Good Samaritan Society New Underwood
Inspection history, citations, penalties and survey trends for this long-term care facility in New Underwood, South Dakota.
- Location
- 412 South Madison, New Underwood, South Dakota 57761
- CMS Provider Number
- 435104
- Inspections on file
- 19
- Latest survey
- December 8, 2025
- Citations (last 12 mo.)
- 11
Citation history
Health deficiencies cited at Good Samaritan Society New Underwood during CMS and state inspections, most recent first.
A CNA verbally abused a resident with severe cognitive impairment, and the incident was not reported immediately as required. The witnessing CNA delayed reporting the event, and facility leadership was not informed until several days later, contrary to policy requiring prompt notification of abuse allegations.
A CNA assisted a resident with severe cognitive impairment and multiple medical conditions in walking without using a gait belt, as required by the care plan and facility policy. The resident lost balance, fell, and sustained a head hematoma and a left femur fracture requiring surgery. Staff interviews and record reviews confirmed the CNA had received training on gait belt use, but the required safety device was not used during the incident.
A resident developed a facility-acquired pressure ulcer due to inadequate prevention and documentation practices. Despite having a care plan with interventions like repositioning and pressure-relieving devices, the ulcer was not properly documented, and required measurements were missing. Staff interviews revealed inconsistencies in implementing prevention strategies, and the facility's policy on wound assessment was not followed.
The facility failed to provide scheduled bathing to 13 residents during the absence of the designated CNA/bath aide. Despite all CNAs being trained to bathe residents, the absence of the bath aide due to surgery led to significant delays, with some residents going up to 20 days without a bath. The DON assumed the RN would reassign bathing duties, but this did not happen, resulting in missed baths and resident dissatisfaction.
The facility failed to ensure proper labeling and storage of medications, with unlabeled medications for three residents, an undated insulin pen, and unlocked medication carts. An expired medication was not disposed of, and open gauze dressings lacked identification. Staff confirmed these issues, and the DON verified and notified the pharmacy.
A facility failed to implement proper infection control precautions for residents with MRSA, VRE, MDR infections, and a positive TB test. Observations showed a lack of PPE availability and improper use during care. A resident with a positive TB test was not isolated, and staff did not wear gowns during high-contact care for another resident. The infection preventionist and administrator were not immediately informed of these issues.
The facility failed to maintain accurate records for controlled substances, with missing signatures on Narcotic Control Sheets and Controlled Drug Records for several residents. Interviews revealed that staff did not consistently follow the policy for counting and verifying medications at shift changes.
The facility failed to discontinue PRN psychotropic medications for two residents after 14 days and did not ensure appropriate diagnoses for their use. A resident received lorazepam beyond the mandated period, and two residents were prescribed psychotropic medications without corresponding diagnoses of anxiety or behavioral disturbances, contrary to facility policy.
The facility failed to maintain kitchen sanitation and proper food handling practices. Kitchenware was stored unsanitarily, and food items in resident refrigerators were not labeled or dated. The lead cook handled kitchenware in a way that risked cross-contamination. The dietary manager was aware of these issues but did not ensure tasks were completed.
Two residents in a LTC facility had care plans that were not updated to reflect their current needs. One resident with severe cognitive impairment had missing interventions for falls and behavior management, while another resident with moderate cognitive impairment was observed walking without her walker and improperly using a lift chair, with these issues not documented in her care plan.
The facility failed to follow professional standards in pain management for a cognitively impaired resident, administering oxycodone contrary to physician orders. Additionally, a required safety smoking assessment was not completed for a resident who smoked, despite the facility's non-smoking policy. These deficiencies highlight lapses in adhering to pain management and smoking policies.
A resident with a left humerus fracture and vascular dementia did not receive physician-ordered bowel management interventions, despite being on pain medications that could cause constipation. The resident's EMR showed two periods without a bowel movement for at least three days, but no PRN medications were administered, and there was no documentation of physician notification or intervention implementation. Nursing staff failed to document responses to alerts about the resident's bowel activity, contrary to facility policy.
A facility failed to implement a registered dietician's recommendations for a resident at nutritional risk due to weight loss. The resident, who had been hospitalized and experienced a decline, was not served the recommended nutritional supplements and foods during meals. Observations showed untouched supplements on the resident's nightstand, and interviews revealed a lack of communication and implementation of dietary interventions. The facility also lacked a specific policy for addressing weight loss.
Three residents in a LTC facility were found with inaccessible call light systems, despite needing assistance. One resident with severe cognitive impairment had her call light clipped to the wall, out of reach. Another resident with left-side paralysis had his call light on the floor and later in a drawer, both times inaccessible. A third resident, with intact cognition but multiple medical conditions, often found her call light out of reach, relying on her cell phone to call for help. The facility's policy requires call lights to be within easy reach.
Failure to Timely Report Alleged Verbal Abuse
Penalty
Summary
An allegation of verbal abuse occurred when a certified nursing assistant (CNA) called a resident a profanity while providing care. Another CNA witnessed the incident and questioned the staff member involved, who confirmed the comment was directed at the resident before leaving the room. The witnessing CNA did not immediately report the incident to facility management, instead waiting several days before notifying the provider. The resident involved was assessed after the delayed report and was found to be severely cognitively impaired, rarely able to understand or communicate, and diagnosed with Alzheimer's disease, cerebral infarction, and dementia with behavioral disturbances. The facility administrator was unaware of the alleged abuse until it was reported by the director of nursing, who had been informed by a licensed practical nurse after the initial delay. The facility's policy required immediate reporting of abuse allegations to a supervisor to initiate an investigation, but this protocol was not followed in this instance. The delay in reporting the incident constituted a failure to ensure timely reporting of suspected abuse as required.
Failure to Use Gait Belt During Resident Ambulation Results in Fall and Injury
Penalty
Summary
A certified nursing assistant (CNA) failed to use a gait belt while assisting a resident with ambulation to her room, contrary to the resident's care plan and facility policy. The resident, who was severely cognitively impaired and had multiple diagnoses including osteoporosis, dementia, and a history of fractures, lost her balance and fell backward. The CNA was unable to prevent the fall due to not using the required gait belt, resulting in the resident striking the back of her head. Following the fall, the resident was assessed and found to have a hematoma on the back of her head and was subsequently transferred to the emergency department. Further evaluation revealed a left femur fracture that required surgical intervention. The resident's care plan specifically indicated the need for one-person assistance with a gait belt and walker during ambulation, which was not followed at the time of the incident. Interviews with facility staff and review of records confirmed that the CNA had previously received training on safe resident handling and fall prevention, and that the facility's policy required the use of gait belts for ambulation and transfers. The director of nursing acknowledged prior discussions with the CNA regarding safety issues, including not following care plans and not using gait belts. Despite ongoing education and posted reminders, there was no formal documentation of staff education or audits to ensure compliance with gait belt use at the time of the incident.
Failure to Prevent and Document Pressure Ulcer
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to prevent a resident from developing a facility-acquired pressure ulcer and did not accurately assess and document the ulcer. The resident, who was cognitively intact and had a history of hemiplegia and other medical conditions, developed a pressure ulcer on her left buttock. Despite the presence of a care plan that included interventions such as repositioning every two hours and using pressure-relieving devices, the ulcer was not properly documented, and the required measurements were missing. Interviews with staff revealed inconsistencies in the implementation of pressure ulcer prevention strategies. A CNA was unsure of the specific interventions for the resident due to her preference for female caregivers, while an RN and the DON outlined expected interventions such as good skin care, pressure-relieving mattresses, and regular skin assessments. However, the documentation did not reflect these practices, as the wound assessments were incomplete and lacked necessary measurements. The facility's policy required weekly wound assessments and documentation of wound measurements, but these were not followed. The infection preventionist/wound care RN stated that shearing wounds did not require measurement according to their policy, which contradicted the facility's own guidelines. This lack of adherence to policy and incomplete documentation contributed to the deficiency in pressure ulcer care for the resident.
Failure to Provide Scheduled Bathing During CNA Absence
Penalty
Summary
The provider failed to ensure that bathing was provided to 13 out of 16 sampled residents during the absence of the designated CNA/bath aide responsible for bathing. The deficiency was identified through interviews and record reviews, revealing that residents were not bathed according to the facility's policy of at least once per week. The CNA/bath aide, who was in charge of the bathing schedule, was absent due to a scheduled hand surgery, and during this period, residents experienced significant delays in receiving their baths, with some going up to 20 days without a bath. Interviews with staff and residents highlighted that while all CNAs were trained to bathe residents, the absence of the designated bath aide led to a lack of coordination and failure to reassign the task effectively. The Director of Nursing assumed that the RN responsible for scheduling would allocate other staff to cover the bathing duties, but this did not occur. Residents expressed dissatisfaction with the missed baths, and documentation confirmed the extended intervals between baths for several residents, indicating a systemic issue in managing staff responsibilities during absences.
Medication Labeling and Storage Deficiencies
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure proper labeling and storage of medications and biologicals, as well as maintaining secure medication carts. During observations, it was noted that medications for three residents were not properly labeled, including a Calcium Citrate with vitamin D medication card without a dose, a Preservision order that did not match the label, and a Senna S medication card with a mismatched name. Additionally, an insulin pen for one resident was not dated when opened, leading to its disposal due to the inability to verify its opening date. Furthermore, two medication carts were found unlocked and unattended in the hallways, posing a risk to medication security. The facility also failed to dispose of outdated medications properly. An observation revealed that a hydrocodone-acetaminophen medication card for a resident had expired, yet it remained in the medication cart. Open packages of Hydrogel Impregnated Gauze Dressing were found without an opened date or resident identification. Interviews with staff confirmed these deficiencies, and the Director of Nursing verified the issues and notified the pharmacy. The facility's policies on medication administration and storage were not adhered to, contributing to these deficiencies.
Inadequate Implementation of Infection Control Precautions
Penalty
Summary
The provider failed to ensure proper implementation and utilization of contact precautions for a resident with a history of MRSA, VRE, and MDR infections. Observations revealed that although a sign was posted on the resident's door indicating the need for contact precautions, there were no gloves or gowns available outside the room. A registered nurse entered the room, washed her hands, and wore gloves but did not wear a gown while performing tube feeding. The infection preventionist was unaware of the lack of PPE outside the room and stated that a trashcan should be inside the room for PPE disposal. Another deficiency was noted in the handling of a resident who tested positive for tuberculosis. The resident was not separated from others while awaiting further tests, and the Director of Nursing was not immediately informed of the positive test result. The resident's roommate was not moved, and the expectation was that the resident should have been isolated until the chest x-ray results were available. The administrator expected immediate notification and isolation of the resident. Enhanced barrier precautions were not properly implemented for a resident with an indwelling urinary catheter and daily dressing changes. Observations showed that staff did not wear gowns during high-contact care activities, such as wound care. The infection preventionist expected staff to wear gowns and gloves during such activities, but this was not adhered to, as evidenced by the observations of the care provided.
Failure to Maintain Accurate Controlled Substance Records
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to adhere to its policy for maintaining a physical inventory count of controlled substances at each shift change, as well as ensuring accurate medication reconciliation for controlled medications received from the pharmacy. This deficiency was observed in two medication carts where signatures were missing on the Narcotic Control Sheets, indicating that the required counts were not consistently performed. Specific instances included missing signatures on various dates and times, such as on 1/7/25, 1/18/25, 1/21/25, 1/22/25, and 1/23/25, among others. Additionally, the Controlled Drug Records for several residents lacked documentation of the quantity, date, or nurse's signature to verify the receipt of medications like Tramadol, lorazepam, and oxycodone. Interviews with staff, including an LPN and the DON, revealed that the facility's policy required the licensed nurse on duty to count and verify controlled medications upon receipt from the pharmacy and document the necessary details on the controlled drug record. However, the interviews confirmed that there were missing nurse signatures on the controlled drug records and Narcotic Control Sheets, indicating a failure to comply with the policy. The facility's policy also required that controlled medication counts be conducted between each shift change, with both the off-going and on-coming nurse or medication aide signing off to verify the count, which was not consistently done.
Failure to Discontinue PRN Psychotropic Medications and Lack of Appropriate Diagnoses
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure that PRN psychotropic medications for two residents were discontinued after the mandated 14-day period. Resident 12 had a physician's order for lorazepam to be administered every 24 hours as needed for combativeness, with a note indicating a stop date of 14 days. However, the medication was administered beyond this period on two occasions, and the order was not discontinued as required. The Director of Nursing (DON) acknowledged that it was the responsibility of a licensed nurse to enter a stop date for the medication, which did not occur. Additionally, the facility did not ensure that appropriate diagnoses were associated with the use of psychotropic medications for two residents. Resident 2 had a severe cognitive impairment and was prescribed lorazepam without an associated diagnosis of anxiety or behavioral disturbances. Similarly, Resident 28, who also had severe cognitive impairment, was prescribed Ativan for anxiety without a corresponding diagnosis. The DON confirmed that there were no diagnoses associated with the Ativan orders for these residents, only indications for use, which did not align with the facility's policy requiring a documented specific condition for PRN psychotropic drug use.
Deficiencies in Kitchen Sanitation and Food Handling
Penalty
Summary
The provider failed to ensure that kitchenware was stored in a clean and sanitary manner, as observed during a kitchen tour. Multiple plastic water pitchers and lids were stored upside down in a damp drawer, and kitchen utensils were stored in drawers with food crumbs. A wall-mounted knife holder also had food crumbs. Despite a cleaning list indicating that utensil drawers were cleaned, these unsanitary conditions were present. Food items in refrigerators designated for resident use were not properly labeled or dated. A carton of ice cream and a jar of jam lacked open or expiration dates. Additionally, the resident refrigerator had a significant ice build-up, and the side-by-side refrigerator had a dried red substance inside. Interviews revealed that all staff were responsible for cleaning and checking the refrigerators, but this was not adequately done. The lead cook was observed handling kitchenware in a manner that increased the risk of cross-contamination. He used his bare thumb to hold the inside rim of containers and plates, touched various surfaces without performing hand hygiene, and placed reusable squeeze bottles directly into salad mix. The dietary manager acknowledged these practices were inappropriate and increased the risk of cross-contamination, but had not ensured that assigned tasks were completed as requested.
Care Plan Deficiencies for Two Residents
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure that care plans were reviewed and revised to reflect the current care needs for two residents. Resident 2, who has severe cognitive impairment and a history of Alzheimer's disease, was observed with a Wander guard and interventions for behaviors and falls. However, her care plan did not include all the interventions identified by staff, such as the use of a pressure call light under her hip to alert staff when she was getting up. Additionally, her care plan lacked specific modifications to minimize potential behavior problems, despite her history of wandering and exit-seeking behavior. Resident 35, who has moderate cognitive impairment and a history of dementia, was observed walking without her walker and improperly using her lift chair. Her care plan did not address the use of the lift chair with heat and massage features, nor did it include interventions for frequent visualizations and ensuring she had her walker. Although staff were aware of these needs, they were not documented in her care plan, leading to inconsistencies in her care. Interviews with staff revealed that care plans were intended to be person-centered and updated regularly, but there were gaps in communication and documentation. The Minimum Data Set (MDS) registered nurse acknowledged that interventions discussed in meetings were not always entered into the care plans, and there was a lack of awareness about certain interventions, such as the use of a gold gait belt for Resident 35. This lack of documentation and communication contributed to the deficiencies in the care provided to these residents.
Deficiencies in Pain Management and Smoking Assessment
Penalty
Summary
The provider failed to adhere to professional standards of practice in the administration of pain medication for a resident with severe cognitive impairment. The resident, who had a left humerus fracture and vascular dementia, was unable to rate her pain using a numeric scale due to her cognitive condition. Despite this, oxycodone was administered 12 times, with seven instances not aligning with the physician's order, which specified administration only for pain levels of 8-10. The nursing staff used a faces pain assessment scale instead of obtaining physician clarification for an appropriate pain scale, leading to medication errors. Additionally, the facility did not complete a required safety smoking assessment for a resident who smoked. This resident, who had intact cognition and multiple health conditions including COPD and Alzheimer's Disease, was readmitted from the hospital with a positive indication for tobacco use. Despite the facility's non-smoking policy and the resident's care plan indicating she could only leave the facility with family, no documented safe smoking assessment was completed upon her readmission. The facility's policies on pain management and physician order clarification were not followed, as nursing staff failed to notify the physician about the resident's inability to verbally rate her pain. Similarly, the tobacco-free policy was not adhered to, as the necessary smoking assessment was not conducted for the resident who smoked, potentially posing a safety hazard.
Failure to Implement Physician-Ordered Bowel Management
Penalty
Summary
The provider failed to implement and document physician-ordered bowel management interventions and follow a physician-ordered therapeutic diet for a resident. The resident, who had a left humerus fracture and vascular dementia, was observed being transferred from her wheelchair to her bed, expressing pain when her left arm was moved. Her electronic medical record indicated she was on pain medications that could cause constipation, and she had specific orders for bowel management, including stool softeners and PRN medications for constipation. However, none of the PRN medications were administered in January 2025, despite documentation showing two periods where the resident went without a bowel movement for at least three days. Interviews with nursing staff revealed that the certified nurse aides documented bowel activity, and nursing staff were expected to review and implement interventions based on this documentation. However, there was no documentation to support that the physician was notified or that the ordered interventions were implemented when the resident had no significant bowel movement for three days. The director of nursing confirmed that the interdisciplinary team discussed residents with no bowel movements after three days, and alerts were supposed to prompt nursing staff to document a response, which did not occur in this case. The facility's bowel and bladder policy aimed to ensure appropriate treatment and services for residents with bowel or bladder incontinence, but this was not followed for the resident in question.
Failure to Implement Dietary Recommendations for Resident at Nutritional Risk
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to implement the registered dietician's (RD) recommendations for a resident at nutritional risk due to weight loss. The resident, who had been hospitalized with an upper respiratory infection and developed COVID-19, experienced a physical and behavioral decline upon returning to the facility. Observations revealed that nutritional supplements and fluids were left untouched on the resident's nightstand, and the resident was not served the recommended nutritional supplements, whole milk, or smooth foods during meals as advised by the RD. The resident's electronic medical record indicated a significant weight loss from 125 lbs. to 104.4 lbs. over several months, with the RD recommending specific dietary interventions to prevent further weight loss. These recommendations included serving Boost +, whole milk, and other high-calorie foods at meals. However, the dietary manager failed to update the resident's menu card to reflect these interventions, and the food service staff did not provide the recommended supplements and foods during meal times. Interviews with staff revealed a lack of communication and implementation of the RD's dietary recommendations. The dietary manager admitted to not updating the menu card, and the food service assistant was unaware of the resident's need for certain supplements. Additionally, the director of nursing acknowledged that the resident could not access the supplements left on her nightstand without assistance, compromising their safety and palatability. The facility lacked a specific policy for addressing weight loss, further contributing to the deficiency.
Inaccessible Call Light Systems for Residents
Penalty
Summary
The provider failed to ensure that an in-room call light system was accessible for three residents who required staff assistance for their care needs. Resident 28, who had severe cognitive impairment and was at risk for falls, was observed in her wheelchair with the call light clipped to the wall receptacle, out of her reach. Despite the presence of a staff member in the room, the call light was not repositioned before the staff member exited, leaving the resident unable to call for assistance. Resident 32, also with severe cognitive impairment and left-side paralysis, was observed with his call light on the floor and later in a drawer, both times out of reach, contrary to his care plan which specified the call light should be placed near his right hand. Resident 10, who had intact cognition but multiple medical conditions, reported that staff often forgot to place her call light within reach, forcing her to use her cell phone to call for assistance. During an observation, her call light was clipped to a divider curtain, inaccessible from her bed. The Director of Nursing confirmed that the expectation was for call lights to be within reach, and audits were being conducted on call light placement and response times. The facility's policy stated that call lights should always be within easy reach of residents when staff leave the room.
Latest citations in South Dakota
Two residents experienced failures in timely implementation of physician orders and provider notification. One resident with cognitive impairment, respiratory failure, pneumonia, and a urinary catheter had a UA/UC ordered after increased confusion, but catheter change and urine collection were delayed and inconsistent, and an antibiotic order faxed for a UTI was left on a reception fax machine and never started before a later order changed therapy based on culture results. Lab reports showing Enterobacter cloacae and susceptibility to a different antibiotic were not consistently documented as reviewed, and the resident continued to exhibit confusion and flank pain until transfer to the ER. Another resident with ESRD on dialysis, hypotension, hypertension, and heart failure had orders for Midodrine with BP parameters and daily Metoprolol, but Midodrine was not given on dialysis mornings and Metoprolol was rarely given on dialysis days, without notifying the physician. Very low BPs were recorded without documented provider notification or repeat checks, despite a TAR requiring monitoring for post-dialysis complications. Interviews and policy review showed expectations to follow orders and notify physicians of abnormal labs, omitted medications, and changes in condition, which were not met in these cases.
Two residents at high risk for pressure ulcers did not receive consistent, individualized prevention and treatment measures, resulting in the development and worsening of multiple pressure injuries. One resident with severe cognitive impairment and high Braden risk, fully dependent on staff for mobility and hygiene, was repeatedly observed in bed with the head of bed elevated and sliding down, without documented q2h repositioning, individualized pressure-relief interventions, or consistent use of barrier cream, and CNAs and restorative staff were unaware of specific pressure-prevention measures for her. Another resident with multiple comorbidities, prior healed pressure ulcers, and a high Braden score developed recurrent stage II and III pressure ulcers to the coccyx and gluteal fold, a left heel DTI, and a left lateral leg stage II ulcer; ordered wound treatments were not documented as completed on at least one ordered date, he was not on a defined turning schedule despite being largely bedfast, and heel offloading and use of heel boots were inconsistently implemented and documented. In both cases, staff interviews and record review showed that facility practices did not consistently align with the facility’s own skin and pressure injury prevention policy requiring q2h repositioning, appropriate support surfaces, and systematic offloading for bedfast residents.
The deficiency centers on unsafe resident transfers and unsecured chemicals. A resident with hemiplegia and severe cognitive impairment, care planned for a one-person sit-to-stand (STS) lift transfer, was instead manually transferred by a CNA without the lift, during which the resident’s legs gave out, he was lowered to the floor, hit his head, and later was found to have a subdural hematoma. Another resident with severe cognitive impairment and documented inability to meet STS criteria was nonetheless assessed and care planned for STS transfers, while staff and family intermittently pivot transferred her without a gait belt and with inconsistent use of mechanical lifts, amid reports that pocket care plans and Kardex information were not kept up to date. Additionally, surveyors repeatedly observed an open tub room with unlabeled and labeled chemical spray bottles accessible on the tub, and an unattended housekeeping cart in the dining room with toilet bowl cleaner and other disinfectants unlocked and reachable by residents, contrary to staff statements that such rooms and chemicals were to be secured.
The facility failed to consistently honor resident preferences and care‑planned frequency for bathing, resulting in multiple residents going six to ten days or longer between baths despite being scheduled for twice‑weekly showers or baths. Several residents, including those with impaired and intact cognition, reported missed or inconsistent baths, needing to repeatedly remind CNAs, and being told they were skipped due to other residents waiting longer, staffing shortages, or equipment issues. Observations included a resident with long, jagged fingernails and urine odor who reported missed scheduled showers. Review of EMRs and the bath schedule showed numerous missed baths without documented refusals or valid reasons, while the grievance log and resident council minutes documented ongoing complaints from multiple residents about not receiving baths as scheduled. Nursing staff acknowledged receiving complaints and that residents sometimes went more than a week without bathing, despite a facility policy stating residents have the right to choose timing and frequency of bathing and requiring documentation of bathing activity or refusals.
Two cognitively intact residents with significant ROM and mobility limitations did not receive their care-planned restorative nursing programs as ordered. One resident with DM, neuropathy, above-knee amputation, and CKD reported increasing stiffness and weakness and stated that staff no longer brought her for exercises; records showed only sporadic lower extremity and kinetic bike sessions over several months despite physician orders and a care plan for regular AROM and restorative activities. Another resident with RA, polyneuropathy, and prior fractures, who used a power wheelchair, reported not receiving her prescribed exercise program and feeling she was losing strength; her MDS and restorative documentation showed no completed restorative exercises or standing with a walker despite a detailed restorative care plan. Therapy staff and RAs confirmed written restorative recommendations and expectations for 3–6 sessions per week, but reported that two RAs were responsible for about 44 residents, could not see all residents daily, prioritized those more willing or independent, and were unsure when these two residents last received restorative exercises, while the DON acknowledged awareness of staffing difficulties and confirmed the minimal restorative services actually provided.
Staff failed to maintain dignity, hygiene, and privacy for multiple dependent residents. A resident with severe cognitive impairment and depression was left in bed in nightclothes with dried food and juice on her body and linens, and was observed with a dried substance on her nose that was not cleaned over time, despite her reliance on staff for all personal care. Another cognitively impaired resident, dependent on staff for hygiene and dressing, was repeatedly observed wearing a heavily soiled shirt, with food in his beard and thick residue on his fingers, and continued to spill coffee on himself in the dining room without staff assistance or interventions; there was no documentation that he refused care. A third cognitively impaired resident with severe mental illness and risk for abuse and neglect was provided incontinence care while standing at the sink in a shared room without adequate use of the privacy curtain or window blinds, allowing his roommate and potentially others to see him during intimate care, contrary to facility policy and staff expectations.
A resident with severe cognitive impairment, dementia, metabolic encephalopathy, a history of stage II pressure ulcers, and a urinary catheter was left in a dining room for about ten hours without receiving care as outlined in the care plan. The resident’s plan required repositioning every two hours, substantial assistance with toileting hygiene every two to three hours, monitoring of urine output each shift, and extensive assistance with transfers and wheelchair mobility. On the day of the incident, the resident was brought to the dining room in the morning and not returned to his room until evening, and the assigned CNA and LPN did not provide the scheduled care during this time. The facility’s investigation determined that this failure to follow the care plan and provide necessary care for an extended period constituted neglect.
A resident with a history of making allegations of rough care and a care plan requiring all care to be provided by two caregivers was assisted by a single CNA, contrary to the documented "cares in pairs" intervention. The care plan identified manipulative behavior and alleged mistreatment, and specified that two caregivers should be present to address the resident’s needs and observe the entire care session. On one occasion, the CNA entered the room alone and began providing care, after which the resident reported to an LPN that the CNA had been rough, leading to a deficiency citation for failure to follow the resident’s care plan under F684.
Two residents who required two-person assistance with mechanical lifts were subjected to unsafe transfers when CNAs used improperly sized, mispositioned, or incompatible full-body slings and did not follow manufacturer instructions. In one case, a resident newly admitted with a hospital-provided sling was lowered to the floor during a lift transfer after sliding forward in the sling, resulting in reported rib pain but no fractures on X-ray. In another case, a resident’s wheelchair pad and handle became entangled in a large sling during a lift, causing the wheelchair and resident to be lifted off the floor; the sling remained incorrectly positioned at mid-back when the resident was lifted again and moved to bed. Multiple CNAs and nurses reported no recent facility-specific training or competencies on mechanical or sit-to-stand lifts, selected sling sizes by guessing based on body type or using whatever sling was in the room, and lacked clear, updated care plan or Kardex documentation specifying lift type and sling size for residents who required mechanical lifts.
A resident with moderately impaired cognition, Parkinson’s disease, dementia, high fall risk, and moderate pressure-ulcer risk, who required a sit-to-stand lift and maximal assistance for toileting and hygiene, was taken to a beauty shop bathroom by a CMA and left unattended with the lift attached, the door closed, and no call light activated. The resident was later found by a nurse after an extended, unknown period and had transient redness on the buttocks consistent with prolonged sitting. Documentation lacked a post-incident pain and skin assessment. Staff interviews showed there was no clear, consistent process for how often CNAs should check on residents left on toilets, and an observation revealed a staff member failed to change the beauty shop door sign to indicate occupancy, all occurring under a facility neglect policy that defines neglect as failure to provide necessary goods and services to avoid harm.
Failure to Follow Physician Orders and Notify Providers for Infection Management and Dialysis-Related Care
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves failures to follow physician orders in a timely manner and to notify providers of significant clinical information for two residents. For one resident with moderate cognitive impairment, respiratory failure, pneumonia, and an indwelling urinary catheter, the physician ordered a UA/UC after the resident’s son reported increased confusion and requested urine testing. The order for catheter change and urine collection was received and noted, but the catheter change documented on the treatment record as due on one date was not completed until early the next morning. Lab reports show urine samples collected on two different dates and times, with one sample having been collected and then recollected. The resident’s son reported being told that a urine sample had sat in the refrigerator too long and had to be recollected, and that the facility did not start the initially ordered antibiotic while the culture was pending. The lab ultimately reported Enterobacter cloacae complex in high colony counts, and the physician ordered cefuroxime, then later discontinued it and ordered nitrofurantoin based on susceptibility results. The cefuroxime order, faxed on a Friday, was not implemented because it remained on a fax machine in the front reception area over the weekend and was not found until the following Tuesday, at the same time the later order to stop cefuroxime and start nitrofurantoin was found. The cefuroxime order was not noted as reviewed by staff, and the preliminary and final culture reports, including susceptibility results showing the organism was not susceptible to cefuroxime but was susceptible to nitrofurantoin, were not consistently documented as reviewed with clear dates and staff identifiers. Progress notes document ongoing confusion, flank pain, and the resident’s belief that there was urine in her oxygen tubing, as well as the son’s concerns and request for transfer to the emergency room. The DON later documented that her investigation found the 7/11 cefuroxime order had not been started because it was discovered only when the 7/15 order to stop it and start nitrofurantoin was located, and interviews revealed uncertainty about why the UA was recollected and that the incident investigation did not address the delayed UA collection or lack of on-call physician notification for preliminary lab results. For a second resident with intact cognition and diagnoses including ESRD on dialysis, hypotension, hypertension, and heart failure, physician orders directed dialysis three times weekly, Midodrine three times daily for hypotension with a parameter to hold if SBP was 120 or greater, and daily Metoprolol Succinate ER for hypertension without hold parameters. The March MAR shows the resident did not receive Midodrine on the mornings of dialysis days and received Metoprolol only once on a dialysis day during a specified period, with no documentation that the physician was notified of these omissions. Dialysis records show pre-dialysis BPs in the low-normal range, and the MAR documents very low BPs on one evening and the following morning, with no documentation that the provider was notified of these low readings. The TAR required monitoring for post-dialysis complications, including hypotension symptoms, twice daily on dialysis days, but only one day in the month reflected documented symptoms. Interviews with nursing staff and the DON confirmed expectations that physician orders be processed within the shift, that abnormal labs and out-of-parameter vitals be reported, and that Midodrine be given before dialysis when within parameters, but also revealed uncertainty about processing timelines, lack of a facility policy on vital sign parameters, and that the physician was not notified about the inconsistent administration of Midodrine and low blood pressures. Facility policies required following all physician orders and notifying the physician when orders were not followed or when there was a significant change in status, but these were not adhered to in these cases.
Failure to Implement Individualized Pressure Ulcer Prevention and Treatment for High-Risk Residents
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to implement and individualize pressure ulcer prevention and care for two residents at high risk for skin breakdown, resulting in the development and worsening of multiple pressure injuries. One resident with severe cognitive impairment, diabetes, depression, and high Braden risk was dependent on staff for hygiene, repositioning, and transfers. On admission, she had no skin breakdown but was identified as at risk. Her care plan initially addressed potential skin impairment but did not include individualized repositioning or pressure-relief interventions beyond standard admission practices. Staff and leadership later acknowledged that the pressure ulcer prevention measures in place before her ulcer developed were standard for all admissions and not tailored to her specific risk factors. For this resident, documentation showed blanchable redness to the buttocks on a skin assessment, followed by identification of a facility-acquired abrasion to the left buttock and coccyx and additional undescribed areas on the backs of both thighs. The next day, the abrasion on the left buttock was documented as a stage II pressure ulcer, which later increased in size. Observations on multiple days showed the resident lying in bed on her back with the head of the bed elevated and her body bent at the chest, with staff acknowledging that this positioning increased the risk of shearing when she slid down in bed. Interviews revealed that she could not turn herself in bed and required staff assistance for repositioning, yet there was no documentation that she was turned every two hours, and the DON could not find evidence that she refused repositioning or barrier cream. CNAs and a restorative aide reported not knowing what pressure prevention interventions were in place for her, and one CNA left her in bed all day because the resident did not respond when asked if she needed anything, despite the resident’s inability to use the call light or reposition herself. The second resident had multiple serious medical conditions, including spinal stenosis, chronic kidney disease, atherosclerotic heart disease, dysphagia, and protein-calorie malnutrition, and was assessed as high risk for pressure ulcers on the Braden scale. He had a history of multiple pressure ulcers and other wounds that had previously healed, but subsequent skin evaluations documented recurrent redness and pressure areas, including a right gluteal fold pressure ulcer and coccyx involvement. Progress notes identified a bleeding open area under the right buttock, reclassification of a right gluteal fold lesion from MASD to a pressure ulcer, and later documentation of a large coccyx pressure area, a left lateral heel DTI, and a left lateral lower leg stage II pressure blister. His care plan listed multiple active pressure injuries and interventions such as an air mattress, pressure-redistributing cushions, wound treatments, and weekly wound monitoring. Despite these identified wounds and orders, the record showed that ordered wound care treatments were not documented as completed on at least one ordered date, and the DON agreed that if treatments were not signed as completed, they were not done, and that wounds would worsen if treatments were missed. Interviews with nursing leadership and the wound nurse indicated that the resident was not on a formal repositioning schedule, even though standard practice was to reposition residents every two hours, and that his heels were offloaded and repositioned only “as needed.” Staff reported that he often refused to get up in his wheelchair and refused heel lift boots, but refusals and effective approaches were not consistently documented. A PA-C stated she would expect preventative measures such as an air mattress to prevent recurrence of pressure ulcers, and the DON and RN unit manager confirmed that an air mattress was ordered only after multiple pressure injuries were documented. The facility’s own Skin and Pressure Injury Prevention Program policy required offering repositioning at least every two hours for bedfast residents, considering off-loading when the head of bed was elevated, and using special mattresses as indicated, but the documented care and staff interviews showed gaps between these policy requirements and the actual implementation of pressure ulcer prevention and treatment for this resident. Overall, for both residents, surveyors identified failures to consistently implement and document individualized pressure ulcer prevention measures such as scheduled repositioning, appropriate use of pressure-relieving surfaces, barrier creams, and heel offloading, as well as failures to ensure staff understood and followed care plan interventions. These failures occurred despite both residents being clearly identified as high risk for pressure injury and, in the second case, having a documented history of prior pressure ulcers and multiple active wounds.
Unsafe Transfers and Unsecured Chemicals Leading to Resident Injury and Exposure Risk
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves failures to ensure safe transfers in accordance with resident care plans and to secure hazardous chemicals from resident access. One resident with hemiplegia following a stroke and severe cognitive impairment, who was care planned to transfer with one staff using a sit-to-stand lift, was transferred by a CNA without the lift from the toilet to a wheelchair. During this transfer, the resident’s legs gave out, he was lowered to the floor, and his head struck the wall, resulting in a skin tear on his left forearm, a bump on the back of his head, and elevated blood pressure and pulse. A CT scan later revealed a subdural hematoma. The DON reported that the CNA had been educated that same morning on the importance of following resident care plans, and the CNA stated she did not use the stand lift because she believed she could complete the transfer faster without it. A second resident with senile degeneration of the brain and severely impaired cognition was also not consistently transferred according to her assessed needs and care plan. Her care plan initially indicated use of a sit-to-stand lift, but a lift assessment documented that she could not bear at least 50% of her weight on one leg, could not sit upright without physical assistance, and could not follow simple instructions, which meant she did not meet the criteria for a sit-to-stand lift. Despite this, the assessment summary still indicated she was to use a sit-to-stand lift for bed-to-chair transfers, and she was care planned to use a sit-to-stand lift until later revised to a full-body mechanical lift. The resident’s family member reported concerns about transfers, including that staff did not use a gait belt, that she had assisted staff with pivot transfers, and that staff sometimes used a sit-to-stand lift and sometimes pivot transferred the resident with two staff. A CNA/CMA described pivot transferring this resident with the assistance of the family member by placing their arms under the resident’s arms and moving her from bed to a bath chair, during which the resident did not follow directions or move her feet, and the CNA/CMA held the resident up while quickly pulling the bath chair under her. Documentation and communication tools used by staff to determine transfer methods were not consistently accurate or up to date. Staff reported relying on the Kardex and pocket care plans to determine how residents should be transferred, and multiple staff acknowledged that pocket care plans were not always kept current. For the second resident, the pocket care plan at one point indicated she was a pivot transfer with one staff, while her family stated she required at least two staff for a pivot transfer and had previously used a mechanical lift in another facility. Later, the undated pocket care plan for her hallway indicated she was to be transferred with a full-body mechanical lift and sling. The DON and administrator confirmed that the initial lift assessment for this resident showed she was not a candidate for a sit-to-stand lift, yet she was care planned to use one. The deficiency also includes unsecured hazardous chemicals accessible to residents in a bathtub room and in the main dining area. On multiple observations, the blue hallway bathtub room door was open with no staff present, and a pink crate on top of the bathtub contained two spray bottles, one labeled Multi-Surface Peroxide cleaner with warnings that it causes skin irritation and serious eye damage, and another unlabeled bottle two-thirds full of an unknown liquid. Staff, including a CNA and RN, stated the bathtub room doors were supposed to be closed and locked to prevent resident access and exposure to unsecured chemicals, and the DON and regional nurse consultant confirmed the presence of the labeled and unlabeled chemicals and that the unlabeled bottle did not contain water. In the main dining room, an unattended housekeeping cart was observed with residents present and no staff nearby. The cart contained an open bottle of toilet bowl cleaner on an unlocked portion of the cart, and additional chemicals, including Multi-Surface Peroxide cleanser and Micro Kill foaming disinfectant cleaner, were stored in a lockable compartment that was left unlocked, with the keys on top of the cart. The administrator verified that the chemicals were not secured from resident access and that the bathtub room was supposed to be closed, locked, and accessible only by staff, and that chemicals were expected to be stored in their original labeled containers in a secure location.
Failure to Honor Resident Bathing Preferences and Scheduled Bathing Frequency
Penalty
Summary
Surveyors identified a deficiency in the facility’s failure to honor residents’ rights to choose and receive bathing at the frequency specified in their care plans and preferences. Multiple residents who preferred bathing at least twice weekly did not consistently receive baths or showers as scheduled, and staff did not consistently document refusals or reasons for missed baths. For one resident with severely impaired cognition, the care plan dated 3/25/26 indicated a preference for two baths per week, yet electronic records from 1/28/26 through 3/25/26 showed she received a bath on 3/9/26 and 3/16/26, refused on 3/13/26, was marked as “not available” on 3/20/26 without any supporting documentation that she was out of the facility, and had no documentation of being offered or receiving a bath on 3/23/26. A family member reported concerns that this resident had only received one shower since admission and raised these concerns to the administrator. Another resident with moderately impaired cognition had a care plan dated 3/25/26 indicating a preference for two baths per week. The bath schedule showed he was to receive baths or showers twice weekly on specific days, and there was no documentation of refusals. However, bathing records from 1/28/26 through 3/25/26 showed gaps of six and seven days between some baths, including a seven‑day interval before a bath on 2/21/26 and a six‑day interval before a bath on 3/13/26. This resident reported that there were times he did not receive a bath for a week, that he had to repeatedly remind staff to get a bath, and that the days he was bathed were inconsistent, sometimes occurring every other day and other times with a week between baths. A cognitively intact resident with a care plan preference for two baths per week was scheduled for baths on two specific days each week, but bathing documentation showed missed baths on multiple dates with no refusals recorded. As a result, there were intervals of seven and ten days between baths. This resident stated he did not receive the showers he was supposed to and was unsure if he would receive a scheduled shower on the day of interview. Another resident with moderately impaired cognition, whose care plan indicated a preference for two to three showers per week and who was scheduled for showers on Sundays and Thursdays, had multiple missed showers without documented refusals and repeated six‑day gaps between bathing. During observation and interview, this resident had long, jagged fingernails, smelled of urine, and reported that showers were sometimes not provided on scheduled days or were changed, and that staff had told him he would not get a shower because the shower was being repaired. The facility’s own bath schedule listed specific days for each of these residents to receive baths or showers, but documentation and resident interviews showed that these schedules were not consistently followed. The grievance log from November 2025 through March 2026 recorded multiple resident complaints and resident council concerns about not receiving baths or showers as expected, including reports from several residents that they had gone extended periods without bathing and that staff told them they were being skipped because other residents had waited longer or due to staffing issues. During a resident council interview, several residents reiterated that baths were not completed as scheduled and described waiting from eight days up to three weeks between baths, as well as equipment issues such as a broken chair that prevented bathing. Nursing staff, including an RN and a restorative aide, acknowledged receiving complaints that residents were not getting baths as scheduled and stated that residents sometimes went more than a week without a bath, and that missed baths could contribute to odors, dignity concerns, and skin conditions. The DON stated she expected residents to be bathed according to their care plan preferences and that refusals should be documented, but she was aware of prior grievances about missed baths. The facility’s bathing policy stated that residents have the right to choose the timing and frequency of bathing and required documentation of bathing activity or refusals and reapproach after refusals, but the documented patterns and interviews showed that these requirements were not consistently met.
Failure to Provide Planned Restorative Nursing Programs for Two Residents
Penalty
Summary
Surveyors identified a deficiency in the facility’s failure to provide ongoing restorative nursing programs as care planned and ordered for two cognitively intact residents with limited ROM and mobility. One resident, with Type 2 DM with diabetic neuropathy, an above-knee amputation, adjustment disorder with depressed mood, and stage 4 CKD requiring dialysis three times weekly, reported frustration that the fingers on her right hand were stiff and that she could no longer make a fist. She stated she felt weaker and believed she was not receiving the exercises she needed, explaining that she previously had exercises but no longer was brought for them. She reported that when she complained to therapy about not getting her exercises, she was told that restorative nursing aides were now responsible for providing them. Record review for this resident showed a physician note directing staff to encourage participation in restorative activities and a physician’s order for staff to encourage restorative activity three times weekly with a progress note to be completed on day shift when done. Her care plan included participation in restorative therapy with a goal to maintain current functional ability and interventions of AROM per therapy and nursing recommendations. Her MDS documented functional limitations in ROM in one upper and one lower extremity and indicated she received only two days of AROM restorative nursing programs in the seven-day look-back period. Restorative documentation from mid-December through late March showed that for lower extremity exercises she was documented as not available on multiple days, refused on several days, and not applicable on others, with only two days of restorative lower extremity exercises provided. For kinetic bike exercises over a three‑month period, she was documented as not available or refusing on multiple days, with several days marked not applicable, and only four days of kinetic bike restorative exercises completed. A second resident, who used a power wheelchair, had limited use of upper and lower extremities, and diagnoses including rheumatoid arthritis, polyneuropathy, and fractures of the right lower leg and foot, reported via an iPad translation device that she had participated in PT on admission and was discharged to a restorative program. She stated she was upset that she had not been receiving her exercise program, had complained to the DOR, and felt she was losing strength and her ability to stand and transfer. Her BIMS score indicated she was cognitively intact. Her MDS showed functional limitation in ROM in one lower extremity and no restorative nursing exercise programs received. Her care plan called for participation in a restorative therapy program to maintain functional abilities, with interventions including AROM, sitting exercises with a 3‑lb green TheraBand, trunk exercises x15 reps, and transfers involving standing with a walker up to 10 minutes. Restorative documentation from late January through late March showed multiple refusals and days marked not applicable, with no documentation that she received lower extremity exercises or stood with her walker for ten minutes during that period. Interviews with therapy staff and restorative aides revealed that therapy had provided written restorative recommendations on transfer forms, and the DON was responsible for setting up the programs. The therapy team expected two restorative aides to complete the recommended exercise programs, including upper and lower extremity exercises three to six times per week for the first resident (arm bike, recumbent kinetic bike, 5‑lb weights, green bands) and a lower extremity program three to six times per week for the second resident (standing with walker for ten minutes, 3‑lb weights, green bands). One restorative aide reported that she and the other aide were responsible for restorative exercises for about 44 residents, each scheduled for 15 minutes daily, and that it was impossible to see all residents when only one aide was working. She stated some residents were prioritized because they were ready, independent in getting to the exercise room, and enjoyed exercising, while others known to refuse were deprioritized when staff were busy. She acknowledged not having completed restorative exercises with the first resident recently and not having done restorative exercises with the second resident in over a month. The other restorative aide confirmed workload challenges, restrictions on being alone with the first resident, difficulty coordinating use of the main therapy room and equipment, and uncertainty about when either resident last received restorative exercises. The DON and regional nurse consultant confirmed that the facility’s policy defined restorative nursing as interventions to promote optimal functioning, that residents with written programs were expected to receive at least 15 minutes per day, and that the first resident had received only seven days of restorative exercises since mid‑December while the second resident appeared to have received none since late January, and they were unaware of the residents’ concerns.
Failure to Maintain Resident Dignity, Hygiene, and Privacy During Personal Care
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves failures to maintain resident dignity, hygiene, and privacy for multiple residents who were dependent on staff for personal care. One resident with severely impaired cognition, depression, and senile degeneration of the brain was dependent on staff for dressing, personal hygiene, and transfers with a full body lift. Her care plan required staff to use yes/no questions and clear explanations due to her communication difficulties. Her family reported concerns that she was not being changed regularly, was left in bed in her nightgown until mid-afternoon, and was not assisted out of bed to the dining room for meals. The family also reported finding dried juice on the resident’s stomach and bed sheets on consecutive days, indicating the linens had not been changed, and later finding the resident in bed around mid-afternoon in pajamas with food on her face and clothing. During the survey, the resident was observed in the afternoon with a dried green substance on her nose that remained there over an extended period, despite her dependence on staff for hygiene. Another resident with severely impaired cognition, unclear speech at times, and dependence on staff for personal and oral hygiene and dressing was repeatedly observed with soiled clothing and unclean hands and face. He was first seen lying in bed wearing a white shirt with multiple brown discolorations on the chest and arms. Later the same day, he was observed in the dining room wearing the same soiled shirt and spilling coffee repeatedly onto his clothing protector and shirt without staff offering assistance or interventions to prevent further spillage. That afternoon, he was again observed in bed wearing the same dirty shirt with food in his beard and stated he would have liked staff to change his shirt and that he had trouble with spilling food and drinks and wanted more assistance with eating and drinking. On another day, he was observed twice in the hallway with food in his beard and a thick orange substance on his fingers around his fingernails, as well as food on his shirt, with no indication in the record that he had refused clothing changes or hand and face washing. A third resident with severely impaired cognition, depression, anxiety, and a care plan noting severe mental illness with risk for abuse and neglect did not receive adequate privacy during incontinence care. Two CNAs assisted this resident in his shared room by placing a gait belt, helping him stand at the sink, lowering his pants, removing his incontinence brief, cleaning his private areas, and applying a new brief while his roommate was in bed. The privacy curtain was not pulled far enough to prevent the roommate from seeing the resident, and the window blinds were open, leaving him exposed during personal care. Staff interviews confirmed that residents’ clothing should be changed when soiled, faces and hands washed after meals or when soiled, refusals documented, and privacy ensured by closing doors, blinds, and curtains during personal care. The observations and interviews showed that these expectations and the facility’s dignity and privacy policy were not followed for these residents.
Resident Left in Dining Room for Extended Period Without Required Care
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves a resident with severe cognitive impairment who was left in the dining room for approximately ten hours without receiving care as outlined in his care plan. According to the SD DOH Facility Reported Incident, the resident was brought to the dining room at around 8:30 a.m. and was not taken back to his room until 6:31 p.m. that day. During this period, the resident did not receive identified interventions to meet his care needs from the CNA and LPN assigned to him. The facility’s investigation determined that the resident was neglected because his care plan was not followed and necessary care was not provided for an extended period. The resident’s medical record showed he had a BIMS score of 1, indicating severely impaired cognition, and diagnoses of metabolic encephalopathy and dementia. His care plan documented that he was at risk for skin impairment due to a history of stage II pressure ulcers, required repositioning every two hours and as needed, had a urinary catheter with urine output to be documented each shift, and required substantial assistance with toileting hygiene every two to three hours, transferring, and wheelchair mobility. He was also identified as being at risk for falls and was to be treated with respect and dignity and to reside free of mistreatment. Despite these documented needs, the resident remained in the dining room for about ten hours without the planned care being provided. The FRI report noted that the resident had a urinary catheter, could move and readjust himself in his wheelchair, was forgetful, and needed staff assistance with using the bathroom. Although his skin assessment after the incident did not show skin breakdown related to the event and he was not incontinent of bowels, the facility’s investigation concluded that the failure of the assigned CNA to follow the care plan and provide care during the prolonged period in the dining room constituted neglect. Interviews with the DON confirmed that the facility’s investigation found the resident had been neglected by staff on that day because his care needs, as specified in his care plan, were not met for approximately ten hours.
Failure to Follow Care Plan Requiring Two Caregivers During Resident Care
Penalty
Summary
Non-compliance at F684 occurred when a resident who was care planned to receive all care from two caregivers at all times was assisted by a single CNA. The resident had a documented history of making allegations of staff being rough and was identified in the care plan as requiring "cares in pairs" with two caregivers present to address her needs and observe the entire care session. Despite this, the CNA entered the resident’s room alone and began providing care without a second staff member present, contrary to the resident’s care plan and the facility’s expectations. The resident’s care plan, initiated on 10/28/22, identified manipulative behavior and alleged mistreatment as focus areas, noting that the resident might voice allegations of mistreatment or exploitation by caregivers, related to feelings of loss of independence, and might use abusive language. Interventions included assuring the resident she was safe and secure, providing two caregivers to address her needs and observe the entire session, having supervisory personnel observe care delivery as much as possible, and offering staff of certain racial backgrounds when able, based on the resident’s stated preferences and history of accusations. On the date of the incident, the resident reported to an LPN that the CNA had been rough with her during care that was provided without a second caregiver present. Staff interviews confirmed that the resident was known to make accusations, tell inconsistent stories, and sometimes scream even before being touched, and that she was to always receive care with two staff present because of these behaviors and prior allegations. On the day of the incident, staff on duty reported hearing the resident screaming after the CNA entered the room and began helping her, then left to get a second person to assist. The CNA acknowledged going into the room alone and assisting the resident with care, thereby not following the resident’s care plan requirement for two caregivers to be present during care, which led to the cited deficiency under F684.
Improper Mechanical Lift Use and Inadequate Sling Selection for Dependent Transfers
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to ensure safe use of total body mechanical lifts and appropriate slings for residents requiring two-person assistance for transfers. Contracted travel CNAs and facility CNAs used incompatible or improperly sized and positioned slings, and staff lacked clear, accessible information on which sling size and type to use for specific residents. Surveyors identified that staff often selected sling sizes based on visual estimation of body size or by using whatever sling was present in the room, rather than following resident-specific guidance. Care plans and Kardexes for multiple residents who required mechanical lifts did not specify the type of lift (full body or sit-to-stand) or the correct sling size, leaving staff without written direction. One incident involved a resident who had been admitted earlier that day with a full body lift sling brought from the hospital. During a transfer from wheelchair to bed using a full body lift, two CNAs attached the sling provided by the family and began the transfer. As one CNA attached the lower body sling straps to the lift hooks, the resident moved and slid forward in the sling. The CNAs readjusted the resident and completed attaching the sling, but the resident continued to move and slid toward the edge of the wheelchair seat, causing the sling to tilt downward. Unable to safely complete the transfer, the CNAs lowered the resident to the floor using the upper portion of the sling while the lower portion remained attached to the lift. The resident’s buttocks contacted the floor first, she was then assisted to a lying position, and she reported rib pain; a subsequent chest X-ray showed no breaks or fractures. This event was identified as the start of Immediate Jeopardy at F689. Another observed incident involved a different resident being transferred from a wheelchair to a bed using a full body lift and a burgundy (large) sling. Two contracted travel CNAs placed the sling behind the resident, pulled the lower straps under her thighs, and interlaced the straps. As they began lifting, the resident’s wheelchair pad and the left handle of the wheelchair became caught in the sling, causing the wheelchair to lift off the floor with the resident still seated. While the resident and wheelchair were suspended, one CNA pulled on the wheelchair pad to free it, and the CNAs switched tasks while the resident remained in the air. After lowering the resident and wheelchair back to the floor and freeing the wheelchair handle, they did not reposition the sling, which was noted to be placed too high, with the bottom of the sling at the resident’s mid-back instead of under her buttocks. They then lifted the resident again and transferred her to the bed, with one CNA stating during the lift that the setup was “all wrong.” Interviews with multiple CNAs and nursing staff revealed that many had not received recent or any facility-specific training or competencies on safe use of mechanical lifts and sit-to-stand lifts. Several CNAs reported choosing sling sizes based on the resident’s body type or guessing, and one CNA stated she relied on training from previous employers. Staff were generally unaware of which sling to use for specific residents and could not readily locate up-to-date written resources; binders that were supposed to contain lift and sling information were missing or outdated. A paper list of sling sizes found in a communication binder was acknowledged by an RN as not updated. Another RN stated she did not know residents’ sling sizes and would ask a CNA for guidance. Record review confirmed that not all direct care staff, including CNAs involved in the incidents, had completed required competencies on total body lifts or sit-to-stand lifts after the reported incident, despite having worked shifts since that time. Further review of resident records showed that for several residents who used mechanical lifts, care plans and Kardexes lacked documentation of sling size and, in some cases, did not even specify the type of lift to be used. For example, one resident’s care plan and Kardex indicated a need for two-person assistance with transfers but did not identify any transfer equipment. Surveyors also compared an updated list of transfer equipment to slings stored in residents’ rooms and found discrepancies between listed sling sizes and those actually present or documented in the Kardex for certain residents. The facility’s own sling sizing chart and manufacturer’s instructions for the EZ Way Smart Lift outlined proper sling positioning and sizing parameters, including that the base of the sling should be positioned two inches below the tailbone and the top parallel with the shoulder line, but observed practice and staff statements demonstrated that these guidelines were not consistently followed.
Resident Left Unattended on Toilet Resulting in Potential Neglect
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves a resident being left unattended on a toilet in the beauty shop bathroom for an extended period, despite requiring staff assistance and supervision. The resident was later found by the charge nurse sitting on the toilet with the sit-to-stand lift still attached, the bathroom door closed, and the call light not activated. Prior to this, a CNA had noticed the resident’s room call light on, but the resident was not in his room; the CNA turned off the call light and proceeded to answer other call lights without locating the resident. The facility’s investigation identified that a certified medication aide (CMA) had taken the resident to the beauty shop bathroom earlier in the afternoon but did not inform other staff or acknowledge doing so, even though witnesses reported seeing the CMA escort the resident to that bathroom. The resident’s medical record showed moderately impaired cognition with a BIMS score of 8, diagnoses including Parkinson’s disease, unspecified dementia, hallucinations, and sensorineural hearing loss, and a high fall risk with a Morse fall scale score of 75. The care plan documented the need for a sit-to-stand lift for transfers, maximal/substantial assistance for toileting, and dependence on staff for toileting hygiene, as well as a focus on risk for pressure ulcer development related to immobility and incontinence. A Braden scale score of 13 indicated moderate risk for pressure ulcers. After being left on the toilet for an unknown but extended time, the resident was assessed by the charge nurse and found to have slight redness on the buttocks consistent with prolonged sitting on the toilet seat; the redness resolved before the end of the shift. There was no documented pain assessment or skin assessment in the medical record following this incident. Staff interviews revealed inconsistent practices and lack of clear guidance regarding monitoring residents left on toilets. One CNA reported checking assigned residents every two hours and returning to the bathroom within five to ten minutes if a resident did not use the call light, noting that longer periods on the toilet could cause redness from pressure. Another CNA stated that some resident bathrooms were too small for lift equipment, so residents were taken to the beauty shop bathroom, but there was no specific process or policy on when staff should return to assist residents off the toilet; she relied on remembering to go back. During observation, a staff member transferred a resident into the beauty shop and closed the door without changing the door sign from “Vacant” to “Occupied.” The facility’s neglect policy defined neglect as failure to provide necessary goods and services to avoid physical harm, pain, mental anguish, or emotional distress, and outlined procedures for investigation and protection of residents, but there was no documentation that audits were conducted to ensure staff understood and implemented resident safety interventions related to this incident.
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.
