Avir At Schertz
Inspection history, citations, penalties and survey trends for this long-term care facility in Schertz, Texas.
- Location
- 3301 Fm 3009, Schertz, Texas 78154
- CMS Provider Number
- 676301
- Inspections on file
- 44
- Latest survey
- March 21, 2026
- Citations (last 12 mo.)
- 15 (2 serious)
Citation history
Health deficiencies cited at Avir At Schertz during CMS and state inspections, most recent first.
A resident with dementia, DM, lymphedema, and multiple pressure-related wounds had physician orders for wound care to the great toes every shift, heels on specific days, and sacrum every shift and PRN. Review of the March TAR showed multiple dates where these ordered treatments were not documented. The ADON and Regional RN identified two LVNs as responsible for the wound care and acknowledged they could not explain the missing entries, while staff interviews indicated that wound care was reportedly performed on several of the undocumented dates but not charted. A photo of the sacral area and a text message from an LVN were cited as proof that care was provided, yet the facility’s documentation policy requiring all services to be recorded was not followed.
A resident with intact cognition, obesity, hypertensive heart disease, and muscle wasting used bilateral 1/4 bed rails as an enabler for bed mobility and positioning while requiring mechanical transfers with two staff. The care plan and physician orders authorized the rails and required quarterly nursing assessments to ensure safe, least-restrictive use, but no bed rail assessments were completed for two consecutive quarters. During observation, both rails were found in the up position and jammed, unable to be lowered by a CNA, and neither the CNA, an LVN, nor the DON were aware of the malfunction until the survey, despite a facility policy requiring proper installation, use per manufacturer instructions, and ongoing evaluation of bed rail safety.
A resident with TBI, mood disorder, anxiety, cognitive impairment, and left-sided hemiplegia/hemiparesis was verbally and physically abused by an RN during early-morning care. According to an LVN and a CNA, the RN loudly cursed at the resident in a public area, called her a "fucking whore" and "slut" for being shirtless, aggressively wheeled her back to her room, forcefully removed her clothing from a contracted arm despite the resident stating it hurt, and shoved her wheelchair into the room hard enough to slam into the bed. Another resident reported hearing the RN call someone a whore and a slut. Although the LVN stated she checked the resident for injuries and found none, this was not documented, and no investigation report was completed at the time, despite a facility policy requiring identification and investigation of all possible abuse incidents.
A resident with TBI, mood disorder, anxiety, cognitive deficits, and hemiplegia/hemiparesis was allegedly subjected to verbal and physical abuse by an RN, who used profane, degrading language about the resident’s exposed breasts and forcefully pushed the resident in a wheelchair into her room, as witnessed by an LVN and a CNA. The LVN documented only the resident’s combative behavior and clothing issues, did not document a post-incident injury check, and did not immediately report the abuse to the administrator or authorities as required by facility policy and federal regulations. No investigation report was initiated at the time, and the administrator learned of the incident only days later, despite corroborating accounts from multiple staff and another resident who heard the RN yelling derogatory terms. Surveyors determined this delay in reporting and failure to promptly investigate constituted noncompliance at the Immediate Jeopardy level.
Surveyors found a medication cart on one hall left unlocked and unattended by an LVN, contrary to facility policy requiring locked storage of medications. During a narcotic count, an RN and LVN identified a discrepancy between the narcotic count sheet and the actual number of hydrocodone/acetaminophen tablets for a resident; the MAR showed a recent PRN dose, but the narcotic log had not been signed out for that administration, and the LVN stated he had forgotten to document it. The surveyor also observed another resident’s hydrocodone/acetaminophen blister pack with a broken seal over one pill; the RN and LVN initially attempted to discard a pill from a different resident’s blister pack of an unknown medication before correcting themselves and discarding the correct pill from the damaged pack.
A resident with severe cognitive impairment and multiple neurological and psychiatric diagnoses had conflicting documentation regarding code status, with the admission record, care plan, and active orders listing Full Code while a signed DNR form and hospice interdisciplinary notes identified DNR. The DON reported placing DNR information in the file and stated that either she or the MDS nurse would update the care plan, but the code status was not changed. The social worker believed the MDS nurse would update the care plan when a DNR was written, and the MDS nurse stated that no one had communicated the code status change and that care plan meetings had not been held prior to his assuming the role. This lack of communication and failure to revise the care plan and orders resulted in an inaccurate code status being maintained in the resident’s record.
A resident with severe cognitive impairment and multiple neurological and psychiatric diagnoses had an OOH-DNR form signed by the responsible party and filed under miscellaneous documents, while the admission record, face sheet, care plan, EMR summary page, and active physician orders all continued to list the resident as Full Code. A hospice interdisciplinary group report identified the resident as DNR, but this was not translated into updated physician orders or core clinical documentation. Interviews with the SW, DON, and MDS nurse revealed that responsibilities for updating code status were unclear and that communication about the change in code status did not occur, resulting in inconsistent and incomplete documentation of the resident’s wishes.
A resident with a history of mood and schizoaffective disorders became involved in a verbal altercation with another resident who had dementia and impulse disorders after refusing to share personal coffee creamer. The resident reported the incident as a grievance to an LVN, but no grievance report was generated, and the facility's grievance log remained blank for the month. This failure to document and address the grievance was contrary to facility policy and residents' rights.
Two residents with cognitive and behavioral health diagnoses engaged in a verbal altercation involving an attempt to take personal property, resulting in shouting and emotional distress. An LVN intervened and documented the incident but failed to report the allegation of verbal abuse and exploitation to facility leadership and authorities as required by policy.
A resident returned from the hospital with a fractured arm and physician orders for a stabilization sling, but the care plan was not updated to include this intervention. Although staff assisted the resident with the sling as ordered, the care plan lacked documentation of the new care needs, contrary to facility policy requiring comprehensive, person-centered care plans.
Surveyors observed improper storage of oxygen tubing for a resident with chronic lung and heart conditions, with tubing left uncovered and on the floor, as well as two CNAs failing to perform hand hygiene between distributing meal trays to different residents. Staff interviews and facility policy reviews confirmed that these actions did not meet infection control standards.
Staff failed to consistently knock and announce themselves before entering the rooms of two cognitively intact female residents, with one CNA entering without any announcement and another entering while simultaneously saying "knock knock." Interviews with staff confirmed that facility policy requires knocking and announcing before entry to maintain resident privacy and dignity, but these procedures were not followed.
A resident with COPD and coronary artery disease, requiring continuous oxygen therapy, was found with their oxygen tubing disconnected from the oxygen machine despite the machine being on and set to deliver oxygen. The resident believed the oxygen was running, and the charge nurse confirmed the tubing was not properly connected. The care plan included oxygen interventions but lacked a specific focus area for COPD, and the facility did not provide a respiratory care policy when requested.
A deficiency was cited when a resident's care plan did not address all assessed needs and lacked measurable timetables and specific actions, as observed in the care planning documentation.
A resident with severe cognitive impairment and high fall risk did not have access to a working call light system, as confirmed by the DON during testing. The care plan lacked interventions for a call system, and there was no maintenance log or work order for repair. The Administrator, responsible for maintenance, acknowledged the absence of routine checks and the need for manual resets on the aging call system, contrary to facility policy requiring functional call systems at all times.
The facility did not ensure accurate nutritional status monitoring for residents, as evidenced by missing height documentation, overdue scale calibration, and inaccurate meal intake records. Additionally, significant weight loss in two residents was not reported to the registered dietitian or physician, and a required nutritional evaluation was not completed. These failures affected all residents reviewed for nutrition and resulted in inadequate monitoring and assessment of their nutritional needs.
A resident with multiple health conditions was identified as being at risk for malnutrition, and their care plan required a Mini Nutritional Evaluation and possible dietician consultation. The assessment was started but not completed, and the RD was not informed of the need for the evaluation, resulting in the care plan interventions not being fully implemented.
Two residents with cognitive impairments did not have care plans accessible in the current electronic medical record system due to incomplete transfer of records during a system change. Staff relied on requesting information from the MDS Coordinator, but there was no specific training on this process, resulting in incomplete documentation as required by facility policy.
The facility failed to provide adequate supervision and security, resulting in several residents testing positive for amphetamines. Residents were observed smoking unsupervised, and the back door was not secured, allowing access to the outside area. This lack of supervision enabled substance use among residents, as confirmed by drug tests.
The facility failed to obtain informed consent for psychotropic medications for three residents, leading to deficiencies in their care. A resident with schizophrenia was given paliperidone without a signed consent form. Another resident with dementia and depression received medications like trazodone and paroxetine without proper consent, as the family member listed was unaware of the medications. A third resident with schizoaffective disorder was prescribed Seroquel and ABH gel without a physically signed consent form, despite facility policy requiring written consent.
A resident with multiple health conditions and limited mobility was left without access to a call light after returning from dialysis, causing her to be in pain and unable to call for help. The van driver who assisted her did not place the call light within reach, and the facility's policy requires call lights to be accessible to residents. The DON and Administrator acknowledged the oversight, noting the importance of call light accessibility.
A facility failed to report drug use and abuse allegations involving four residents who tested positive for amphetamines. Despite staff observations of suspicious behavior and unsupervised smoking, the facility did not report the findings to the state, believing it was unnecessary due to voluntary drug use. This oversight could contribute to further abuse and neglect among residents.
The facility failed to provide adequate respiratory care for two residents requiring oxygen therapy. A resident with a history of acute respiratory failure and COPD did not have an oxygen sign posted on his door despite having an oxygen tank and concentrator in his room. Another resident with acute respiratory failure and heart failure lacked appropriate signage, had no active physician order for oxygen, and had oxygen tubing on the floor, undated, and not properly maintained. The facility's policy required oxygen signs and proper dating of equipment, but these protocols were not followed.
A facility failed to coordinate hospice care and maintain required documentation for a resident receiving hospice services. The resident, with multiple health conditions, lacked necessary hospice forms in their records, including the Individual Election/Cancellation/Update and Physician's Certificate of Terminal Illness. The facility's administrator acknowledged the absence of these forms and the lack of assigned responsibility for ensuring proper documentation.
The facility failed to develop comprehensive care plans for seven residents, omitting specific instructions for bed-to-chair transfers despite varying assistance needs. Interviews revealed reliance on resident profiles for transfer information, but the omission in care plans posed a risk of incorrect transfers and potential injuries.
A resident's privacy was compromised during peri-care when CNAs failed to fully close privacy curtains, leaving the resident exposed while a roommate was present. The resident, with multiple medical conditions and moderate cognitive impairment, required assistance with ADLs. The facility's policy on dignity, which mandates privacy during personal care, was not followed.
A resident with severe cognitive impairment and multiple medical conditions did not receive proper incontinent care. An LVN cleaned the resident's buttock with only one pass of a wipe, leaving residual stool, and placed a new brief without ensuring thorough cleaning. The resident expressed concern, and a CNA completed the cleaning. The facility's policy required more thorough cleaning, which was not followed, posing a risk of infection.
A nursing cart in the 200-hall was found unlocked and unattended, exposing medications to potential misuse. LVN-F left the cart unlocked while assisting a resident, acknowledging the safety risk. The DON confirmed the cart should have been locked, as per facility policy.
A facility failed to follow Enhanced Barrier Precautions (EBP) when two CNAs did not wear gowns while providing peri-care to a resident with a Foley catheter and an open wound. Despite an EBP sign and PPE supplies, the CNAs only wore gloves. Interviews revealed a lack of awareness of EBP requirements, although the facility's policy mandates gown and glove use during high-contact activities to prevent infection spread.
Incomplete and Inaccurate Documentation of Wound Care in Medical Record
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to maintain complete and accurate medical records for a resident receiving wound care. The resident was an elderly male with dementia, surgical aftercare for the digestive system, HTN, muscle wasting, lymphedema, and DM, who was admitted with no cognitive impairment per BIMS and was totally dependent for transfer and mobility. His care plan included wound care for pressure ulcers, notifying the MD of changes, following treatment orders, use of a pressure-relief mattress, and nutritional supplements and proteins. Physician orders for March included wound care to the great toes bilaterally every shift, to the left and right heels on Tuesday/Thursday/Saturday, and to the sacrum every shift and PRN. Record review of the March Treatment Administration Record (TAR) showed multiple dates where ordered wound care was not documented. For the great toes, wound care was not documented on several specified dates; for the heels, wound care was not documented on two specified dates; and for the sacrum, wound care was not documented on multiple specified dates. The ADON stated that the resident had lymphedema with swelling and oozing to both legs and confirmed the wound care orders, including additional orders for both legs on specific days and PRN. The ADON identified LVN B and LVN C as the nurses responsible for the wound care and acknowledged she could not explain why the physician-ordered wound care was not documented on the TAR on the identified dates. Interviews with facility staff revealed that wound care was reportedly performed on some of the dates where no documentation existed. The Regional RN stated that the lack of documentation on one date corresponded with the resident being in the hospital for observation after a fall, and reported that LVN B told him wound care was done but not documented on another date. LVN A reported witnessing LVN C provide wound care on one of the undocumented dates but was unsure if it was charted. LVN B admitted applying a wound patch on one date but forgetting to document it. The ADON reported monitoring wound care on another undocumented date and having a photo of the sacrum as proof care was done, and a text message from LVN C stated she performed wound care on three of the undocumented dates. The DON stated that, to her knowledge, wound care was provided on several of the dates in question but not documented, despite the facility’s policy requiring that all services provided and changes in condition be documented in the medical record.
Failure to Perform Required Bed Rail Safety Assessments and Maintenance
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to follow its own bed safety and bed rail policy and the resident’s care plan requirements for assessment and monitoring of bed rails. The facility was required to assess residents for safety risks related to bed rails, review risks and benefits with the resident or representative, obtain informed consent, and ensure proper installation and maintenance of bed rails. For one resident, the facility did not complete the required quarterly bed rail safety assessments as outlined in the comprehensive care plan, which specified that nurses would review bed rails quarterly to minimize risks and ensure the device was least restrictive. The resident involved was an adult female with diagnoses including hypertensive heart disease, obesity, and muscle wasting and atrophy. Her Quarterly MDS showed intact cognition with a BIMS score of 15/15, no functional limitation in range of motion of upper and lower extremities, and dependence on staff for chair-to-bed and toilet transfers, requiring mechanical transfers with two persons. The care plan and physician orders documented the use of bilateral one-quarter bed rails to promote independence with bed mobility and positioning, and a bed rail assessment completed in May 2025 indicated that side rails/assist bars were appropriate and served as an enabler to promote independence. However, there were no subsequent bed rail assessments completed for the second and third quarters of 2025. During observation, surveyors noted that the resident’s bed had bilateral one-quarter bed rails in the up position, and a CNA was unable to lower either rail because they were jammed. The CNA and an LVN both stated they were unaware that the bed rails could not be lowered and reported that the resident had not complained about the rails. The DON acknowledged that the bed rails should have been able to be lowered without difficulty for safety, confirmed that quarterly bed rail assessments were not completed as required, and stated that because these assessments were not done, the facility did not know the bed rails were not functioning correctly. The facility’s written policy required that bed rails be properly installed and used according to manufacturer’s instructions and that residents be evaluated for bed rail use if alternatives did not meet their needs, but these processes were not carried out as required for this resident.
Verbal and Physical Abuse of a Resident by RN and Failure to Investigate Incident
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to protect a resident from verbal and physical abuse by a registered nurse. The resident was an adult female with a history of diffuse traumatic brain injury, mood disorder due to a physiological condition, anxiety disorder, unsteadiness on feet, cognitive communication deficit, insomnia, conversion disorder with seizures, speech and language disorder following cerebral infarction, cerebral infarction, and left-sided hemiplegia/hemiparesis. Her discharge MDS showed moderately impaired cognition with a BIMS score of 10. Her care plan noted a history of reporting that care had not been provided when it had, claiming staff tossed her down hallways without evidence of injury, and throwing herself out of bed while stating someone else had thrown her. On the morning of 10/4/25 at approximately 5:20 a.m., an LVN heard a CNA calling from the resident’s room, reporting that the resident was kicking and punching her and asking the LVN to witness the behaviors. The LVN documented in a nursing note that the resident was hitting and kicking the CNA, that staff assisted and changed the resident into clean clothes, and that the resident came out of her room naked with her breasts exposed after taking off her clean shirt. The LVN’s later written statement described that when the RN arrived, the resident came out of her room shirtless with her breasts exposed, and the RN shouted, in the presence of the CNA, “What is this a fucking whore house, out here for everybody to see your tits,” then wheeled the resident back to her room. Inside the room, according to the LVN’s statement, the RN pulled the resident’s shirt off aggressively and continued verbal abuse, calling the resident a “fucking whore” and stating this was a place of business, not a whore house. The RN reportedly acknowledged to the LVN and CNA that she “went a little overboard” and that she knew it was verbal abuse. The LVN’s statement further described that after the three staff went outside briefly, they saw through a window that the resident again had her shirt off with her breasts exposed. The RN extinguished her cigarette, stated she was “done,” and went back inside, followed by the LVN. The RN then pushed the resident in her wheelchair very fast and aggressively, leaned to the resident’s ear, and called her a “fucking whore” and “slut,” adding that this was why her husband left her there because he did not want a whore. The RN then, at full force, pushed the resident into her room and released the wheelchair, causing it to roll into the room and slam into the bed, which the LVN heard as a loud thud along with the resident’s scream. The LVN reported that the RN ripped the shirt off the resident’s contracted arm, causing the resident to say, “stop that hurts you bitch,” and then aggressively and forcefully removed the sweater and put on another shirt while continuing to call the resident a slut and whore, before leaving and slamming the door. The LVN stated she checked the resident for injuries and found none but did not document this assessment. A subsequent skin assessment on 10/7/25 documented no new or unusual markings or bruises. Another CNA corroborated that the resident was combative and agitated that morning and that she saw the RN get aggressive by pushing the resident into her room, calling her a slut, and shutting the door. Another resident reported being awakened by the RN yelling and hearing the RN call someone a whore and a slut, and later being told by the RN that she had been talking to the resident because she was naked. The facility did not complete an investigation report for the 10/4/25 incident at the time it occurred, despite having a written abuse, neglect, and exploitation prevention policy requiring identification and investigation of all possible incidents of abuse and protection of residents from abuse by anyone.
Removal Plan
- Report the incident to HHSC.
- Start an in-service for all staff on abuse and neglect.
- Complete a head-to-toe assessment by nursing for Resident #1.
- Notify the responsible party of Resident #1 of the incident.
- Conduct resident safety interviews.
- Terminate RN A.
- Have Resident #1 evaluated by a mental health professional.
Failure to Immediately Report and Investigate Alleged Verbal and Physical Abuse
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to immediately report an allegation of verbal and physical abuse of a resident by a registered nurse to the abuse coordinator and appropriate authorities, as required by regulation and facility policy. A female resident with a history of traumatic brain injury, mood disorder, anxiety disorder, cognitive communication deficit, cerebral infarction with resulting hemiplegia/hemiparesis, and moderately impaired cognition (BIMS score of 10) was the subject of the alleged abuse. Her care plan noted a history of making false accusations and claiming care had not been provided, but the incident in question was directly witnessed and described in detail by staff. The facility’s policy on Abuse, Neglect, Exploitation or Misappropriation-Reporting and Investigating required that suspected abuse, neglect, exploitation, misappropriation, or injury of unknown source be reported immediately to the administrator and other officials, with “immediately” defined as within two hours for allegations involving abuse or resulting in serious bodily injury. On the early morning in question, an LVN documented that she was at the nurses’ station when a CNA called from the resident’s room, stating the resident was kicking and punching her and asking the LVN to witness the behaviors. The LVN’s written statement described that when the RN arrived, the resident attempted to remove her shirt, came out of her room shirtless with her breasts exposed, and the RN loudly used profane and degrading language, referring to the environment as a “whore house” and commenting on the resident’s exposed breasts. The LVN stated that the RN wheeled the resident back to her room, aggressively pulled off the resident’s shirt, and continued verbally abusing her with repeated profanities and derogatory terms. Later, after the RN and staff briefly went outside, they saw the resident again without her shirt; the LVN reported that the RN reacted by forcefully pushing the resident in her wheelchair very fast into her room, leaning into the resident’s ear and calling her further profane and degrading names, then pushing the wheelchair into the room at full force so that it slammed into the bed, followed by aggressively removing the resident’s clothing and continuing the verbal abuse. The LVN stated she checked the resident for injuries after the incident and found none, but she did not document this assessment in the record. The nursing progress note entered by the LVN that morning only described the resident as hitting and kicking the CNA, being changed into clean clothes, coming out of the room naked with breasts showing, being instructed to keep clothes on, and being clothed at that time; it did not document the RN’s alleged verbal or physical abuse. No facility investigation report was completed for this incident at the time, and the incident was not immediately reported to the administrator or authorities. The LVN later stated she knew from training that she was supposed to report the incident immediately but delayed, initially attempting to follow chain of command by contacting the DON and believing the incident occurred on a different date. The administrator confirmed he was not informed until several days later, at which time the alleged perpetrator acknowledged telling the resident she was “acting like a whore” and pushing the resident into her room without controlling the wheelchair. Another CNA corroborated that the RN was aggressive, pushed the resident into her room, called her a slut, and shut the door, and a neighboring resident reported hearing the RN yelling and calling someone a whore and a slut. The delay in reporting and lack of immediate investigation and documentation led surveyors to identify noncompliance at the Immediate Jeopardy level from the date of the incident until several days later.
Removal Plan
- Incident reported to HHSC.
- 3613-A report sent to HHSC with the investigation findings.
- Inservice over abuse and neglect started for all staff.
- Head to toe assessment completed by nursing for Resident #1.
- Responsible party of Resident #1 notified of incident.
- Resident safe interviews conducted.
- RN A terminated.
- Resident #1 evaluated by a mental health professional.
Unlocked Med Cart and Improper Narcotic Handling and Documentation
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to ensure that medications were stored and controlled in accordance with its own policies and accepted professional standards. During an observation, the B hall medication cart was found positioned on the side of the nursing station facing the hallway and left unlocked, while the assigned LVN was seated at the nurses’ station and not in view of the cart. The LVN acknowledged that the cart was unlocked and stated it should not be left in that condition. The facility’s written policy required that compartments containing medications and biologicals, including carts, be locked when not in use and not left unattended if open or otherwise available to others. The surveyor’s review of records for one resident showed an active order for hydrocodone/acetaminophen 7.5-325 mg, to be given every six hours as needed for pain, with the last administration documented on the MAR as occurring that afternoon. When the LVN and an RN later counted the narcotic medications in the B hall cart, the narcotic count sheet for this resident’s hydrocodone/acetaminophen indicated 17 tablets remaining, but the blister package contained only 16 tablets. The narcotic log showed the LVN had last signed out the medication the previous day, even though the LVN stated he had administered a dose that day and had forgotten to document it on the narcotic sheet. The LVN stated that the narcotic log needed to be completed at the time of dispensing to show who had given the medication. During the same narcotic count, the surveyor observed another resident’s blister pack of hydrocodone/acetaminophen 5-325 mg with a broken seal over one of the pills, although the pill remained in the package. The RN asked the LVN if tape could be placed over the package, and the LVN responded that the pill should be discarded. Both then decided to discard the pill. The RN initially dispensed a pill from a different resident’s blister pack of an unknown medication to discard, and the surveyor pointed out that the patient and medication did not match the observed blister pack. The RN and LVN then located and discarded the correct pill from the broken blister pack. The LVN later stated that any blister packs with a hole and the medication still inside should be discarded because they could have been tampered with or might not be the correct medication. The facility’s policies required controlled substances to be securely stored, properly documented, and any broken blister packs to be wasted with two staff as witnesses.
Failure to Update Care Plan and Orders to Reflect Resident DNR Status
Penalty
Summary
Surveyors identified a deficiency in the facility’s failure to develop and implement a comprehensive, person-centered care plan that accurately reflected a resident’s code status. The resident, an elderly female with severe cognitive impairment (BIMS score of 4) and diagnoses including unspecified dementia, depression, epilepsy, paranoid schizophrenia, and Alzheimer’s disease, was admitted with documentation in the admission record and care plan indicating a Full Code status. Her active physician orders also listed her as Full Code. However, the electronic medical record contained a DNR form signed by her responsible party, and hospice documentation from an interdisciplinary group meeting listed her code status as DNR. Interviews and record review showed that the change in code status to DNR was not communicated or incorporated into the resident’s care plan or active orders. The DON reported downloading DNR information into the resident’s file and keeping hard copies, and stated that either she or the MDS nurse would enter the code status into the care plan, but she did not know why this resident’s code status was not updated. The social worker stated that code status would be addressed in care plan meetings and believed the MDS nurse would update the care plan when a DNR was written. The MDS nurse stated that no one had communicated the code status change to him, suggested hospice may not have written a DNR order or informed the charge nurse, and noted he had been in the position for only two months and that no care plan meetings had been held prior to his tenure. As a result, the resident’s care plan and active orders continued to reflect Full Code despite existing DNR documentation.
Failure to Accurately Update and Align Code Status Documentation
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to maintain complete and accurate clinical records regarding a resident’s code status in accordance with accepted professional standards. A female resident with diagnoses including unspecified dementia, depression, epilepsy, paranoid schizophrenia, and Alzheimer’s disease was admitted with documentation on her admission record, face sheet, care plan, electronic medical record opening page, and active physician orders all indicating a code status of Full Code. Her most recent MDS showed a BIMS score of 4, indicating severe cognitive impairment. Despite this, an out-of-hospital DNR (OOH-DNR) form signed by her responsible party was filed only under Miscellaneous documents in the electronic medical record, and the resident’s code status was not updated in the care plan, admission record, or active orders. Further record review showed that a hospice interdisciplinary group meeting report listed the resident’s code status as DNR, but this information was not reflected in the facility’s primary clinical documentation or physician orders. In interviews, the Social Worker stated that code status would be addressed in care plan meetings and that she believed the MDS Nurse would update the care plan when a DNR was written. The DON reported that she downloaded DNR information into the resident’s file and kept hard copies, and that either she or the MDS Nurse would enter the code status into the care plan, but she did not know why this resident’s code status was not updated or why physician’s orders were not obtained. The MDS Nurse stated that no one had communicated that the resident’s code status had changed and suggested that hospice either did not write a DNR order or did not provide the information to the charge nurse to update the orders.
Failure to Document and Address Resident Grievance Following Verbal Altercation
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure that residents could voice grievances without discrimination or reprisal, as required by policy. On the morning of 8/14/2025, a resident with a history of mood disorder and schizoaffective disorder became involved in a verbal altercation with another resident who had dementia and impulse disorders. The incident began when the first resident refused to share his personal coffee creamer with the second resident, leading to a shouting match with exchanged insults. The situation escalated to the point that other residents in the dining room were emotionally disturbed. Following the altercation, the first resident was visibly upset and reported his complaint about the other resident's behavior to LVN A, expressing that he felt his grievance was not being taken seriously. Despite the resident's clear attempt to voice a grievance, LVN A did not generate a grievance report as required by facility policy, although she did document the incident in the nursing progress notes and reported it to the RN supervisor. The facility's grievance log for the month was found to be blank, indicating that no grievances were documented, including this incident. Interviews with staff and review of facility policy confirmed that all grievances, whether oral or written, should be documented and reported to leadership for investigation and resolution. The DON was unaware of the grievance and stated that both LVN A and the RN supervisor were responsible for ensuring grievances were documented and reported to the grievance coordinator. The failure to document and address the resident's grievance represented a violation of the residents' rights and facility policy.
Failure to Timely Report Alleged Abuse and Exploitation Between Residents
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure that all alleged violations involving abuse, neglect, exploitation, or mistreatment—including injuries of unknown source and misappropriation of resident property—were reported immediately, as required by regulation. On the morning of 8/14/2025, a verbal altercation occurred between two residents in the dining room, during which one resident attempted to take another resident's personal coffee creamer, leading to a shouting match with cursing insults exchanged. The incident was witnessed by LVN A, who intervened and redirected the residents but did not report the allegation of verbal abuse and exploitation to the Administrator or follow the facility's established reporting procedures. A review of the residents' records revealed that both individuals involved had significant mental health and cognitive diagnoses. One resident had a history of mood disorder and schizoaffective disorder, with a care plan noting a potential for verbal aggression and a BIMS score indicating moderate cognitive impairment. The other resident had dementia, anxiety, and impulse disorders, with a care plan also noting a potential for verbal aggression and a BIMS score indicating cognitive intactness. Despite these risk factors and the escalation of the incident, the required immediate reporting to facility leadership and state authorities did not occur. Interviews confirmed that LVN A documented the incident in the nursing progress notes and reported it to the RN supervisor but did not escalate the report to the DON or Administrator as required. The DON later confirmed that she had not received any report of the incident and reiterated that staff had been trained to report all allegations of abuse, neglect, or exploitation. A review of the facility's policy confirmed the requirement for immediate reporting of such incidents to the Administrator and appropriate authorities, which was not followed in this case.
Failure to Update Care Plan for Resident's Arm Sling Post-Hospitalization
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to develop and implement a comprehensive, person-centered care plan for a resident who returned from hospitalization with a left arm fracture. Despite physician orders requiring the resident to wear a stabilization arm sling, the care plan did not include any focus, goals, or interventions related to the use of the sling. Record reviews confirmed that the care plan was not updated to reflect the new care needs following the resident's return from the hospital. Observations showed the resident using a soft cast and sling, and interviews with nursing staff and the DON confirmed that the care plan lacked documentation for the prescribed sling, even though staff were aware of and assisted with the sling as ordered. The resident had a history of hemiplegia and required assistance with activities of daily living. The omission in the care plan was identified through review of medical records, staff interviews, and direct observation. The facility's own policy required that care plans be comprehensive and person-centered, including measurable objectives and interventions based on thorough assessment, but this was not followed in the case of the resident's new need for arm stabilization.
Failure to Maintain Infection Control: Improper Oxygen Tubing Storage and Hand Hygiene Lapses
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to maintain an effective infection prevention and control program, as evidenced by multiple observed lapses in infection control practices involving three residents. For one resident requiring continuous oxygen therapy due to chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and coronary artery disease, the oxygen tubing was observed uncovered and lying on the floor, both at the oxygen machine and portable tank. The tubing was not stored in a protective bag as required, and staff confirmed that such storage was necessary to prevent contamination. The resident was unaware that the tubing was not connected to the machine, and staff acknowledged the tubing was contaminated and needed replacement. Additionally, two certified nursing assistants (CNAs) were observed distributing meal trays to residents without performing hand hygiene between residents. One CNA provided a meal tray and set up the meal for a resident, then immediately proceeded to the next resident's room and handled another meal tray without sanitizing their hands. The second CNA followed a similar process, setting up a meal tray for a resident and then moving to another room without hand hygiene. Both CNAs acknowledged during interviews that hand sanitization was required between residents to prevent infection, and the facility's policy confirmed this expectation. The facility's own infection control policies, including those on standard precautions and hand hygiene, were not followed in these instances. The policies require hand hygiene before and after resident contact and proper handling and storage of resident-care equipment to prevent contamination. These failures were directly observed and confirmed by staff interviews and record reviews, demonstrating a breakdown in adherence to established infection control protocols.
Failure to Ensure Resident Privacy and Dignity During Room Entry
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to honor residents' rights to a dignified existence, self-determination, and communication by not ensuring staff consistently knocked and announced themselves before entering residents' rooms. Specifically, a CNA entered a female resident's room without knocking or announcing, interrupting an interview with a State Surveyor, and proceeded to set up the resident's meal tray before leaving. The resident, who had an intact cognitive status as indicated by a BIMS score of 14 out of 15, confirmed that she did not hear the CNA knock or announce their presence. In another instance, a different CNA entered another female resident's room while simultaneously saying "knock knock" as they walked in, rather than before entering. This resident also had an intact cognitive status, with a BIMS score of 15 out of 15. Interviews with staff, including CNAs, LVN, ADON, DON, and the Administrator, revealed that the facility's policy requires staff to knock and announce themselves before entering residents' rooms to maintain privacy and dignity. However, the observed actions did not align with this policy, as staff either failed to knock or did so while entering, rather than prior to entry. The facility's written policy on residents' rights also emphasizes the importance of privacy, dignity, and respect, which was not upheld in these instances.
Failure to Ensure Proper Oxygen Administration for Resident Requiring Respiratory Care
Penalty
Summary
A deficiency occurred when a resident with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and coronary artery disease, who required continuous oxygen therapy, was observed wearing an oxygen nasal cannula that was not connected to the oxygen machine. The oxygen machine was on and set to deliver two liters per minute, but the tubing was disconnected at the machine end, resulting in the resident not receiving the prescribed oxygen. The resident, who had moderate cognitive impairment, stated he wore the oxygen all the time and believed it was running, though he did not feel short of breath at the time of observation. The charge nurse confirmed that the oxygen tubing was not connected to the machine and acknowledged the risks associated with improper oxygen setup. The resident's care plan included interventions for oxygen therapy, but there was no documented focus area specifically for COPD. Additionally, when the facility's respiratory care policy was requested, it was not provided before the survey exit.
Incomplete Care Plan Development and Implementation
Penalty
Summary
A deficiency was identified due to the failure to develop and implement a complete care plan that addresses all of a resident's needs. The care plan lacked measurable timetables and specific actions, resulting in incomplete documentation and planning for the resident's care. This omission was observed during the review of resident records and care planning documentation, where surveyors noted the absence of comprehensive and individualized planning to meet the resident's assessed needs.
Failure to Provide Functional Call Light System for High-Risk Resident
Penalty
Summary
A deficiency was identified when a resident with severe cognitive impairment, high fall risk, and significant physical limitations did not have access to a functional call light system in her room. The resident, who was dependent on staff for transfers and had a history of falls, was observed to lack a working call light, which was confirmed through direct testing by the Director of Nursing (DON). The call light failed to activate at the room wall panel, hallway indicator, or nurse's station, while the roommate's call light was functional. The resident's care plan did not include interventions for a call system, and her fall risk assessment indicated a high risk. Interviews revealed that there was no work order for repair of the call light, no maintenance log for checking call light functionality, and no maintenance staff employed at the time. The Administrator, who was responsible for maintenance, acknowledged the lack of routine checks and explained that the call system was older and sometimes required manual resetting. The facility's policy required that each resident have a functional call system at all times, and alternative communication means should be documented in the care plan if the resident could not use the standard system. The deficiency was identified through observations, interviews, and record review.
Failure to Maintain Accurate Nutritional Status and Documentation
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure that residents maintained acceptable parameters of nutritional status, including usual or desirable body weight, for all residents reviewed for nutrition status. Specifically, there was a lack of documented heights for all 58 residents, which prevented accurate calculation of BMI and assessment of nutritional needs. Multiple dietary consultant reports noted missing heights and recommended obtaining them, but these were not entered into the current electronic medical record system due to data transfer issues from the previous system. The registered dietitian confirmed that the absence of height data hindered his ability to track low BMIs and provide appropriate interventions. The facility also failed to maintain proper calibration and inspection of the scale used for weighing residents. The last inspection was overdue, and the scale had not been calibrated as required by the manufacturer's maintenance schedule. Staff interviews revealed that the scale's calibration was not up to date, and there was confusion about the accuracy of weights being recorded. Additionally, meal intake percentages were inaccurately documented in advance in the electronic medical record for several residents, with some meals being charted before they were actually consumed. Observations showed discrepancies between the documented intake and what residents actually ate, and staff interviews confirmed that some CNAs were entering meal percentages prematurely or inaccurately. Furthermore, the facility did not notify the registered dietitian or physician when significant weight loss occurred in two residents. There was also a failure to complete a Mini Nutritional Evaluation for a resident as required by her care plan. These actions and inactions, including inaccurate weight and intake documentation, lack of timely communication with clinical staff, and missing nutritional assessments, contributed to the deficiency in maintaining residents' nutritional status.
Failure to Complete Nutritional Assessment per Care Plan
Penalty
Summary
A deficiency occurred when the facility failed to implement a comprehensive, person-centered care plan for a resident with multiple diagnoses, including muscle weakness, atrophy, lack of coordination, and cognitive communication deficit. The resident's care plan identified a risk for malnutrition and included specific interventions such as completing a Mini Nutritional Evaluation and consulting a dietician based on the results. However, the Mini Nutritional Assessment for the resident was started but not completed, and the Registered Dietician (RD) was unaware that the evaluation was required. The care plan interventions were not fully carried out as intended. Interviews revealed a lack of communication and follow-through regarding the nutritional assessment. The RD stated he was not informed that a Mini Nutrition Evaluation was needed, and the Regional Nurse Consultant indicated that care plans should trigger the RD to complete necessary assessments. Facility policy required the care plan to describe services to maintain the resident's well-being, but this was not achieved due to the incomplete assessment and lack of coordination among staff.
Care Plans Not Accessible in Electronic Medical Records
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to maintain complete and accurately documented medical records in accordance with accepted professional standards for two residents. Specifically, care plans for these residents were not accessible in their current active electronic medical records. One resident, a female with muscle weakness, atrophy, lack of coordination, and cognitive communication deficit, had a moderate cognitive impairment as indicated by a BIMS score of 10 out of 15. Another resident, a female with hypertension, atrial fibrillation, and osteoarthritis of the hip, had a severe cognitive impairment with a BIMS score of 7 out of 15. Despite their needs, neither resident had a care plan available in the current electronic system. Interviews with facility staff revealed that the transition from the former electronic medical record system to the current one (PCC) resulted in incomplete transfer of care plans. The MDS Coordinator acknowledged that not all care plans had been entered into the new system and that staff were instructed to request care plans or MDS assessments from her if needed. However, there was no specific training for staff to know they could contact the MDS nurse or administration at any time for this information. The facility's policy required comprehensive assessments to be maintained in the resident's active record, but this was not followed for the affected residents.
Inadequate Supervision and Security Leads to Substance Use Among Residents
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure adequate supervision and prevent accidents for several residents, leading to a situation where multiple residents tested positive for amphetamines. Residents were observed smoking unsupervised, and the facility did not adequately secure the back door, allowing residents to access the outside area without supervision. This lack of supervision and security allowed residents to engage in substance use, as evidenced by positive drug tests for amphetamines among several residents. Resident #36, who had a history of schizoaffective disorder and substance use, was found to be acting erratically and admitted to consuming alcohol and smoking outside designated times. Despite being advised against such behavior due to her medical condition and medication regimen, she was observed unsupervised on the back patio with other residents. This behavior was linked to her interactions with other residents who were also involved in substance use, as confirmed by drug tests. The facility's failure to lock the back door and supervise residents adequately led to a situation where residents could access the community and engage in unsupervised activities, including substance use. Staff reported concerns about the unlocked doors and the presence of visitors who might be supplying drugs, but these concerns were not addressed by management. The facility's policies on smoking and substance use were not effectively enforced, contributing to the deficiency.
Failure to Obtain Informed Consent for Psychotropic Medications
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to obtain informed consent for psychotropic medications for three residents, leading to deficiencies in their care. Resident #9, a male with a history of schizophrenia and other mental health conditions, was administered paliperidone without a signed consent form. Although a form was partially completed by healthcare professionals, the section for the resident or their representative's signature was left blank, indicating a lack of proper consent. Resident #25, a female with dementia and depression, was given medications such as trazodone, paroxetine, and buspirone without proper consent. The facility had a consent form with a typed name of a family member, but this individual was unaware of the medications and had not been consulted. Interviews revealed that the resident did not know what medications she was taking, and the family member, who was believed to be the representative, had not been involved in the consent process. Resident #30, a female with schizoaffective disorder and other health issues, was prescribed Seroquel and ABH gel without a physically signed consent form. The facility documented telephone consent from a responsible party, but the forms lacked physical signatures. The facility's policy required written consent for psychotropic medications, which was not adhered to in these cases, leading to the administration of medications without proper informed consent.
Failure to Ensure Call Light Accessibility for Resident
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure that a resident received services with reasonable accommodation of their needs, specifically regarding the placement of the call light. The resident, an elderly female with a history of fractures, multiple trauma, atrial fibrillation, heart failure, and renal insufficiency, was observed in a wheelchair by her bedside, unable to reach her call light. Despite having a fully intact cognition, as indicated by a BIMS score of 15, the resident was dependent on others for transfers and had impairment on one side of her body. On the day of the incident, the resident returned from dialysis and was assisted to her room by a van driver who did not place the call light within her reach. Consequently, the resident was in pain and unable to call for help, relying on her roommate to press the call light for her. The Director of Nursing (DON) acknowledged that the van driver should have ensured the call light was accessible to the resident, although the driver is not responsible for transferring residents. The facility had only one working Hoyer lift, which did not affect the timely response for care, according to the DON. The facility's policy on answering call lights emphasizes the importance of ensuring the call light is within easy reach of residents confined to a bed or chair. The Administrator noted that the resident had a cell phone to contact him if needed, but affirmed that the call light should be within reach for all residents.
Failure to Report Drug Use and Abuse Allegations
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to report alleged violations involving abuse and neglect, specifically related to drug use, to the state reporting agency within the required timeframe. Four residents tested positive for amphetamines during a facility investigation of possible drug use, but the facility did not report these findings to the state. This failure to report could contribute to further abuse and neglect among residents. Resident #9, a male with a history of alcohol or drug abuse, tested positive for amphetamines. His care plan included interventions for supervised smoking breaks due to a history of setting a fire. Resident #36, a female with schizoaffective disorder and a history of drug abuse, exhibited erratic behavior and admitted to taking a pill given by another resident. She was sent to the hospital and later tested positive for amphetamines. Resident #40, a male with a history of illicit drug use, was suspected of distributing drugs to other residents. He tested positive for MDMA, methamphetamine, and amphetamines. Resident #21, a male with a history of alcohol or drug abuse, also tested positive for amphetamines. Interviews with staff revealed concerns about residents accessing drugs and engaging in unsupervised smoking on the patio. Staff reported suspicious behavior and the presence of a visitor entering through an unlocked door. Despite these observations, the facility did not report the drug use to the state, as they believed it was not necessary due to the residents' voluntary drug use. The facility's policy on abuse prevention requires the investigation and reporting of any allegations of abuse within federal timeframes, which was not adhered to in this case.
Failure to Provide Adequate Respiratory Care
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to provide adequate respiratory care for two residents requiring oxygen therapy. Resident #29, a male with a history of acute respiratory failure, pulmonary embolism, and COPD, did not have an oxygen sign posted on his door despite having an oxygen tank and concentrator in his room. His care plan required oxygen therapy to maintain SPO2 at 90% or greater, with a physician's order for PRN oxygen via nasal cannula. However, during an observation, it was noted that no signage was present to indicate the use of oxygen. Similarly, Resident #163, a male with acute respiratory failure and heart failure, also lacked appropriate signage to indicate oxygen use. Additionally, there was no active physician order for oxygen, and the oxygen tubing was found on the floor, undated, and not properly maintained. The facility's policy required oxygen signs and proper dating of equipment, but these protocols were not followed. Interviews with staff revealed inconsistencies in the implementation of these procedures, contributing to the deficiency.
Failure to Coordinate Hospice Care and Maintain Required Documentation
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to collaborate effectively with hospice representatives and coordinate the hospice care planning process for residents receiving hospice services. Specifically, for one resident, the facility did not maintain the required hospice forms and documentation in the current hospice binders. This included the absence of Form 3071, Individual Election/Cancellation/Update, and Form 3074, Physician's Certificate of Terminal Illness. The lack of these documents could potentially place residents at risk of receiving inadequate end-of-life care due to insufficient documentation, coordination of care, and communication of resident needs. The resident in question was a female with multiple diagnoses, including opioid dependence, schizoaffective disorders, sarcoidosis, hypothyroidism, chronic pain syndrome, unspecified osteoarthritis, and sciatica. The facility's administrator admitted that the hospice company had not provided the required forms and that there was no assigned responsibility within the facility to ensure all necessary paperwork for hospice was present. This oversight was attributed to the resident being private pay for hospice and Medicaid pending, leading to a misunderstanding of the facility's obligations regarding documentation.
Failure to Develop Comprehensive Care Plans for Resident Transfers
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to develop and implement comprehensive person-centered care plans for seven residents, which included measurable objectives and timeframes to meet their medical, nursing, and mental needs. This deficiency was identified during a review of the care plans and interviews with facility staff. The care plans lacked specific instructions on how to safely transfer residents from bed to chair, despite the residents' varying levels of assistance required for such transfers. Resident #1, a female with a history of severe traumatic brain injury and moderate cognitive impairment, required substantial assistance for transfers. However, her care plan did not include instructions for bed-to-chair transfers. Similarly, Resident #2, a male with congenital myasthenia and moderate cognitive impairment, required supervision for transfers, but his care plan also lacked specific transfer instructions. Other residents, including those with dementia, cerebral infarction, and congestive heart failure, were assessed as needing varying levels of assistance, from partial to maximal, yet their care plans did not address the necessary transfer procedures. Interviews with the MDS Coordinator and the regional nurse consultant revealed that the facility relied on resident profiles in the Point of Care system to inform staff about transfer needs. However, the MDS Coordinator acknowledged the omission of transfer instructions in the care plans, recognizing the potential risk of staff performing incorrect transfers, which could lead to injuries. The facility's policy on comprehensive person-centered care plans emphasized the need to describe services to maintain residents' well-being, highlighting the importance of including transfer instructions in the care plans.
Failure to Ensure Resident Privacy During Peri-Care
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure personal privacy for a resident during peri-care, as observed by surveyors. Two CNAs, while providing peri-care, did not fully close the privacy curtains, leaving the resident exposed to view from the sides of the bed. This incident occurred while the resident's roommate was present in the room, compromising the resident's privacy. The CNAs acknowledged the oversight, with one admitting she did not notice the roommate's presence and confirming that she should have closed the curtains completely. The resident involved had a history of multiple medical conditions, including rheumatoid lung disease, noninfective gastroenteritis, rheumatoid arthritis, type 2 diabetes mellitus, major depressive disorder, and a urinary tract infection. The resident was moderately cognitively impaired and required assistance with activities of daily living. The facility's policy on dignity emphasized the importance of maintaining resident privacy during personal care, which was not adhered to in this instance. Interviews with the RN and DON confirmed the expectation that privacy curtains should be fully closed during such care.
Inadequate Incontinent Care Leads to Deficiency
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to provide appropriate incontinent care for a resident who was incontinent of bladder and bowel. During an observation, an LVN and a CNA were providing care to a resident who had a bowel movement. The LVN cleaned the resident's buttock with only one pass of a cleaning cloth wipe, leaving residual stool on the resident's skin. The LVN then changed gloves and placed a new brief under the resident without ensuring the area was thoroughly cleaned. The resident expressed concern about not being clean, prompting the CNA to take over and clean the area completely. The resident involved was an elderly male with severe cognitive impairment and multiple medical conditions, including a urinary tract infection and hemiplegia. The facility's policy on perineal care required thorough cleaning when a resident is heavily soiled, which was not followed in this instance. Interviews with the LVN, CNA, and DON confirmed that the cleaning was inadequate and acknowledged the potential risk of infection due to improper care practices.
Unattended and Unlocked Nursing Cart
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure that all drugs and biologicals were stored in locked compartments, specifically with the 200-hall nursing cart. During an observation, the nursing cart was found unlocked and unattended, allowing access to multiple blister packs and bottles of medication. This oversight was noted during a surveyor's visit, highlighting a lapse in the facility's adherence to its medication storage policy. An interview with LVN-F revealed that the cart was left unlocked while attending to a resident's call light, and LVN-F acknowledged the importance of keeping the cart locked for safety reasons. The Director of Nursing (DON) also confirmed that the cart should not have been left unlocked, as it posed a risk to residents and visitors. The facility's policy, revised in 2007, mandates that compartments containing drugs and biologicals must be locked when not in use, and carts should not be left unattended if open.
Failure to Follow Enhanced Barrier Precautions
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to maintain an effective infection prevention and control program, as evidenced by the actions of two CNAs who did not adhere to Enhanced Barrier Precautions (EBP) while providing peri-care to a resident. The resident, who had a Foley catheter and an open wound on her back, was at risk for infection and required EBP, which includes the use of gowns and gloves during high-contact care activities. Despite the presence of an EBP sign outside the resident's room and a PPE supply drawer inside, the CNAs only wore gloves and not gowns during the care procedure. Interviews with the CNAs and the RN revealed a lack of awareness and adherence to the EBP requirements. CNA B stated she was unaware of the EBP sign and the need for gowns, while RN A confirmed observing the CNAs' failure to wear gowns. The DON emphasized the importance of using both gowns and gloves to prevent infection spread, noting that all staff had been trained on EBP. The facility's policy on EBP, revised in March 2024, mandates gown and glove use during high-contact activities to reduce the transmission of multi-drug resistant organisms.
Latest citations in Texas
A resident with severe dementia, mobility deficits, and dependence for transfers was provided bed rails without a documented entrapment risk assessment, physician order, or inclusion of bed rail use in the care plan, despite a facility policy requiring alternatives, IDT review, informed consent, and proper installation. Maintenance installed 1/3 bed rails on verbal request from nursing, believing the clinical steps had been completed, and the resident later was found partially out of bed with her head pinned between the rail and a low air loss mattress, unresponsive, and subsequently pronounced deceased. The medical examiner noted neck abrasions, bruising, and muscle hemorrhage consistent with entrapment between the mattress and bed rail and indicated the likely cause of death as strangulation on the rails or asphyxiation on the mattress, and the deficiency was cited as past Immediate Jeopardy.
A resident with severe cognitive impairment and multiple pressure injuries received twice-daily wound care without a corresponding pain care plan or documented pain assessments, despite having a PRN acetaminophen order. During an observed wound care attempt, the resident winced, cried out, and showed facial expressions consistent with pain when repositioned, while staff were unsure of her primary language, whether she had been assessed or medicated for pain, or even what pain medications were ordered. CNAs and the treatment nurse noted foul odor and colored drainage from the wounds and that the resident felt warm, but the LVN initially reported no indication of pain or need for vital signs and only checked a temperature after surveyor prompting, without performing a clear pain assessment. The wound care NP later reported the resident had increased necrotic tissue, odor, and frequent combative behavior during prior treatments that had not been considered as possible pain responses, and the resident’s representative stated they were unaware of wound odor, infection concerns, or antibiotic orders and believed the resident was receiving pain medication while video showed wound care being attempted without it.
Surveyors found three mechanical lifts repeatedly parked unlocked and unsecured in a hallway adjacent to the 300 Hall, where they were stored and charged when not in use. An RN and a CNA assigned to the hall both stated they were unaware the lifts were unsecured, despite prior in‑service training on lift safety and storage, and each could not recall when that training last occurred. The DON confirmed that all lifts were expected to be locked when not in use, acknowledged unawareness of the unsecured lifts over several days, and stated that while staff had been educated on lift safety, there was no facility policy addressing accidents and hazards related to mechanical lift safety and storage, and the existing mechanical lift policy lacked such content.
Surveyors found multiple food safety and storage deficiencies in the kitchen, including an unsealed bag of meat, sauce containers with dried drippings on the handle and rim, a container of overripe bananas with black peels, and uncovered whole eggs in an unlabeled, undated bowl. Temperature logs for reach-in refrigerators and a freezer were missing required PM shift temperature checks and staff signatures. In interviews, dietary staff, the Dietary Manager, and the Administrator confirmed that these conditions did not follow facility policies requiring open food to be securely covered, labeled, dated, properly cleaned, and monitored with completed temperature logs.
A resident with lymphedema and multiple comorbidities had physician orders for bilateral lower extremity ace wraps each morning with removal in the evening, along with edema checks every shift. On the survey day, the resident was observed in a wheelchair without leg wraps, while the MAR showed the morning treatment as completed. The resident reported his legs were supposed to be wrapped daily and that they had not been wrapped for about a week, and he described inconsistent staff response to his call light. The charge nurse admitted it was not normal practice to document treatment before completion and stated the resident usually received wraps after a shower, which had not yet occurred. CNAs gave conflicting accounts about how consistently the wraps were applied, and leadership confirmed expectations that treatments be performed per orders and documented only after completion, in line with the facility’s documentation policy prohibiting false entries.
Surveyors found that the facility failed to provide pressure ulcer care consistent with professional standards for three residents. One resident with hemiplegia and vascular dementia had a sacral wound that was omitted from the care plan and repeatedly left off weekly skin assessments, while heel wounds were documented without consistent measurements or staging and ordered treatments were not always recorded as given. A second resident with multiple comorbidities developed a sacral wound that progressed from MASD to an unstageable and then Stage 4 pressure injury with surgical debridement, yet the care plan was not updated to reflect the active pressure ulcer and specific interventions, and weekly skin assessments often lacked complete staging and measurements. A third resident with dementia and incontinence had an unstageable sacral ulcer and MASD, but weekly skin assessments were inconsistent, some ordered wound treatments and topical medications were not documented on the TAR, and nursing notes did not show that care was provided on those dates. Staff interviews revealed that the treatment nurse handled nearly all weekly skin assessments and wound care documentation, relied on the DON or wound physician for staging and measurements, and that facility policies requiring complete wound assessment and documentation were not consistently followed.
The facility failed to ensure call lights were accessible for four residents who were identified as fall risks and required assistance with ADLs or had significant mobility or cognitive impairments. Observations found residents lying in bed with call lights placed at the head of the bed, on the floor, on a roommate’s bed, or on a nightstand, all out of reach, despite care plan interventions requiring call lights to be kept within reach. A CNA, an LVN, and the DON each confirmed that all staff are responsible for keeping call bells within residents’ reach and acknowledged that inaccessible call bells could lead to accidents, falls, avoidable injuries, delayed care, and unmet needs, contrary to the facility’s written call light policy.
Surveyors found that multiple resident rooms and two halls were not maintained in a clean and sanitary condition. Bathrooms in several rooms had brown or gray stains in corners and around toilets, and some showers and room floors had dark or built-up dirt along edges, near closets, and by beds and walls. Air conditioning vents and filters in several rooms were observed with black grime or thick dust. Handrails on two halls had debris, including tissue with a red-brown substance, candy wrappers, gum, plastic, and paper wedged between the rails. Sharps containers in several rooms had used gloves and trash placed on top. The Administrator and housekeeping staff confirmed that housekeeping was responsible for cleaning rooms, bathrooms, floors, handrails, and air conditioning units, and staff acknowledged that the observed conditions were a health hazard and could cause infection.
The facility failed to follow its own infection control practices and physician orders for three residents requiring respiratory care. A resident with COPD had a nasal cannula and nebulizer mask connected to equipment that were not bagged or dated when not in use, despite orders for weekly changes. Another resident with asthma had an unbagged, undated nasal cannula and an oxygen humidifier bottle that was partially full, cracked, and dated from a prior week. A third resident with COPD had both nasal cannula and nebulizer mask unbagged and undated, despite orders for weekly equipment changes and monitoring of pulse, O2 sat, treatment time, and lung sounds. Staff, including a CNA, an LVN, and the DON, acknowledged that equipment should always be bagged, dated, and changed per schedule to prevent infection, consistent with the facility’s infection prevention and control policy.
Surveyors found that staff failed to administer multiple residents’ scheduled medications within the facility’s one-hour administration window, despite active orders for numerous drugs treating conditions such as DM, HTN, CHF, dementia, seizures, and hypothyroidism. During a morning med pass, a med tech had not completed 8:00 a.m. and 9:00 a.m. medications by late morning, and staff interviews confirmed that medications were required to be given within a defined time range. In addition, staff did not consistently check BP before dispensing medications with BP parameters, did not keep a milk-based Med Pass nutritional supplement refrigerated or on ice as required by manufacturer directions and facility protocol, and failed to date most insulin vials when opened, contrary to facility policy. These actions and inactions showed that pharmaceutical services, including accurate dispensing, administration, and storage of medications and biologicals, were not provided as required for the residents reviewed.
Failure to Assess, Order, and Care Plan Bed Rail Use Resulting in Fatal Entrapment
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to follow its own policy and regulatory requirements for the assessment, ordering, care planning, and safe use of bed rails for a cognitively impaired resident. The resident was an elderly female with severe dementia, repeated falls, a fractured neck of the left femur, cognitive communication deficit, and a need for assistance with personal care. Her admission MDS showed a BIMS score of 03, indicating severe cognitive impairment, and documented that she required substantial staff assistance with bed mobility and was completely dependent on staff for transfers from bed to chair. Despite these needs, her care plan addressed ADL self-care performance deficits related to dementia and included interventions for bed mobility requiring one staff member to assist with repositioning, but it did not mention bed rails or any risk of entrapment. The facility obtained a bed rail consent form signed by the resident’s family member, which listed multiple potential dangers of bed rail use, including suffocation and various forms of entrapment that could cause injury or death. However, from the time of admission through the date of the incident, there was no documented bed rail safety or entrapment risk assessment for this resident, no physician order for bed rails, and no inclusion of bed rail use in the resident’s care plan. Maintenance staff reported that a charge nurse verbally requested installation of bed rails on the resident’s bed, and he believed the usual clinical steps—assessment, IDT review, consent, and physician order—had already been completed, but he had no documentation of when the rails were installed. The DON later confirmed that, for this resident, the required risk of entrapment assessment, physician order, and care plan focus for bed rails were not completed, and alternatives to bed rails were not attempted prior to installation, contrary to facility policy. On the night of the incident, a CNA observed the resident resting calmly around 2:00 a.m. During a subsequent round close to 5:00 a.m., the CNA found the resident partially out of bed with her head pinned between the assist bar/bed rail and the mattress, and notified the LVN. The LVN’s written statement described finding the resident seated on the floor on the right side of the bed, off the mattress, with her head resting between the side rail and the mattress, unresponsive. CPR was initiated and EMS was called, but the resident was later pronounced deceased. The county medical examiner reported that the resident had bruising and abrasions around the neck and jawline and hemorrhaging in the neck muscles, injuries consistent with being trapped between the mattress and bed rails, and indicated that the likely cause of death would be strangulation on the bed rails or asphyxiation on the mattress. Subsequent observation of the bed showed 1/3 bed rails of the same make and model as the bed frame and a low air loss mattress; while the rails were not loose and there was little space when the mattress was fully inflated, the air mattress could be compressed enough to create significant space between the mattress and rails. The facility’s failure to conduct a bed rail entrapment risk assessment, obtain a physician order, and incorporate bed rail use into the care plan prior to installation led to the resident’s entrapment and death, and constituted noncompliance identified as past Immediate Jeopardy. The facility’s written bed rail policy required that appropriate alternatives be attempted before installing bed rails, that the IDT assess each resident for entrapment risk, that risks and benefits be reviewed with the resident or representative, that informed consent be obtained prior to installation, and that manufacturer instructions and compatibility of bed, mattress, and rails be verified. It also required updating the care plan to reflect the need or choice for bed rails. In this case, staff interviews and record review showed that these steps were not followed for the resident involved. The DON acknowledged that the process did not occur as required, that the IDT did not meet to assess the resident for entrapment risk, and that the bed rails were installed based on the responsible party’s request without the mandated clinical review and documentation. This sequence of omissions and deviations from policy directly preceded the resident’s fatal entrapment between the bed rail and mattress.
Removal Plan
- Notify Medical Director
- Notify Ombudsman
- Conduct ad hoc QAPI
- DON to provide education to trainers regarding abuse and neglect
- Review admissions processes regarding bed rails and complete in-service with DON, ED, and IDT
- Provide in-service to all nurses involved with admissions process regarding bed rails
- Audit bed rails currently in use
- Inspect bed rails currently in use
- Verify consent on file for all bed rails in use
- Verify order and care plan for all bed rails
- Complete bed rail safety evaluation for all residents with bed rails
- Audit low air loss mattresses currently in use
- Verify order and care plan for all low air loss mattresses in use
- Complete fall risk assessment for all residents with low air loss mattress
- Provide staff education regarding use of enabler/bed rail
- Provide staff education regarding false safety
- Provide staff education regarding low air loss mattress
- Audit admissions for completion
- Audit low air loss mattresses and bedside rails
- Conduct ongoing monitoring for improvement to be reviewed at QAPI
Failure to Assess and Manage Pain During Wound Care for a Nonverbal Resident
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to provide safe, appropriate pain management consistent with professional standards of practice and the resident’s needs during wound care. A female resident with severe cognitive impairment (BIMS score of 00) was admitted with multiple pressure-related skin conditions, including a left heel deep tissue injury (DTI), right heel DTI, an unstageable sacral pressure injury, a left heel ulcer, a right bunion DTI, and other bruising/discoloration. Her MDS Care Area Assessment did not trigger for pain and no care planning decision for pain was documented. The resident’s care plan contained detailed entries for her multiple wounds but did not include any care plan for pain, despite the presence of significant pressure injuries and ongoing wound care orders. Record review showed the resident had an active PRN order for acetaminophen 500 mg every 6 hours as needed for pain and an order for Doxycycline for the sacral wound, as well as twice-daily wound care orders for the unstageable sacral pressure injury. The MAR for the month showed that no acetaminophen had been administered since early in the month, even though wound care was being performed twice daily. During an observed attempt to perform wound care, the resident was dependent for mobility and required staff to roll and reposition her. When staff attempted to roll her for treatment, she winced, cried out "Oh my God" in Spanish, and displayed furrowed eyebrows and facial expressions consistent with pain. CNAs assisting with care noted that she appeared to be lying on the wound, that her wounds often drained, and that there was a foul odor and visible brownish-green drainage on her brief and positioning towels. Despite these signs, the treatment nurse could not confirm whether the resident had been assessed for pain or medicated prior to the procedure and was unsure of the resident’s primary language. During this same encounter, the resident was noted by the surveyor and CNAs to feel warm to the touch, and her wounds and dressings showed green, brown, or red drainage. The treatment nurse and CNAs acknowledged the resident felt warm, but the charge nurse (LVN) initially stated there was no indication the resident was in pain or needed vital signs assessed and only checked the resident’s temperature after being prompted by the surveyor. The LVN reported a normal temperature using a contactless thermometer, was unsure if the resident had any pain medication orders, and did not initially perform a direct pain assessment. Subsequent interviews revealed that the wound care NP had observed increased necrotic tissue and odor in the sacral wound the prior week and that the resident had been frequently combative, refusing wound care by kicking and biting, but this behavior had not been considered as a possible reaction to pain. CNAs later described the resident’s facial expressions and reactions during repositioning as indicating pain, while the LVN reported feeling pressured and nervous during the surveyor’s questioning and could not clearly describe having assessed the resident for pain during her shift. The resident’s responsible party stated they had not been informed of wound odor, infection concerns, or antibiotic orders and believed the resident was receiving pain and fever medications, later expressing shock upon reviewing video that showed wound care being attempted without medication. The facility’s own pain assessment and management policy stated that residents should be assessed for pain at admission and ongoing, monitored for pain with changes in condition, and that procedures such as moving or wound care can cause pain. It also directed that pain management interventions be consistent with the resident’s goals and documented in the care plan, and that underlying causes of pain, including skin/wound conditions like pressure ulcers, be addressed. In this case, the resident with multiple pressure injuries and ongoing wound care had no pain care plan, no documented pain assessment using appropriate tools for severe dementia, and no administration of ordered PRN pain medication in the weeks preceding the observed event, despite clear non-verbal signs of pain during wound care attempts. These actions and omissions led surveyors to determine that the facility failed to ensure pain was assessed and treated prior to wound care, resulting in the resident crying out and exhibiting pain behaviors when touched or moved.
Removal Plan
- Amend treatment orders to require pain evaluation prior to treatments and medication if indicated upon re-admission.
- Provide additional 1:1 education to CNA A, CNA B, LVN A, and the facility treatment nurse specific to issues identified in the preliminary fact analysis.
- Nursing leadership (DON/designees) to conduct facility rounds on all residents to ensure no unreported or undocumented changes in pain levels; audit all wound care orders to ensure pain management orders are present as indicated.
- Complete house-wide pain assessments; communicate any reported pain to the charge nurse for medication administration if indicated and complete follow-up assessment to ensure effectiveness.
- Re-educate licensed nurses on change in condition, pain assessment and management, administering pain medications, and the pain-clinical protocol (including identifying situations where increased pain may be anticipated such as wound care, ambulation, repositioning, and reviewing the critical element pathway for pain recognition and management).
- Re-educate all non-licensed nursing staff on recognizing change in condition/status including changes in pain levels and proper reporting using STOP AND WATCH Alert in PCC/point-of-care documentation and/or direct communication to the charge nurse; re-educate staff not working prior to their next scheduled shift.
- Educate the Facility Administrator and DON by the Divisional President of Operations on standards of care, pain management, and quality oversight.
- Validate staff education via completion of a quiz and acknowledgement covering recognition of changes in condition, proper notification procedures, and pain assessment and management.
- Review and validate the pain assessment and management policy to ensure alignment with regulatory requirements (no changes required).
- Implement monitoring: change in condition/pain assessment audits (review 24-hour summary report and nurse progress notes; ensure changes are reported to the provider and documented; ensure pain assessments are completed prior to treatments); review audit results in IDT/QAPI meetings and address issues immediately, including provider communication.
Unsecured Mechanical Lifts Left Unlocked in Resident Hallway
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to keep the environment as free of accident hazards as possible in the hallway adjacent to the 300 Hall, specifically related to unsecured mechanical lifts. Surveyors repeatedly observed three mechanical lifts parked in this hallway that were unlocked and unsecured on multiple occasions over three consecutive days at various times. These observations showed that the lifts remained in an unsecured state while not in use, in an area used for storing and charging them. During interviews, an RN assigned to the 300 Hall stated she was unaware that the three mechanical lifts parked in the adjacent hallway were unlocked and unsecured, despite being stationed at the nearby nurses’ station. She reported having received in‑service training on mechanical lift safety and storage but could not recall when the training occurred. The RN acknowledged that mechanical lifts were supposed to be locked when not in use and confirmed that the three lifts observed were the only ones she used for residents and that they were stored in that hallway to be charged when not in use. She also stated that she typically did not check the parked lifts to verify they were locked and secured. A CNA assigned to the same hall similarly reported being unaware that the three mechanical lifts were unlocked and unsecured, despite also having received in‑service training on mechanical lift safety and storage and being unable to recall when that training last occurred. The DON stated she was unaware that the three lifts had been left unlocked and unsecured over the three days of observation and confirmed her expectation that all mechanical lifts be locked when not in use. The DON stated that all staff had been educated on proper mechanical lift usage and safety but could not recall when the last in‑service training occurred. The DON and Administrator both reported that the facility did not have a policy addressing accidents and hazards related to mechanical lift safety and storage, and the existing “Total Mechanical Lift” policy did not contain information on accidents and hazards related to lift safety and storage.
Food Storage, Labeling, and Temperature Monitoring Deficiencies in Kitchen
Penalty
Summary
Surveyors identified a deficiency in the facility’s food storage and handling practices in the main kitchen. During an observation of the walk-in refrigerator, they found a zip-top bag containing meat slices that was not fully sealed and exposed to air. They also observed one gallon container of sauce with black drippings on the handle and one jar of sauce with yellow, dried drippings around the rim. A container held approximately ten overripe whole bananas with black peels, and three whole eggs were left uncovered and exposed to air in an unlabeled and undated bowl. Additionally, temperature logs for two reach-in refrigerators and one reach-in freezer were missing the PM shift temperature checks and signatures for a specific date. In interviews, dietary staff, the Dietary Manager, and the Administrator confirmed that these conditions were inconsistent with facility policies and expected practices. Dietary staff stated that temperature logs were to be completed at the start and end of each shift by cooks and dietary aides, and that the Dietary Manager was responsible for ensuring completion. They explained that eggs should be returned to their original container or stored sealed, labeled, and dated; overripe bananas should be discarded; zip-top bags should be fully sealed; and jars and gallon containers should be wiped down after each use. The Dietary Manager and Administrator reiterated that all open food must be securely covered, labeled, and dated, and that fruits and vegetables showing visible damage or rot should be discarded, consistent with written facility policies on food storage and dietary food service personnel responsibilities.
Failure to Follow Physician Orders for Lymphedema Leg Wraps and Accurate Documentation
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to provide treatment and care in accordance with physician orders and professional standards of practice for one resident with lymphedema. The resident was an adult male with multiple diagnoses including cardiac arrhythmia, musculoskeletal symptoms, osteitis deformans of multiple sites, eye and adnexa disorder, lymphedema, major depressive disorder, prostate disorder, chronic pain, hypokalemia, COPD, muscle weakness, lack of coordination, epilepsy with complex partial seizures, unsteadiness on feet, and other gait and mobility abnormalities. His Quarterly MDS showed a BIMS score of 15, indicating intact cognition, and he was dependent for toileting hygiene, showering/bathing, and personal hygiene. Physician orders on the March MAR included ace wraps to both lower extremities every morning and removal every evening, along with edema checks every shift. On the survey date, record review of the March MAR showed that the charge nurse had documented completion of the resident’s morning leg wrap treatment, but when the surveyor reviewed the resident at 11:21 a.m., he was observed sitting in his wheelchair with his legs not wrapped. At 11:50 a.m., the MAR still reflected that the treatment was completed, despite the wraps not being in place. The resident reported he had severe leg swelling due to lymphedema and stated his legs were supposed to be wrapped daily, but the last time they had been wrapped was about a week prior. He stated that whether his call light requests for treatment were answered depended on who responded, and that staff sometimes did not return to complete his care, which made him feel bad. In interviews, Charge Nurse A acknowledged that it was not normal nursing practice to document treatment before completion and stated that the resident normally received leg wraps after his shower, but that morning the resident had not yet had a shower. CNAs provided differing accounts: one CNA stated the wraps were always on during bed baths but did not bathe the resident that day; another CNA stated that sometimes the resident’s legs were wrapped and sometimes not, that his legs were not wrapped that day, and that she had given him a bed bath that morning; a third CNA stated she had never seen his legs unwrapped. The NP explained that the purpose of the wraps was to enhance circulation due to lymphedema. The DON confirmed the resident had bilateral leg wrap orders in the morning and removal in the evening, and that she was informed around midday that his legs were not wrapped. The Administrator stated she knew the resident’s legs were wrapped but did not know why, and both the DON and Administrator stated that documentation of treatment should occur after the treatment is performed, consistent with the facility’s documentation policy, which prohibits false information in the medical record.
Failure to Accurately Assess, Care Plan, and Treat Pressure Ulcers for Multiple Residents
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to provide pressure ulcer care consistent with professional standards, including accurate assessment, staging, measurement, care planning, and implementation of ordered treatments for multiple residents with pressure injuries. For one resident with hemiplegia, vascular dementia, incontinence, low body weight, and an admission Braden score indicating risk, the facility did not consistently identify and document all existing wounds. Her care plan listed only a left heel pressure wound and omitted a sacral wound. Weekly skin assessments from late January through March repeatedly failed to document the sacral wound after its initial identification, and heel wounds were inconsistently documented without required measurements or staging. On several dates, the weekly skin assessment was left blank or lacked measurements, despite physician documentation that the left heel wound progressed from Stage 3 to Stage 4 with increasing size. The treatment administration record (TAR) also showed missing documentation of ordered wound treatments to the sacrum and left heel on multiple dates, with no corresponding nursing notes indicating that care was provided. A second resident with hemiplegia, vascular dementia, diabetes, malnutrition, peripheral vascular disease, incontinence, and significant weight loss was identified as at risk for pressure ulcers but initially had no documented pressure wounds. Her care plan, last updated the previous year, addressed only potential for pressure ulcer development and other skin integrity risks, and did not reflect a current sacral pressure wound. However, physician orders and TAR entries showed daily treatment to a sacral wound, and weekly skin assessments documented a sacral wound beginning in mid-February. These assessments frequently lacked staging and, at times, lacked complete measurements. Over several weeks, documentation showed the sacral wound increasing in size and evolving from MASD to an unstageable wound and then to a Stage 4 pressure injury requiring surgical debridement of devitalized tissue, including subcutaneous tissue, muscle fascia, and tendon. Despite this progression and ongoing wound physician involvement, the resident’s care plan was not updated to reflect the current pressure injury and specific wound care interventions. A third resident with dementia, Alzheimer’s disease, muscle weakness, incontinence, and an initially non-risk Braden score that later declined to moderate risk had an unstageable sacral pressure ulcer present on admission and MASD. Her care plan included potential for pressure ulcer development, an unstageable sacral pressure ulcer related to immobility, and a wound infection requiring oral antibiotics. Physician orders directed weekly skin assessments and specific daily and evening wound treatments to the sacral area. However, the March TAR showed multiple dates where ordered sacral wound treatments and topical medication for left upper buttock redness were not documented as given, and nursing progress notes did not show that wound care was provided on those dates. Weekly skin assessments for this resident were inconsistent, with several assessments in early January documented as refused or limited, alternating between noting arm discoloration and no skin issues, and later assessments intermittently omitting the sacral wound or lacking measurements and staging. Wound physician notes documented an unstageable sacral pressure injury with rapid clinical decline and later a Stage 3 pressure injury that had increased in size, but these changes were not consistently mirrored in the facility’s weekly skin assessment documentation. Interviews with nursing staff and leadership further described systemic issues contributing to the deficiency. The treatment nurse stated she could not stage wounds and relied on the DON or wound physician for staging, and that she was responsible for updating care plans when new pressure injuries were identified, though she was unsure of the required timeframe. She also reported that she performed nearly all weekly skin assessments for approximately 96 residents Monday through Thursday, with no assessments scheduled on Fridays unless there was a new admission, and that wound measurements were typically taken only when the wound physician visited, after which she transferred his measurements into the weekly skin assessments. The DON and ADON indicated that the treatment nurse was responsible for all wound care planning, weekly skin assessments, and ensuring documentation, and acknowledged that missing or inconsistent wound measurements and documentation on weekly skin assessments would prevent the facility from determining whether wounds were improving or worsening. Facility policies required full assessment and documentation of pressure ulcers, including location, stage, length, width, depth, exudate, and necrotic tissue, as well as complete wound care documentation, but the records for these three residents showed repeated omissions and inconsistencies in assessment, staging, measurement, care planning, and documentation of ordered treatments.
Failure to Ensure Accessible Call Lights for Multiple Residents
Penalty
Summary
Surveyors identified a deficiency in the facility’s failure to reasonably accommodate resident needs and preferences by not ensuring that call lights were accessible to four residents reviewed. For one male resident with a skull fracture, a baseline MDS showing he was a fall risk and unable to complete the BIMS interview, and a care plan indicating he required assistance with ADLs, observation showed he was lying in bed with his call light positioned at the head of the bed, out of his reach. A second male resident, with diagnoses including need for assistance with personal care, stroke, and dysphagia, and a quarterly MDS indicating he was unable to complete the BIMS interview, had a care plan intervention specifying that his call light should be within reach; however, observation found him lying in bed with his call light on the floor, out of reach. A third resident, a female with lack of coordination, unsteadiness on her feet, repeated falls, and severe cognitive impairment (BIMS score of 1), had a care plan intervention to ensure her call light was within reach, yet she was observed lying in bed with her call light placed on her roommate’s bed. A fourth male resident with right-sided paralysis, intact cognition (BIMS 14), and a care plan identifying him as a fall risk with an intervention to keep his call light within reach, was observed lying in bed with his call light on the nightstand, out of reach. During interviews, a CNA, an LVN, and the DON each stated that call bells should always be within residents’ reach and that all staff are responsible for ensuring this, and acknowledged that lack of accessible call bells could result in accidents, falls, avoidable injuries, delayed care, and unmet needs. The facility’s written policy on call lights required staff to place the call device within the resident’s reach before leaving the room.
Failure to Maintain Clean Resident Rooms and Hallway Handrails
Penalty
Summary
Surveyors identified a deficiency in the facility’s failure to provide a safe, clean, comfortable, and homelike environment, as required by the facility’s Resident Rights policy. During observations on the 300 and 400 halls, surveyors noted that handrails contained debris, including a piece of tissue with a red and brownish substance on the 300 hall and candy wrappers, gum, clear plastic materials, and large pieces of paper wedged between the rails on the 400 hall. Multiple resident rooms on these halls were found with unclean and unsanitary conditions. Several bathrooms had brownish or grayish stains in the corners of the floors and around toilets, as well as dark stains along floor edges, in corners, and in showers. Room floors showed built-up dirt near closet doors, door frames, and along floor edges, with brownish or dark stains near beds and walls. Additional observations revealed that air conditioning unit vents and filters in several rooms had black grime or thick dust accumulation. In multiple rooms, sharps containers used for needle disposal had used, dirty or disposable gloves and pieces of trash placed on top of them. During interviews, the Administrator stated that housekeeping services were provided seven days a week, with cleaning in the morning and evening, and that housekeeping was expected to thoroughly clean resident rooms and facility areas. A housekeeper assigned to the 300 and 400 halls confirmed responsibility for cleaning entire rooms, bathrooms, floors, and wiping down handrails, stating that handrails were wiped at least once a week and acknowledging that the observed conditions were a health hazard. The Housekeeping Supervisor confirmed that housekeeping and floor technicians were responsible for cleaning hallways, floors, handrails, entire rooms, bathrooms, and air conditioning units, and acknowledged that not thoroughly cleaning rooms and handrails could cause an infection.
Improper Storage and Maintenance of Oxygen and Nebulizer Equipment
Penalty
Summary
Surveyors identified that the facility failed to provide respiratory care consistent with professional standards, physician orders, and the infection prevention and control program for three residents receiving oxygen and nebulizer treatments. For a male resident with COPD, record review showed physician orders to change tubing, clean filters, and change the O2 water bottle and nebulizer kit weekly on night shift every Saturday. However, observation revealed that his nasal cannula connected to the oxygen concentrator and his nebulizer mask connected to the nebulizer machine were not bagged or labeled with a date when not in use. For a female resident with asthma, physician orders directed weekly changes of tubing, filter cleaning, and O2 water bottle changes, but observation showed her nasal cannula connected to the oxygen concentrator was not bagged or labeled, and an oxygen humidifier bottle left on the nightstand was only one-quarter full, cracked, and dated from an earlier date. A female resident with COPD had physician orders to change tubing, clean filters, and change the O2 water bottle and nebulizer kit weekly, as well as orders to obtain and record pulse, O2 saturation, treatment minutes, and lung sounds in relation to nebulizer treatments. Observation found that her nasal cannula connected to the oxygen concentrator and nebulizer mask connected to the nebulizer machine were not bagged or labeled with a date when not in use. Staff interviews with a CNA, an LVN, and the DON confirmed that facility practice and expectations were for oxygen tubing and nebulizer masks to be bagged and dated when not in use, with bags changed weekly or as needed, and for humidifier bottles to be changed regularly. The DON stated that failure to follow these practices could be an infection control issue leading to serious health consequences. The facility’s written Infection Prevention and Control Program policy emphasized decreasing infection risk, recognizing infection control practices during care, and ensuring compliance with infection control regulations, which was not followed in these observed instances.
Medication Administration, Monitoring, and Storage Failures During Med Pass
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to provide pharmaceutical services that ensured accurate acquiring, receiving, dispensing, and administering of medications and biologicals for all 10 residents reviewed for pharmacy services. Record reviews showed that multiple residents had active physician orders for medications to treat conditions such as Type 2 diabetes, dementia, end-stage renal disease, hypertension, heart failure, schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, hypothyroidism, seizures, neuropathy, and pain. These medications included antihypertensives (such as amlodipine, hydralazine, metoprolol, benazepril, nifedipine), anticoagulants (Eliquis), antidiabetics (metformin, insulin), antipsychotics (olanzapine, quetiapine), anticonvulsants (levetiracetam), thyroid replacement (levothyroxine), heart failure medications (furosemide, carvedilol, isosorbide dinitrate), and others such as gabapentin, baclofen, galantamine, and lidocaine patches. During observation of a morning medication pass, surveyors noted that Med Tech F had not finished passing morning medications on two hallways between 10:15 a.m. and 11:14 a.m., even though those medications were scheduled for 8:00 a.m. and 9:00 a.m. This meant that residents’ medications were administered more than one hour after their scheduled administration times, contrary to the facility’s stated one-hour before or after administration window. Interviews with Med Tech F, LVN A, and the DON confirmed that facility practice and policy required medications to be given at the ordered times within that window to maintain effectiveness and comply with physician orders. The facility also failed to follow required procedures related to medication parameters and storage. Med Tech F and LVN A stated that medications with blood pressure check parameters required a blood pressure reading before dispensing the medication into a cup, but the report states the facility failed to check one resident’s blood pressure before dispensing medication. Additionally, observations and interviews revealed that the Med Pass liquid nutritional supplement, described as milk-based, was not kept refrigerated or on ice during medication administration, despite manufacturer directions and facility protocol requiring it to be refrigerated or kept on ice. Further, review of insulin storage on three halls showed that 12 of 14 insulin vials were not dated with the date of first use, even though LVN A, LVN B, and the DON stated that facility policy required insulin vials to be dated when opened and discarded after a specified period (generally 28–30 days). These failures placed residents at risk for receiving medications outside ordered time frames and using insulin vials without a known open date. Facility policy and procedure for medication administration (Policy Number 7C) required that medications be administered as prescribed by the resident’s physician, in accordance with written orders and the resident’s service plan, and that routine medications be administered per facility time ranges unless otherwise specified. The policy also required that medications be recorded on the MAR, that resident identification be verified prior to administration, and that medications be administered according to the dosage schedule on the MAR. Staff interviews confirmed awareness of these requirements, including the need to date insulin vials upon opening and to maintain proper storage conditions for nutritional supplements. Despite this, the observed late medication administration, failure to check blood pressure before dispensing certain medications, failure to keep Med Pass on ice or refrigerated, and failure to date insulin vials demonstrated noncompliance with the facility’s own medication administration and pharmaceutical services procedures for the residents reviewed.
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.



