Liberty Health Care Center
Inspection history, citations, penalties and survey trends for this long-term care facility in Liberty, Texas.
- Location
- 1206 N Travis St, Liberty, Texas 77575
- CMS Provider Number
- 675540
- Inspections on file
- 30
- Latest survey
- March 19, 2026
- Citations (last 12 mo.)
- 7 (2 serious)
Citation history
Health deficiencies cited at Liberty Health Care Center during CMS and state inspections, most recent first.
A resident with dementia, severe cognitive impairment, and total dependence for ADLs, care-planned for two-person Hoyer transfers, was moved from wheelchair to bed by a CNA using a Hoyer lift alone. After the transfer, the CNA noted new bruising and skin tears and reported leg changes and possible pain to a CNA supervisor and the night LPN, but the LPN did not immediately perform a full assessment and only advised leg elevation after briefly viewing edema. When a day-shift LPN later assessed the resident, she found extensive new bruising, multiple skin tears, swelling, deformity of the left leg, and significant pain with movement. Hospital evaluation identified multiple contusions, avulsion injuries, a forehead abrasion, and displaced comminuted fractures of the left tibia and fibula, with concern for elder abuse, and the facility’s investigation confirmed there were no documented falls or incidents explaining the injuries and that the resident had been without noted injuries the prior day.
A resident with dementia, severe cognitive impairment, and non–weight-bearing status was care-planned for two-person Hoyer transfers but was transferred from wheelchair to bed by one CNA using a mechanical lift, contrary to the care plan, Kardex, and facility policy. After the transfer, staff observed new skin tears and bruising on the resident’s arms and later noted bruising and swelling of the leg, but the on-duty LVN, despite being notified of a change in the resident’s condition, did not promptly perform a full assessment. By the next morning, another LVN found extensive bruising, multiple skin tears, a large back bruise, a facial scratch, and a deformed, discolored left leg. Hospital evaluation confirmed bilateral upper extremity contusions with avulsion injuries and displaced comminuted fractures of the left tibia and fibula, with no documented fall or incident to explain the injuries, establishing a deficiency in safe transfers and adequate supervision to prevent accidents.
A resident with intact cognition and psychiatric diagnoses was found with a cup of morning medications left unsecured on the bedside table, despite no care plan authorization for self-administration. The MAR showed the doses as given, but surveyors observed the medications still at the bedside, which the resident then took independently. Nursing staff and the DON reported that RNs, LVNs, and medication aides are required to verify the MAR, identify the correct resident, and observe medication consumption, and that medications must not be left in resident rooms. Facility policies on Medication Administration and Medication Storage required observation of consumption and storage of all drugs in locked compartments or under direct observation during a med pass, but these procedures were not followed in this instance.
A former BOA misappropriated funds from several residents by accepting cash payments and money orders, failing to deposit the full amounts, and creating fraudulent invoices and unauthorized withdrawals from resident accounts. Some residents had checks cashed for personal need items that were never received, with forged signatures used on withdrawal records. The BOA also deposited a resident's payment into her personal account without consent, violating facility policies and resident rights.
The facility did not create or update care plans to address the hospice care needs of a resident with severe cognitive impairment and total ADL dependence, nor the indwelling urinary catheter and related care for another resident with heart failure and diabetes. These omissions were confirmed by facility leadership and were not in accordance with the facility's policy for comprehensive, person-centered care planning.
A resident did not receive safe and appropriate respiratory care when needed, as required by their condition.
A staff member engaged in a verbally aggressive and threatening altercation with a resident who had dementia and other medical conditions, causing the resident emotional distress. The incident was not reported immediately to the Abuse Coordinator, and the staff member continued to work for several days before being suspended. The facility also failed to notify the state agency within the required timeframe and did not implement immediate protective measures for the resident during the investigation.
A resident with a history of depression and prior suicide attempts expressed suicidal ideation and later attempted self-harm using a razor, but the facility did not update the care plan to address suicide prevention or self-harm after the incident. Staff followed existing protocols for monitoring but did not conduct a room sweep or revise the care plan, and interviews revealed gaps in staff training and documentation.
A resident with a history of depression and prior suicide attempts expressed suicidal ideation and requested helium to end her life, but was only placed on 15-minute checks without a room search or 1:1 supervision. The resident subsequently attempted to cut her wrist with a razor between checks. The care plan did not address suicide risk, and staff could not confirm training on updated suicide prevention protocols, resulting in a deficiency related to inadequate supervision and failure to follow suicide prevention policy.
A staff member engaged in a verbally aggressive argument with a resident with dementia and other conditions, using a mean tone and challenging the resident during a dispute over cigarettes. The incident was not reported immediately as required, and the staff member continued working until the event was brought to the administrator's attention several days later. Witnesses confirmed the staff member's verbally abusive behavior, and the facility's investigation substantiated the abuse.
A staff member was verbally aggressive toward a resident with dementia and other medical conditions during a dispute over cigarettes. The incident was witnessed by another staff member, who documented the event but did not immediately report it to the abuse coordinator or administrator as required. The administrator became aware of the incident two days later and failed to report the allegation to the state agency within the mandated two-hour timeframe. The staff member involved continued to work scheduled shifts until the administrator was notified and suspended her pending investigation. The facility did not follow its abuse prevention and reporting policies, resulting in a delay in protecting the resident and notifying authorities.
A facility failed to thoroughly investigate an incident where a housekeeper became verbally aggressive and made threatening remarks toward a resident with cognitive impairment during a dispute over cigarettes. The investigation did not include interviews with all witnesses, and required documentation addressing verbal abuse was incomplete, resulting in a lack of evidence that the allegation was fully investigated.
The facility failed to ensure accurate accounting of controlled drugs due to missing signatures on count records for two medication carts. Staff did not consistently sign off on narcotic counts at shift changes, indicating a lack of reconciliation. Interviews revealed insufficient training and oversight, with the Pharmacy Consultant failing to identify these issues during reviews.
The facility failed to securely store clonidine and a Fentanyl patch, leaving them unattended at the nurse station, accessible to unauthorized individuals. Staff interviews confirmed the breach of protocol, and the facility's policy mandates that controlled substances be stored in locked containers.
A facility failed to apply a physician-ordered hand splint for a resident with muscle wasting and cerebral infarction, risking contracture. Despite orders for a resting hand splint to prevent contracture, observations showed the splint was not applied. The DON and a CNA were unaware of the requirement, leading to the oversight.
A facility failed to ensure proper care for a resident with a G-tube by not verifying tube placement before administering water flushes and medications. An LVN used a syringe plunger instead of gravity flow, contrary to facility policy. The DON confirmed that staff should follow procedures to prevent complications.
Failure to Assess Change in Condition and Perform Safe Hoyer Transfer Resulting in Severe Injuries
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to ensure a resident received timely assessment and care in accordance with professional standards of practice and the resident’s care plan after a reported change in condition. The resident was an elderly female with Alzheimer’s disease, dementia, prior cerebral infarction, muscle weakness, severe cognitive impairment (BIMS-4), and total dependence for all ADLs and transfers, requiring a two-person Hoyer lift transfer at all times. Her care plan and Kardex both identified her as non–weight bearing and requiring Hoyer lift with two staff. On the afternoon of the day before the incident, documentation by an LVN indicated no edema or injuries, and a late-night note by another LVN documented edema but did not specify location, grade, or associated pain. During the night shift, a CNA transferred the resident from wheelchair to bed using a Hoyer lift alone, despite knowing the resident required a two-person Hoyer transfer and acknowledging awareness that Hoyer lifts required two staff. The CNA reported not being trained on the Hoyer lift at the facility and not checking the Kardex due to lack of access to the electronic system. After the transfer, while providing incontinence care, the CNA noticed bruising on the resident’s left leg and skin tears on her arms near the wrists. The CNA stated she informed a CNA supervisor, who allegedly said the leg had always been like that and did not check it, and that she also informed the night-shift LVN that the resident appeared to be in pain and asked the LVN to look at the leg. The LVN reportedly responded that the resident would be screaming if she was in pain and later, when shown the resident’s left foot with edema around 5:10–5:15 a.m., told the CNA to elevate the leg and then continued providing care to other residents without immediately assessing the resident. The LVN who had worked the prior day shift and returned for the morning shift stated that the resident had no bruises, edema, or skin tears when she left the previous evening. After receiving morning report, this LVN was asked by the night LVN to assess the resident at approximately 6:40 a.m. Upon pulling back the covers, she observed extensive new findings: discoloration and bruising to both arms and the right thigh, left lower extremity swelling and discoloration, multiple skin tears with missing top skin and no flaps, a knot on the right forearm, a scratch on the forehead, a large bruise on the back, fresh blood on the gown and blankets, and significant pain responses (grimacing, moaning, and frowning) when the resident was touched or moved. The resident was unable to articulate what had happened and denied falling or being harmed when questioned. Hospital evaluation documented a forehead abrasion, obvious deformity of the left lower extremity, severe hematoma of the right upper extremity, bilateral upper extremity contusions with avulsion injuries around both wrists, and displaced comminuted fractures of the distal shafts of the left tibia and fibula with soft tissue swelling, with concern for elder abuse noted. The facility’s investigation found no reported falls or incidents that could explain the injuries, confirmed that the night LVN had been notified of leg changes but did not promptly assess the resident, and classified the situation as an Immediate Jeopardy related to failure to assess and respond to a change in condition and to follow safe transfer requirements.
Removal Plan
- Suspended CNA A and LVN C immediately pending investigation
- Terminated LVN C for failure to assess and document a resident after being notified of a change in condition
- Completed facility-wide skin assessments with no new or abnormal findings
- Conducted environmental and safety rounds with no hazards or abnormal findings identified
- Conducted resident safe surveys with residents reporting they feel safe in the facility environment
- Provided staff education on abuse, neglect, and exploitation policies
- Completed mechanical lift (Hoyer) competencies with nursing staff
- Conducted targeted staff interviews with employees who had direct contact with the resident within the previous 72 hours regarding observed abnormalities and reporting
- Re-educated staff regarding the role of the Facility Abuse Coordinator, incident and accident reporting, documentation requirements, and charting expectations
- Reviewed electronic records of residents for assessment issues; no issues identified
- Held an AD HOC QAPI meeting with the interdisciplinary team to review the incident and identify system improvements
- Implemented staff training and competency testing/demonstration on abuse/neglect/reporting, documentation, transfers, resident assessment, and pain assessment
- Conducted in-services for all direct care staff; staff not present were not permitted to work their assignment until in-serviced
- In-serviced all new hires during facility orientation
- In-serviced all agency staff prior to working their floor assignment
- Completed in-service training on falls, documentation, Stop and Watch alert tool in PCC, and reporting abuse/neglect immediately to the Abuse Coordinator; 100% of staff trained
- Completed nursing staff training and competencies on skin assessments and pain assessments; 100% of nursing staff trained
- Conducted impromptu observations and skills/knowledge checks of Hoyer lift transfers and resident assessments
- Conducted daily reviews of resident records for assessments via daily 24-hour report review
- Monitored staff daily and conducted impromptu knowledge checks
- Reviewed 24-hour reports daily and reviewed resident charts for required charting
Single-Staff Hoyer Transfer and Delayed Assessment Lead to Severe Resident Injuries
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to ensure safe transfers and adequate supervision during a mechanical lift transfer for one resident, resulting in serious injuries. The resident was an elderly female with Alzheimer’s disease, dementia, prior stroke, muscle weakness, severe cognitive impairment (BIMS-4), and total dependence for all ADLs and transfers. Her care plan and Kardex specified that she was non–weight bearing and required a Hoyer lift with two staff for all transfers. Earlier on the day in question, she had been seen by facility physicians and nursing staff, and had received a shower and Hoyer transfer with two staff, with no bruises, skin tears, edema, or leg injury documented or observed. On the evening and night shift, a CNA assigned to the resident’s hall was instructed to put the resident to bed. The CNA reported that she took a Hoyer lift she had used on another resident and transferred this resident from wheelchair to bed by herself, despite knowing that Hoyer transfers required two staff and that the resident was a two-person Hoyer transfer. She stated she did not ask for help and acknowledged she had been trained that Hoyer lifts required two staff, although she also claimed she had not been trained on the Hoyer at this facility and said she did not check the Kardex because she did not have access. Another CNA confirmed that all Hoyer transfers were supposed to be done with two staff and that the resident’s requirements were available in the Kardex. The facility’s written Safe Resident Handling/Transfers policy required two staff for mechanical lift transfers and mandated that transfers be performed according to the resident’s plan of care. After the single-staff Hoyer transfer, the CNA and another aide assisted with repositioning the resident in bed. During this time, skin tears and bruising on the resident’s arms were observed. The assisting CNA reported that the skin tears appeared bloody and asked what had happened; she was told by the primary CNA that the injuries were old and that the nurse was aware. The primary CNA stated she informed the nurse that the resident appeared in pain, but the nurse allegedly responded that the resident would be screaming if she were in pain. The CNA also reported noticing bruising on the resident’s left leg and said she told her supervisor and the nurse, and was told the leg was always like that or that it was edema and to elevate it. The nurse on duty acknowledged being notified around early morning that the resident’s leg appeared bruised or swollen but did not immediately assess the resident, instead instructing that the leg be elevated while she continued care for another resident. By the following morning, when the day-shift LVN assessed the resident at the request of the night nurse, extensive injuries were found. The assessment revealed bilateral bruising to both arms, multiple skin tears with missing top layers of skin and no flaps, a large bruise on the back, a scratch on the forehead, and swelling, discoloration, and obvious deformity of the left lower extremity. The resident grimaced and moaned with touch or movement. Hospital evaluation documented a forehead abrasion, severe hematoma and contusions of the upper extremities with avulsion injuries around both wrists, and displaced comminuted fractures of the distal shafts of the left tibia and fibula with soft tissue swelling. Police photographs showed purple and red bruising on both hands with fresh and dried blood on the sheets, and the left leg bruised, purple, inflamed, and turned in an abnormal direction. There were no documented falls or incidents that could explain these injuries, and staff interviews did not identify any reported event, leaving the single-staff Hoyer transfer and subsequent lack of timely assessment after reported changes in condition as the central actions and inactions leading to the deficiency. The facility’s internal investigation confirmed that there were no abnormal findings on the resident earlier that day, including during a shower and physician visits, and that no staff reported any fall or incident during the night. The CNA who performed the transfer admitted using the Hoyer lift alone for this dependent, non–weight-bearing resident, contrary to the care plan, Kardex, and facility policy. The night nurse acknowledged failing to assess the resident after being notified of a change in her leg’s condition. The day nurse, who had last seen the resident without injuries the prior evening, found extensive new bruising, skin tears, and leg deformity the next morning. The combination of a one-person mechanical lift transfer for a resident care-planned for two-person Hoyer use, failure to follow the safe transfer policy and plan of care, and failure to promptly assess and document a reported change in condition led to the identified deficiency in ensuring the environment was free from accident hazards and that residents received adequate supervision and assistance to prevent accidents.
Removal Plan
- Completed facility-wide skin assessments with no new or abnormal findings identified.
- Conducted environmental and safety rounds with no hazards or abnormal findings identified.
- Conducted resident safe surveys; residents reported they felt safe in the facility environment.
- Provided staff education on abuse, neglect, and exploitation policies.
- Completed mechanical lift competencies with nursing staff.
- Reviewed electronic records of residents; no issues identified with assessments.
- Held an AD HOC QAPI meeting with the interdisciplinary team and involved police notification, social work, and the Regional Nurse; implemented ongoing daily monitoring of residents.
- Implemented staff training and competency testing/demonstration covering abuse, neglect, reporting, documentation, transfers, resident assessment, and pain assessment.
- Conducted in-services for all direct care staff (in person and/or via phone); staff not present were not permitted to work their assignment until in-serviced; new hires to be in-serviced during orientation; agency staff to be in-serviced prior to working their floor assignment.
- Completed in-service training on falls, documentation, Stop and Watch alert tool in PCC, abuse coordinator identification, and immediate reporting of abuse/neglect with 100% staff trained.
- Completed nursing staff training and competencies for skin assessment and pain assessments with 100% nursing staff trained.
Unsecured Medications Left at Bedside Contrary to Facility Policy
Penalty
Summary
Surveyors identified a deficiency in medication storage and administration when a resident’s morning medications were found unsecured on her bedside table. The resident, a female with delusional disorder and schizophrenia, had an intact BIMS score of 14 and was independent in functional abilities. Her care plan contained no evidence that she was permitted to self-administer medications or keep medications in her room. Record review of her Medication Administration Record showed that four different medications (six tablets) were documented as given that morning, although exact administration times were not listed. At 10:02 AM, surveyors observed a small medication cup with medications at the resident’s bedside; the resident stated the medications had not been there long, that she needed to take them, and then immediately took them herself, explaining she must have been asleep and staff were not able to wake her. Interviews with nursing staff and the DON confirmed that the facility’s established process required nurses or medication aides to verify the MAR, identify the correct resident, and remain with the resident to observe consumption of medications, and that medications were never to be left in a resident’s room. RN and LVN staff both stated they would not leave medications with residents and described this as a clear rule. The facility’s written Medication Administration policy required observation of resident consumption of medication, and the Medication Storage policy required all drugs and biologicals to be stored in locked compartments, with medications under the direct observation of the person administering them or locked in the storage area/cart during a medication pass. Despite these policies and staff statements, the resident’s medications were left unattended at the bedside, unsecured and not under direct observation, constituting a failure to follow facility policy and regulatory requirements for medication storage and administration.
Failure to Protect Residents from Misappropriation and Exploitation of Funds
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to protect multiple residents from misappropriation of property and exploitation by a former Business Office Associate (BOA). The BOA accepted cash payments for a resident's monthly fees and a Social Security overpayment, but only a portion of the funds was deposited into the facility account, leaving a significant amount unaccounted for. Payment receipts were provided to the resident's family, but the funds were not properly deposited, and the discrepancy was only discovered after the family received a collection notice and reported the issue to the facility. The BOA later admitted to depositing some of the funds after her termination and could not account for the missing amount. In addition, the BOA created and cashed checks from the personal funds of three other residents for supposed purchases of personal need items, such as furniture, without authorization from the residents or their representatives. The residents did not receive the items, and in some cases, signatures were forged on withdrawal records. Interviews with residents, responsible parties, and staff confirmed that the purchases were not authorized, and the items were not delivered. The facility's audit revealed that the invoices used for these purchases were fabricated, with false information and templates found on the BOA's work computer. Another incident involved the BOA instructing a resident's family member to provide blank money orders for payment, one of which the BOA made out to herself and deposited into her personal account without authorization. The BOA admitted to this action, citing personal financial difficulties. The facility's policies required proper authorization and documentation for handling resident funds, but these procedures were not followed, resulting in the misappropriation and exploitation of resident property.
Failure to Develop and Implement Comprehensive Care Plans for Residents with Hospice and Catheter Needs
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to develop and implement comprehensive, person-centered care plans to address all identified needs for two residents. For one resident with diagnoses including cerebral palsy and muscle wasting, who was dependent for all activities of daily living and receiving hospice care, the care plan did not include any reference to hospice services, despite a physician order for hospice admission. The omission was confirmed by both the DON and the Administrator, who acknowledged that the care plan for hospice was overlooked during a period when the facility was without an MDS Nurse and care plan responsibilities were being managed by the DON and ADON. For another resident with chronic diastolic heart failure and type 2 diabetes, who was dependent for most ADLs and had an indwelling urinary catheter due to urinary retention, the care plan did not address the presence of the catheter or required catheter care. This was confirmed through record review and interviews with the DON and Administrator, who both stated that the care plan for the catheter was missing. The facility's policy requires comprehensive care plans to include measurable objectives and timeframes for all identified needs, but this was not followed in these cases.
Failure to Provide Safe and Appropriate Respiratory Care
Penalty
Summary
A deficiency was identified regarding the provision of safe and appropriate respiratory care for a resident when needed. The report indicates that the facility failed to ensure that a resident received necessary respiratory care, as required by their condition. Specific details about the actions or inactions of staff, the resident's medical history, or the circumstances at the time of the deficiency are not provided in the report excerpt.
Failure to Prevent, Report, and Respond to Resident Abuse
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to implement and enforce written policies and procedures to prohibit and prevent abuse of residents, as evidenced by an incident involving a verbally aggressive altercation between a staff member and a resident. During the incident, a staff member engaged in a loud and angry argument with a resident over cigarettes, escalating to the point where the staff member challenged the resident in a threatening manner. Witnesses reported that the staff member used a mean tone and made statements that upset the resident, causing her to cry and shake. The resident, who had a history of dementia, major depressive disorder, anxiety, and hemiplegia, was left emotionally distressed by the encounter. The facility also failed to ensure that allegations of abuse were reported to the Abuse Coordinator immediately, as required by policy. The staff member who witnessed the incident completed a concern form but did not report the incident directly to the Abuse Coordinator, Administrator, or supervisor. The concern form was left in a mailbox and not discovered until two days later, resulting in a delay in the facility's awareness and response to the abuse allegation. The staff member expressed fear of retaliation and uncertainty about the reporting process, despite having received training on abuse and reporting requirements. Additionally, the facility did not report the abuse allegation to the state agency within the mandated two-hour timeframe after being notified. The Administrator delayed reporting the incident while working on the investigation and could not provide a logical reason for the delay. Furthermore, the facility failed to implement immediate protective measures for the resident during the investigation, as the staff member accused of abuse continued to work several shifts before being suspended. Interviews with staff and residents confirmed these lapses in policy implementation, reporting, and resident protection.
Removal Plan
- Housekeeping Staff A Terminated.
- Housekeeping Staff B was in-serviced and educated on timely reporting by Administrator.
- Safe surveys on 10 residents completed. All residents were presented with a safe survey with no concerns.
- Notification to the Medical Director and Ombudsman occurred. Notification provided by Administrator.
- Resident #2 was assessed for psychological needs by MD and was stable. Resident #2 reassessed for psychological needs and was stable per MD.
- Monitoring for emotional distress will be performed each shift and documented in resident's electronic medical record.
- Resident assessed with PHQ9 and no depression identified.
- All department heads were re-educated on the abuse prevention policy, immediate reporting expectations, and responsibilities of supervisors in escalating concerns during ad hoc QAPI. Education Performed by: Regional Nurse.
- The administrator was in-serviced on reporting Abuse within an 2 hour period of learning of the allegation. Reviewed the latest provider letter.
- Ad Hoc QAPI performed.
- All facility staff, including nursing, therapy, dietary, housekeeping, and administration, will receive training on Abuse, Neglect, Exploitation, Timely Reporting of Abuse to the Abuse Coordinator (by calling or in person) training provided via online training portal or in person by DON or designee. The in-service included detailed instruction on recognizing signs of abuse/neglect, the importance of immediate reporting, and specific methods for doing so-either by directly notifying the Abuse Coordinator in person or via phone.
- Abuse coordinator phone number is posted around the facility.
- A post-training exam with a required 100% passing score is required. Staff unable to attend the in-service will not be permitted to work until training is completed. All staff in serviced via care feed or in person.
- The Abuse Coordinator started completing daily audits of all incident/concern reports for timely response and follow-up.
- A weekly leadership team huddle (Administrator, DON, ADON, Social Worker) was implemented to review all allegations of abuse and ensure prompt interventions.
- A retrospective review of all abuse allegations from the past 30 days was initiated, no abuse allegations reported, confirm compliance and identified any gaps. Audit will be completed by: Administrator.
- Abuse Coordinator who failed to act or report in a timely manner have been counseled and educated on policy requirements by corporate staff. Counseling included a review of F607 policy requirements: mandatory reporting timelines, how and when to escalate abuse concerns, documentation expectations, and suspension protocol when allegations arise.
- Disciplinary procedures for involved parties have been initiated per HR guidelines.
- Ongoing Monthly Abuse Training: Scheduled for the second week of each month, beginning in May for three months.
- The Administrator and DON, or designee, will review all reportable 3 times a week for 30 days, then once a week for 60 days to ensure appropriate reporting procedure was followed, and appropriate interventions were initiated.
- Any discrepancies will be addressed immediately and reviewed during weekly clinical stand-ups and monthly QAPI meetings.
Failure to Update Care Plan After Resident's Suicide Attempt
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to develop and implement a comprehensive, person-centered care plan for a resident following a significant mental health event. The resident, who had a history of major depressive disorder, anxiety, mood disorders, and previous suicide attempts, expressed suicidal ideation by asking staff for helium to end her life. Despite this clear expression of intent, the care plan was not updated to address suicide prevention or self-harm after the incident. The existing care plan only included general interventions related to antidepressant medication and monitoring for risk of harm, but did not specifically address the acute suicidal ideation or the subsequent self-harm event. On the day of the incident, the resident repeatedly asked for helium and stated her desire to kill herself due to family issues and feelings of hopelessness. Staff placed her on 15-minute checks as per facility policy at the time, but did not conduct a room sweep for potentially dangerous objects. During one of these checks, a nurse found the resident had cut her wrist with a microblade razor, which she had obtained independently. The staff intervened, provided first aid, and removed additional sharp objects from the room. The resident was then placed on one-on-one supervision and later transferred to the hospital for evaluation. Interviews with staff revealed gaps in training and awareness regarding suicide prevention protocols and care plan updates. The Director of Nursing, social worker, and other staff members acknowledged that the care plan should have been updated to reflect the resident's behaviors and risk for self-harm following the incident. Documentation showed that the interdisciplinary team did not revise the care plan or document a team meeting to address the resident's change in status, as required by facility policy. This failure to update the care plan after a significant change in the resident's condition constituted the deficiency identified by surveyors.
Removal Plan
- Resident #1's care plan was updated to reflect resident centered behavioral health status, including the initiation of a psychiatric virtual visit and ongoing behavioral observations.
- A 100% audit of current residents using the PHQ-9 screening tool began.
- Care plans are being updated, if warranted by the PHQ-9 screening tool, to reflect PHQ-9 results and ensure individualized, resident-centered care.
- Nursing administration staff received in-service training on care plan update protocols, provided by the regional compliance nurse.
- An ad-hoc QAPI meeting was held with the Medical Director, Administrator, Director of Nursing, and the interdisciplinary team to evaluate current systems related to care planning and suicide prevention. Local ombudsmen notified.
- QAPI will continue to review care plan compliance and quality monthly.
- The Director of Nursing or designee will monitor the 24-hour report (generated through Point Click Care based on progress notes entered into the residents chart) and PHQ-9 completion daily for any depression or suicidal thoughts and care plans will be updated as needed.
- Any discrepancies will be addressed immediately and reviewed during weekly clinical stand-ups and monthly QAPI meetings.
Failure to Provide Adequate Supervision and Suicide Prevention for Resident with Suicidal Ideation
Penalty
Summary
A deficiency occurred when the facility failed to provide adequate supervision and implement appropriate interventions for a resident who expressed suicidal ideation. The resident, who had a history of major depressive disorder, anxiety, bipolar disorder, and previous suicide attempts, verbally expressed a desire to end her life and specifically asked staff if the facility had helium, stating she wanted to kill herself. Despite this clear expression of suicidal intent, the resident was only placed on 15-minute monitoring checks, and a room search for potentially harmful objects was not conducted. The resident subsequently attempted to cut her right wrist with a microblade razor between the 15-minute checks, resulting in superficial wounds. The resident's care plan did not address her major depressive disorder, suicidal thoughts, or self-harm risk, despite her psychiatric history and recent statements. Staff interviews revealed that the facility's policy at the time was to initiate 15-minute checks if a resident did not have a specific plan for self-harm, and 1:1 supervision only if a plan was present. However, the resident's statements and actions indicated a significant risk, and the lack of a room search allowed her access to a razor, which she used in her suicide attempt. Additionally, staff involved in the incident could not recall receiving training on updated suicide prevention policies, and documentation of such training was not available. Further interviews with staff and review of facility policies confirmed that the resident was not provided with 1:1 supervision or an immediate room search following her suicidal statements. The facility's suicide prevention policy required that residents expressing suicidal ideation not be left alone and receive 1:1 care until emergency psychiatric care could be arranged. The failure to follow these protocols, update the care plan, and ensure staff training contributed to the resident's opportunity to attempt self-harm while under the facility's care.
Failure to Protect Resident from Verbal Abuse by Staff
Penalty
Summary
A deficiency occurred when a staff member (HSK A) engaged in a verbally aggressive argument with a resident over cigarettes. The resident, who had diagnoses including dementia, major depressive disorder, anxiety, and hemiplegia, was able to make herself understood but had moderate cognitive impairment. During the incident, HSK A became loud and angry, and after the resident told her to "shut up," HSK A got up from her chair and challenged the resident to make her shut up. Witnesses reported that the exchange escalated, with HSK A using a mean tone and making further aggressive remarks, which caused the resident to cry and become visibly upset. The facility's records show that the incident was not reported immediately as required by policy. The witness to the event, another staff member, placed a note under the HR door but did not notify the administrator or designated abuse coordinator right away. The incident was reported to the administrator several days later, and the staff member involved continued to work in the facility during that time. The facility's policy requires immediate reporting and intervention in cases of alleged abuse, but this protocol was not followed in this instance. Interviews with the resident and other witnesses confirmed that the staff member's behavior was verbally abusive and outside the norm for interactions between staff and residents. The resident expressed feeling sad and upset at the time of the incident, and other residents present described the staff member as disrespectful and angry. The facility's own investigation confirmed the occurrence of verbal abuse, and the failure to follow established abuse prevention and reporting policies contributed to the deficiency.
Failure to Timely Report Alleged Verbal Abuse Incident
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure that all alleged violations involving abuse, neglect, exploitation, or mistreatment were reported immediately, but not later than two hours after the allegation was made, as required by regulation. Specifically, an incident occurred in which a staff member was verbally aggressive toward a resident during a dispute over cigarettes. The incident was witnessed by another staff member, who documented the event on a concern form and left it in a mailbox outside the HR door, rather than reporting it directly and immediately to the abuse coordinator or administrator as required by facility policy. The administrator did not become aware of the incident until two days later and did not report the allegation to the state agency within the mandated two-hour timeframe. The resident involved had a history of dementia, major depressive disorder, anxiety, and hemiplegia following a stroke. The resident was able to make herself understood and had moderate cognitive impairment. During the incident, the staff member raised her voice and made threatening remarks, causing the resident to become upset, cry, and shake. The resident later reported feeling sad and upset at the time of the incident, though she and the staff member later reconciled. The staff member continued to work scheduled shifts after the incident until the administrator was notified and suspended her pending investigation. Interviews and record reviews revealed that the staff member who witnessed the incident did not immediately report it due to fear of retaliation, despite being trained on abuse reporting. The administrator acknowledged the delay in reporting and could not provide a logical reason for not reporting the incident promptly. Other staff and residents confirmed the details of the incident and the delay in reporting. The facility's failure to follow its own abuse prevention and reporting policies resulted in a delay in protecting the resident and in notifying the appropriate authorities.
Removal Plan
- Housekeeping Staff A terminated.
- Housekeeping Staff B was in-serviced and educated on timely reporting by Administrator.
- Safe surveys on residents completed. All residents were presented with a safe survey with no concerns.
- Notification to the Medical Director and Ombudsman occurred. Notification provided by Administrator.
- Resident assessed for psychological needs by MD and was stable. Resident reassessed for psychological needs and was stable per MD.
- Monitoring for emotional distress will be performed each shift and documented in resident's electronic medical record.
- Resident assessed with PHQ9 and no depression identified.
- All department heads were re-educated on the abuse prevention policy, immediate reporting expectations, and responsibilities of supervisors in escalating concerns during ad hoc QAPI. Education performed by Regional Nurse.
- The administrator was in-serviced on reporting Abuse within a 2 hour period of learning of the allegation. Reviewed the latest provider letter.
- Ad Hoc QAPI performed.
- All facility staff, including nursing, therapy, dietary, housekeeping, and administration, will receive training on Abuse, Neglect, Exploitation, Timely Reporting of Abuse to the Abuse Coordinator (by calling or in person) training provided via online training portal or in person by DON or designee. The in-service included detailed instruction on recognizing signs of abuse/neglect, the importance of immediate reporting, and specific methods for doing so-either by directly notifying the Abuse Coordinator in person or via phone.
- Abuse coordinator phone number is posted around the facility.
- A post-training exam with a required 100% passing score is required. Staff unable to attend the in-service will not be permitted to work until training is completed. All staff in serviced via care feed or in person.
- Abuse Coordinator started completing daily audits of all incident/concern reports for timely response and follow-up.
- A weekly leadership team huddle (Administrator, DON, ADON, Social Worker) was implemented to review all allegations of abuse and ensure prompt interventions.
- A retrospective review of all abuse allegations from the past 30 days was initiated, no abuse allegations reported, confirm compliance and identified any gaps. Audit will be completed by Administrator.
- Abuse Coordinator who failed to act or report in a timely manner have been counseled and educated on policy requirements by corporate staff. Counseling included a review of F607 policy requirements: mandatory reporting timelines, how and when to escalate abuse concerns, documentation expectations, and suspension protocol when allegations arise.
- Disciplinary procedures for involved parties have been initiated per HR guidelines.
- Ongoing monthly abuse training scheduled for three months.
- The Administrator and DON, or designee, will review all reportable three times a week for 30 days, then once a week for 60 days to ensure appropriate reporting procedure was followed, and appropriate interventions were initiated.
- Any discrepancies will be addressed immediately and reviewed during weekly clinical stand-ups and monthly QAPI meetings.
Failure to Thoroughly Investigate Alleged Verbal Abuse Incident
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to thoroughly investigate an allegation of verbal abuse involving a resident with dementia, major depressive disorder, anxiety, hemiplegia, and hemiparesis. The incident occurred during a dispute over cigarettes between a housekeeper and the resident, where the housekeeper became verbally aggressive, raised her voice, and made threatening remarks. The resident became visibly upset, cried, and expressed a desire to retaliate, indicating significant emotional distress. The facility's investigation into the incident was incomplete. While the housekeeper was suspended and some interviews were conducted, the investigation did not include interviews with all residents who witnessed the event. Specifically, two other residents who were present during the altercation were not interviewed by the administrator, and the safe surveys conducted did not address the issue of verbal abuse by staff. Additionally, the reporting of the incident was delayed, as the initial witness did not immediately report the event to the administrator as required by facility policy. Documentation and interviews revealed inconsistencies and gaps in the investigation process. The administrator assumed that the social worker had interviewed all relevant residents, but this was not the case. The social worker was unsure if interviews with all witnesses were documented, and one resident confirmed he was not interviewed about the incident. The facility's own policy requires thorough investigation of abuse allegations, but this was not followed, resulting in a lack of evidence that the incident was fully investigated to prevent further abuse.
Failure to Ensure Accurate Accounting of Controlled Drugs
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure proper pharmacy procedures for accounting controlled drugs, as evidenced by missing signatures on the Controlled Drugs - Count Record forms for two medication carts. Specifically, the 300 Hall Nurse Cart and the 200/500 Halls Medication Aide Cart had numerous instances where staff did not sign the forms at shift changes, indicating that narcotic counts were not conducted. This lack of documentation was observed on various dates in June 2024, with both nurses and medication aides failing to sign off on the count sheets. The absence of signatures suggests that the required reconciliation of controlled drugs was not performed, which could lead to unaccounted medications. Interviews with staff, including medication aides and the Director of Nursing (DON), revealed a lack of training and awareness regarding the cart count sheet process. The DON acknowledged the potential for drug diversion if narcotic counts were not completed. Additionally, the Pharmacy Consultant, who was responsible for reviewing the medication carts, failed to identify the missing signatures during her review. The facility's Controlled Substances policy mandates that controlled medications be counted at the end of each shift by both the incoming and outgoing staff, a procedure that was not followed in this instance.
Failure to Securely Store Medications
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure the secure storage of medications, specifically clonidine and a Fentanyl patch, which were left unattended at the nurse station. During an observation, these medications were found on the desk, accessible to staff, residents, and visitors, without supervision by a nurse or medication aide. This oversight was acknowledged by the Administrator, who confirmed that medications should not be left unattended as they could be removed by anyone passing by. Interviews with staff revealed that LVN B had left the medications on the desk while attending to other tasks, acknowledging that this was against protocol. The Director of Nursing (DON) was aware of the incident and confirmed that medications should not be left in areas where they could be accessed by unauthorized individuals. A review of the facility's Controlled Substance policy indicated that controlled substances must be stored in a locked container within the medication room, separate from non-controlled medications, and access should be recorded and remain locked at all times.
Failure to Implement Physician-Ordered Hand Splint for Resident
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to implement a comprehensive person-centered care plan for a resident, which included measurable objectives and timeframes to meet the resident's needs as identified in the comprehensive assessment. Specifically, the facility did not apply a hand splint as ordered by the physician for a resident with muscle wasting, atrophy, and cerebral infarction. The physician's orders required the application of a resting hand splint to the resident's right upper extremity to prevent contracture, with instructions for the splint to be removed every night. However, observations on multiple occasions revealed that the resident did not have the splint applied, and the resident's hand was clenched tightly, although she could open it when asked. Interviews with the Director of Nursing (DON) and a Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) revealed a lack of awareness and communication regarding the application of the splint. The DON acknowledged that the splint was not applied as ordered and stated it was the CNA's responsibility to ensure its application. The CNA admitted she was unaware of the requirement to apply the splint and had not been informed of this responsibility. Despite seeing the instruction on the aide assignment sheet, she did not apply the splint because she had never seen it. This oversight could potentially lead to the resident's hand becoming contracted, as noted by both the DON and the CNA.
Failure to Verify G-Tube Placement and Administer Medications Correctly
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure that a resident receiving enteral feeding received appropriate care and services to prevent complications. Specifically, LVN A did not verify the placement of the resident's G-tube before administering water flushes and medications. The resident, a male with dysphagia, was admitted with orders to receive all feedings and medications via G-tube, with placement verification required before each use. However, during an observation, LVN A administered the flushes and medications using the plunger of a syringe instead of allowing them to flow by gravity, contrary to the facility's policy. The Director of Nursing (DON) confirmed that the staff should follow the policy for gastrostomy tube placement checks and that flushes and medications should be administered via gravity. The facility's policy, revised in November 2018, outlines the steps for confirming tube placement and administering medications through an enteral tube, emphasizing the importance of gravity flow to prevent injury. The failure to adhere to these procedures could place residents at increased risk of complications such as improper nutrition, infection, aspiration, and possible injury.
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.



