempted prior to administration, in violation of 28 Pa. Code 211.9(a)(1) Pharmacy services and 28 Pa. Code 211.12(d)(1)(5) Nursing services.
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.
