Peach Tree Place
Inspection history, citations, penalties and survey trends for this long-term care facility in Weatherford, Texas.
- Location
- 315 W Anderson St, Weatherford, Texas 76086
- CMS Provider Number
- 676148
- Inspections on file
- 28
- Latest survey
- September 19, 2025
- Citations (last 12 mo.)
- 7 (5 serious)
Citation history
Health deficiencies cited at Peach Tree Place during CMS and state inspections, most recent first.
A resident with severe cognitive impairment and behavioral issues was physically restrained and forcibly carried by four staff members, then secluded in his room with the door held shut, following an episode of aggression. Staff did not use de-escalation techniques or follow the care plan, and there was no physician order for restraint or seclusion. The incident was not promptly or fully reported to facility leadership or the resident's POA, and the actions taken were found to constitute abuse and neglect.
A resident with severe cognitive impairment and behavioral health needs was physically restrained and involuntarily secluded in his room by staff, who held the door closed to prevent him from leaving after he exhibited aggressive behaviors. Staff did not use de-escalation techniques or remove other residents as outlined in the care plan, and the incident resulted in injuries to the resident. The DON and Administrator were not fully informed of the incident's severity until after reviewing video footage, and the resident's POA was not notified in a timely manner.
A resident with severe cognitive impairment and behavioral health diagnoses became agitated and physically aggressive, leading four staff members—including nursing and non-nursing personnel—to physically restrain and carry the resident by his arms and legs to his room, then hold the door closed to prevent exit. This action was taken without a physician order or proper assessment, and was not in accordance with the resident's care plan or facility policy, which prohibits restraints for staff convenience or discipline.
Four staff members, including two nurses, a CNA, and a laundry attendant, forcibly carried a resident with severe cognitive impairment to his room and held the door closed, constituting abuse. The incident was not immediately reported to the administrator or state authorities as required by policy, and the full extent of the event was only discovered after video review two days later. Staff interviews revealed inconsistent understanding of abuse reporting requirements and the facility failed to follow established protocols.
A resident with severe cognitive impairment and behavioral health needs was not provided with a comprehensive, person-centered care plan that included specific de-escalation interventions. During a behavioral episode, staff did not follow the care plan and instead forcibly carried the resident to his room and held the door closed, restraining and isolating him without attempting de-escalation or removing other residents from the area. Leadership and staff interviews confirmed that care plan interventions were not implemented and the resident's family was not notified as required.
The facility did not ensure that two nurses had completed required annual dementia and restraint reduction training, with incomplete or missing documentation in their files. Staff interviews revealed uncertainty about training completion, and administrative changes, including a switch in training programs and lack of HR personnel, contributed to the deficiency.
Facility staff failed to promptly notify physicians and resident representatives of significant changes in two residents' conditions, including behavioral escalation requiring emergency intervention and the development of a Stage 3 pressure ulcer. In both cases, required notifications were delayed or omitted, and documentation was incomplete, resulting in a lack of timely communication about changes in treatment and resident status.
Three residents did not have comprehensive care plans addressing their specific needs, including hospice services, seizure disorder management, and DNR status. Record reviews and staff interviews revealed that care plans lacked required details and measurable objectives, and staff were inconsistent in updating and verifying care plan information.
Surveyors found that the kitchen food fryer and prep table were not cleaned after use, with food crumbs and residue left on fryer baskets, fryer walls, and container lids. The Dietary Manager and Administrator confirmed that cleaning should occur after each use and daily, but these procedures were not followed, resulting in unsanitary conditions.
A LVN failed to perform hand hygiene before or after administering medications and did not sanitize a reusable electronic wrist blood pressure cuff between uses for three residents. The LVN acknowledged not following infection control protocols due to not having alcohol-based hand rub readily available, despite facility expectations and training requiring these practices. Facility leadership confirmed that hand hygiene and equipment sanitization were expected between each resident interaction.
The facility failed to conduct timely criminal history and EMR/NAR checks for several staff members, including an LVN, a cook, and two CNAs, as required by policy. This oversight was identified through interviews and record reviews, revealing that checks were conducted months after hiring. The Administrator and HR staff acknowledged the lapse, which could potentially place residents at risk of abuse and neglect.
A facility failed to implement Enhanced Barrier Precautions for a resident with a gastrostomy tube. During perineal care, two CNAs did not don gowns despite a sign indicating the need for such precautions. One CNA forgot, while the other was new and unaware of PPE locations. The DON confirmed the necessity of these precautions to prevent infection spread.
Failure to Protect Resident from Abuse and Neglect through Unauthorized Restraint and Seclusion
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to protect a resident's right to be free from abuse and neglect when four staff members, including licensed nurses, a nursing assistant, and a laundry staff member, physically restrained and forcibly carried a resident by his extremities, dragging him on the floor to his room. Once inside, the staff placed the resident in his room and held the door closed, preventing him from leaving. This action was taken in response to the resident exhibiting aggressive behaviors, including attempting to strike staff and other residents, and swinging a call light cord. The staff did not attempt de-escalation techniques or remove other residents from the area, and instead chose to physically restrain and seclude the resident without a physician's order or proper assessment. The resident involved had a history of major depressive disorder, anxiety disorder, and unspecified dementia with severe cognitive impairment, as indicated by a BIMS score of 5. He was admitted to a secure unit due to a history of elopement and was also under hospice care. Prior to the incident, the resident had documented skin tears on his fingers and upper arm, and his care plan included interventions for behavioral issues, such as positive interaction, de-escalation, and involving family when confusion or combativeness increased. However, the care plan did not include the use of physical restraints or involuntary seclusion, and there was no physician order for such interventions at the time of the incident. Interviews and video evidence confirmed that staff did not follow established protocols for managing aggressive behaviors, such as using de-escalation techniques or ensuring the safety of other residents by removing them from the area. Instead, staff physically restrained the resident, carried him by his arms and legs, and held him in his room against his will. The Director of Nursing and Administrator were not fully informed of the severity of the incident until after reviewing video footage. The resident's power of attorney was also not promptly notified of the incident or the use of restraints and medication. The facility's actions constituted abuse and neglect, as defined by their own policies and federal regulations.
Failure to Prevent Involuntary Seclusion and Unauthorized Restraint
Penalty
Summary
Facility staff failed to protect a resident's right to be free from involuntary seclusion. The incident involved a male resident with severe cognitive impairment, major depressive disorder, anxiety disorder, unspecified dementia, and Alzheimer's disease. The resident had a history of elopement and was admitted to a secure unit. On the day of the incident, the resident exhibited behaviors such as wandering into other residents' rooms, taking items, and becoming agitated when items were removed from him. He escalated to physically aggressive behaviors, including pushing a bedside table into a nurse, swinging a call light cord with a metal prong, and chasing staff down the hallway. Staff responded by physically restraining the resident, carrying him by his extremities without supporting his back or midsection, and placing him in his room. They then held the door closed, preventing him from leaving, while he struggled to get out. During the incident, staff did not attempt de-escalation techniques or remove other residents from the area as outlined in the resident's care plan. Instead, they focused on isolating the resident in his room and physically restraining him. The staff took turns holding the door closed, and the resident was left unsupervised inside the room, where he continued to display agitation, including breaking a window. The police and EMS were eventually called, and the resident was further restrained by law enforcement and administered medication by a hospice nurse. Interviews with staff revealed that the decision to seclude and restrain the resident was made collectively, and some staff expressed discomfort with the way the situation was handled. The facility's policies prohibit the use of unauthorized restraints and involuntary seclusion. However, staff actions during the incident did not align with these policies. The Director of Nursing and Administrator were not fully informed of the severity of the incident until after reviewing video footage. The resident's power of attorney was not notified in a timely manner, and there was no documentation of consent for the use of restraints or medication. The incident resulted in skin tears to the resident's finger and arm, and the resident was unable to recall the event during subsequent assessment.
Removal Plan
- Staff members LVN A, RN and NA were immediately suspended by the administrator. All three staff members remain suspended.
- Resident #1 had a head-to-toe assessment completed by the charge nurse. The skin tears to resident #1's finger and upper arm are being treated according to physician orders.
- Trauma informed care assessments were completed by the DON/ADON and Social Worker on all residents including resident #1 and documented in the charts.
- The Administrator, DON, ADON completed rounds on every resident in the facility to ensure that no additional unauthorized restraints or involuntary seclusion were in use on any residents.
- Safe surveys were completed for all residents who are able to be interviewed by the Administrator, DON, ADON and Social Worker. No additional unauthorized restraints or signs of involuntary seclusion were noted.
- Head-to-toe skin assessments were completed on all residents by the DON/ADON and nurses.
- Staff interviews were conducted by the Administrator and DON to determine if any restraints or involuntary seclusion have been observed or used on any other residents in the facility.
- The medical director was notified of the immediate jeopardy by the Administrator.
- An ADHOC QAPI meeting was completed with the Administrator, DON, ADON, and Medical Director to discuss the immediate jeopardy and plan of removal.
- The Administrator, DON, and ADON were in-serviced 1:1 by the Regional Compliance Nurse on the following topics and policies: Abuse and Neglect Policy to include restraints, involuntary seclusion, and unreasonable confinement; All allegations of possible abuse must be investigated immediately by the Administrator or designee to ensure the proper measures are implemented to keep residents safe and from abuse; Restraint Policy to include restraints are not to be used without reasonable rationale, assessment, physician orders, and consent; Resident Rights to include that it is a resident's right to be free from abuse such as unauthorized restraints, involuntary seclusion, and unnecessary confinement; Trauma informed Care to include the use of unauthorized restraints seclusion, and unreasonable confinement can cause unnecessary trauma or re-traumatization to a resident; Behavior management to include how to manage behaviors and de-escalate aggressive residents. If a resident is demonstrating aggressive behavior, remove all residents from the immediate area to keep them safe; De-escalate the behavior by giving the resident space; Monitor the residents from a safe distance; Provide 1:1 monitoring until further directed by the abuse coordinator; Staff will not restrain a resident or seclude a resident involuntarily.
- The following in-services were initiated by Regional Compliance Nurse, DON, ADON for all staff. Any staff member not present or in-serviced will not be allowed to assume their duties until in-serviced. All new hires will be in-serviced during orientation. All PRN, agency staff, or staff on leave will in serviced prior to assuming their next assignment: Abuse and Neglect Policy to include restraints, involuntary seclusion, and unreasonable confinement; All allegations of possible abuse must be investigated immediately by the Administrator or designee to ensure the proper measures are implemented to keep residents safe and from abuse; Restraint Policy to include restraints are not to be used without reasonable rationale, assessment, physician orders, and consent; Resident Rights to include that it is a resident's right to be free from abuse such as unauthorized restraints, involuntary seclusion, and unnecessary confinement; Trauma informed Care to include unauthorized restraints seclusion, and unreasonable confinement can cause unnecessary trauma; Behavior management to include how to manage behaviors and de-escalate aggressive residents. If a resident is demonstrating aggressive behavior, remove all residents from the immediate area to keep them safe; De-escalate the behavior by giving the resident space; Monitor the residents from a safe distance; Provide 1:1 monitoring until further directed by the abuse coordinator; Staff will not restrain a resident or seclude a resident involuntarily.
Failure to Protect Resident from Unauthorized Physical Restraint and Involuntary Seclusion
Penalty
Summary
Facility staff failed to protect a resident's right to be free from physical restraints not required for medical treatment. On the day of the incident, the resident, who had diagnoses including major depressive disorder, anxiety disorder, unspecified dementia, and Alzheimer's disease, exhibited behaviors such as wandering, taking items from other residents' rooms, and becoming agitated when items were removed from his possession. The situation escalated when the resident became physically aggressive, swinging a call light cord and striking staff with a bedside table. In response, four staff members, including nursing and non-nursing personnel, physically restrained the resident by grabbing his arms and legs, dragging him across the floor, and carrying him by his extremities to his room without supporting his back or midsection. Once in the room, staff held the door closed, preventing the resident from leaving. The resident's care plan included interventions for aggressive behavior, such as removing him from situations, using calm communication, and providing diversions, but did not authorize the use of physical restraints. There was no physician order for restraints, and the only relevant medication order was a one-time administration of Haldol after the incident. Staff interviews revealed that the decision to physically restrain and seclude the resident was made collectively for staff convenience and safety, rather than as a last resort after all other interventions had failed. The Director of Nursing and Administrator were not fully informed of the severity of the incident until after reviewing video footage, and both expressed that staff actions did not align with facility expectations or policies. Facility policies reviewed by surveyors clearly prohibited the use of physical restraints for discipline or convenience and required thorough assessment, physician orders, and consent for any restraint use. The policies also defined physical and mental abuse, including unreasonable confinement and involuntary seclusion. The staff's actions in restraining and secluding the resident were not in accordance with these policies, and there was a lack of immediate notification to the resident's power of attorney and primary physician regarding the incident. The deficiency was identified as Immediate Jeopardy due to the failure to protect the resident's rights and the risk of physical and psychological harm.
Removal Plan
- Staff members LVN A, RN and NA were immediately suspended by the administrator. All three staff members remain suspended.
- Resident #1 had a head-to-toe assessment completed by the charge nurse. No further injuries were noted. The skin tears to resident #1's finger and upper arm are being treated according to physician orders.
- Trauma informed care assessments were completed by the DON/ADON and Social Worker on all residents including resident #1 and documented in the charts. No new findings were assessed. Resident #1 was at his baseline. No behaviors or emotional distress were noted.
- The Administrator, DON, ADON completed rounds on every resident in the facility to ensure that no additional unauthorized restraints or involuntary seclusion were in use on any residents.
- Safe surveys were completed for all residents who are able to be interviewed by the Administrator, DON, ADON and Social Worker. No additional unauthorized restraints or signs of involuntary seclusion were noted.
- Head-to-toe skin assessments were completed on all residents by the DON/ADON and nurses. No signs of abuse or new injuries were discovered.
- Staff interviews were conducted by the Administrator and DON to determine if any restraints or involuntary seclusion have been observed or used on any other residents in the facility. No additional findings were noted.
- The medical director was notified of the immediate jeopardy by the Administrator.
- An ADHOC QAPI meeting was completed with the Administrator, DON, ADON, and Medical Director to discuss the immediate jeopardy and plan of removal.
- The Administrator, DON, and ADON were in-serviced 1:1 by the Regional Compliance Nurse on the following topics and policies: Abuse and Neglect Policy to include restraints, involuntary seclusion, and unreasonable confinement; Restraint Policy to include restraints are not to be used without reasonable rationale, assessment, physician orders, and consent; Resident Rights to include that it is a resident's right to be free from abuse such as unauthorized restraints, involuntary seclusion, and unnecessary confinement; Trauma informed Care to include the use of unauthorized restraints seclusion, and unreasonable confinement can cause unnecessary trauma or re-traumatization to a resident; Behavior management to include how to manage behaviors and de-escalate aggressive residents. If a resident is demonstrating aggressive behavior, remove all residents from the immediate area to keep them safe. De-escalate the behavior by giving the resident space. Monitor the residents from a safe distance. Provide 1:1 monitoring until further directed by the abuse coordinator. Staff will not restrain a resident or seclude a resident involuntarily.
- The following in-services were initiated by Regional Compliance Nurse, DON, ADON for all staff. Any staff member not present or in-serviced will not be allowed to assume their duties until in-serviced. All new hires will be in-serviced during orientation. All PRN, agency staff, or staff on leave will in serviced prior to assuming their next assignment. Topics: Abuse and Neglect Policy to include restraints, involuntary seclusion, and unreasonable confinement; Restraint Policy to include restraints are not to be used without reasonable rationale, assessment, physician orders, and consent; Resident Rights to include that it is a resident's right to be free from abuse such as unauthorized restraints, involuntary seclusion, and unnecessary confinement; Trauma informed Care to include unauthorized restraints seclusion, and unreasonable confinement can cause unnecessary trauma; Behavior management to include how to manage behaviors and de-escalate aggressive residents. If a resident is demonstrating aggressive behavior, remove all residents from the immediate area to keep them safe. De-escalate the behavior by giving the resident space. Monitor the residents from a safe distance. Provide 1:1 monitoring until further directed by the abuse coordinator. Staff will not restrain a resident or seclude a resident involuntarily.
Failure to Immediately Report and Respond to Resident Abuse Incident
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to implement its policies and procedures for the immediate reporting of suspected abuse, neglect, or theft, as required by both facility policy and state law. On the date of the incident, four staff members, including two nurses, a nursing assistant, and a laundry attendant, forcibly carried a resident by his extremities to his room and held the door closed, preventing the resident from leaving. This action was not reported to the facility administrator or the State Survey Agency immediately, as required. Instead, the administrator was not notified of the abuse until two days after the incident, despite the policy mandating immediate reporting of all suspected cases of abuse to the administrator and appropriate authorities. The resident involved was an elderly male with diagnoses including major depressive disorder, anxiety disorder, and unspecified dementia with severe cognitive impairment, as evidenced by a BIMS score of 5. At the time of the incident, the resident exhibited behaviors such as wandering, taking items from other residents' rooms, and becoming agitated. Staff responded by physically restraining the resident, carrying him to his room without supporting his back or midsection, and holding the door closed to prevent his exit. The incident was only fully discovered when the DON reviewed video footage two days later, revealing the extent of the staff's actions. Interviews with staff indicated that the decision to forcibly carry and seclude the resident was made collectively, and that the DON and administrator were not fully informed of the severity of the incident at the time it occurred. Staff members demonstrated varying levels of understanding regarding what constitutes abuse, restraint, and seclusion, and some expressed discomfort with how the situation was handled. The delay in reporting and the lack of immediate notification to the administrator and state authorities constituted a failure to follow established abuse reporting protocols, resulting in the identification of Immediate Jeopardy.
Failure to Implement Person-Centered Care Plan and De-Escalation for Resident with Behavioral Needs
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to develop and implement a comprehensive, person-centered care plan for a resident with severe cognitive impairment and multiple mental health diagnoses, including major depressive disorder, anxiety disorder, and dementia. The resident's care plan identified a history of trauma and behavioral issues, such as aggression and wandering, and included interventions like positive interaction, de-escalation techniques, and contacting family during episodes of increased confusion or combativeness. However, the care plan lacked specific de-escalation techniques for staff to implement, and staff did not follow the existing interventions during a behavioral incident. On the day of the incident, the resident exhibited behaviors such as wandering into other residents' rooms, taking items, and becoming agitated when an item was removed from his possession. The situation escalated when the resident pushed a bedside table into a nurse, chased staff with a call light cord, and fell to the floor. Instead of following the care plan interventions, four staff members forcibly carried the resident by his extremities to his room and held the door closed, effectively restraining and isolating him without attempting de-escalation or removing other residents from the area as outlined in the care plan. Interviews with facility leadership and staff revealed that the staff did not attempt any de-escalation techniques and chose to restrain and seclude the resident because they believed it was easier than removing other residents from the area. The Director of Nursing and Administrator both stated that staff failed to follow the care plan and did not notify the resident's family as required. The resident's power of attorney was not informed of the incident or the use of restraint and seclusion until after the fact, and expressed that she should have been contacted earlier to help de-escalate the situation.
Deficiency in Staff Training Documentation and Implementation
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to develop, implement, and maintain an effective training program for all new and existing staff, including those providing services under contract and volunteers, as required. Specifically, two employees, an LVN and an RN, did not have documentation of annual dementia and restraint reduction training in their files. The LVN's file showed dementia training shortly after hire but lacked evidence of restraint reduction training, aside from a signed policy. The RN's file included an ungraded dementia test and no documentation of restraint training. Interviews with both staff members revealed uncertainty about when or if they had received the required training, with one stating that in-person training was cancelled and that training is now conducted online, often verbally, with signatures at the end. The RN did not recall any training on dealing with behaviors or restraints. The interim administrator confirmed that staff are responsible for completing their own online training and acknowledged recent changes in the training program, which made tracking employee progress more difficult. The facility was also without an HR person at the time, and the administrator was unable to provide a training policy during the survey. These actions and inactions led to the deficiency in staff training documentation and compliance.
Failure to Immediately Notify Physician and Representative of Significant Resident Changes
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to immediately inform residents, their representatives, and physicians of significant changes in residents' physical, mental, or psychosocial status, as required by policy. In one case, a male resident with severe cognitive impairment, major depressive disorder, anxiety disorder, unspecified dementia, and Alzheimer's disease exhibited combative behavior, broke a window, and required intervention from police, EMS, and hospice staff. Despite these significant behavioral changes and the administration of Haldol, the resident's primary physician and power of attorney (POA) were not promptly notified by facility staff. The POA was only informed after the incident by a hospice nurse, and the primary physician was not notified until days later by the DON. Documentation and interviews confirmed that the facility staff did not follow the care plan interventions for notification and failed to communicate the events in a timely manner. In another instance, a male resident with severe cognitive impairment, dementia, and multiple cancer diagnoses developed a Stage 3 pressure ulcer. Nursing staff identified the wound and notified wound care, but failed to notify the resident's primary physician and POA of the significant change in health status. The nurse responsible admitted to being too busy to make the notifications and did not document any attempt to contact the responsible party. The primary physician and wound care physician both confirmed they were not informed of the pressure ulcer until after the fact, and the responsible party was not reached or left a message. Facility policy requires immediate notification of the resident, physician, and representative in the event of significant changes, injuries, or the need to alter treatment. Record review and interviews revealed that these requirements were not met in the cases reviewed, resulting in a lack of timely communication regarding significant changes in residents' conditions and treatment regimens. The failure to notify could have prevented residents from receiving timely and needed treatment, as acknowledged by staff during interviews.
Failure to Develop and Implement Comprehensive Care Plans for Residents
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to develop and implement comprehensive, person-centered care plans for three residents, as required. Specifically, one resident receiving hospice services did not have a care plan addressing hospice care, another resident with a seizure disorder did not have a care plan related to seizure management, and a third resident with a Do Not Resuscitate (DNR) order did not have a care plan reflecting their DNR status. These omissions were identified through interviews and record reviews, which showed that the care plans lacked measurable objectives and time frames to meet the residents' needs. For the resident on hospice, records indicated a diagnosis of cerebral infarction and severe cognitive impairment, with hospice services ordered and initiated, but no corresponding care plan entry. The resident with a seizure disorder had a diagnosis of metabolic encephalopathy and dementia, was receiving anticonvulsant medication, and had physician orders for seizure management, yet there was no care plan addressing this condition. The resident with a DNR order had multiple chronic conditions and a signed DNR form in the record, but the care plan did not reflect this advanced directive. Interviews with facility staff, including the LVN, DON, MDS Coordinator, and Administrator, revealed inconsistent understanding and implementation of care planning processes. Staff described various methods for verifying code status and updating care plans, but acknowledged gaps in ensuring that all relevant diagnoses and directives were consistently reflected in the care plans. The facility's care plan policy was requested but not provided to the survey team during the survey.
Failure to Maintain Sanitary Conditions in Kitchen Food Preparation Areas
Penalty
Summary
Surveyors observed that the facility failed to maintain proper sanitation and cleanliness in the kitchen, specifically regarding the food fryer and the bottom shelf of a food preparation table. The fryer was found in an unsanitary condition, with food crumbs dried onto the fryer baskets and inside the fryer walls, and had not been cleaned after its last use. Additionally, the bottom shelf of the food prep table was not clean, with food crumbs present on the shelf and on the lids of containers holding flour, sugar, and powdered milk. These observations were confirmed during interviews with the Dietary Manager, who acknowledged that the fryer and baskets should have been cleaned after use and that the prep table and container lids should be cleaned daily. The Dietary Manager also stated that there was a cleaning schedule in place, and that equipment should be cleaned and sanitized after each use to prevent foodborne illness, with the kitchen cleaned daily to avoid attracting pests. The Administrator confirmed the expectation that the kitchen be cleaned daily and that food particles should not be left on containers or shelves. Review of facility policy and the FDA Food Code further supported the requirement for regular cleaning of equipment and surfaces to prevent accumulation of food residue and debris.
Failure to Perform Hand Hygiene and Sanitize Equipment During Medication Administration
Penalty
Summary
A deficiency was identified when a Licensed Vocational Nurse (LVN A) failed to adhere to infection prevention and control protocols during medication administration and vital sign monitoring for three residents. Observations revealed that LVN A did not perform hand hygiene before or after preparing and administering medications to the residents. Additionally, LVN A did not sanitize a reusable electronic wrist blood pressure cuff before or after use between residents. These lapses were observed during multiple medication passes and vital sign checks. During interviews, LVN A acknowledged not performing hand hygiene between resident interactions and not sanitizing the blood pressure cuff between uses. LVN A attributed the failure to not having alcohol-based hand rub (ABHR) readily available on the medication cart or in his pocket, despite the facility having an ample supply. He also demonstrated knowledge of the expectation to use sanitizer wipes for equipment but did not follow this practice during the observed medication administration and vital sign checks. Further interviews with the Registered Charge Nurse (RCRN) and Director of Nursing (DON) confirmed that facility expectations required hand hygiene before and after medication administration and equipment sanitization between each resident use. Review of facility policy supported these requirements, specifying hand hygiene after contact with residents or their equipment. LVN A's personnel file showed he had received infection control training during orientation.
Failure to Conduct Timely Background Checks for Staff
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to implement written policies and procedures to prohibit and prevent abuse and neglect, as evidenced by the lack of timely background screenings for several staff members. Specifically, the facility did not conduct criminal history checks and checks of the EMR/NAR prior to the employment of an LVN, a cook, and two CNAs. This oversight was identified during interviews and record reviews, revealing that the background checks were conducted months after the staff members were hired, contrary to the facility's policy which mandates these checks within 72 hours of employment. Interviews with the Administrator and Human Resources staff highlighted a breakdown in the process, with the Administrator noting that the responsibility for conducting these checks initially lay with Human Resources. However, a change in procedure in mid-January led to the Administrator monitoring and signing off on audits. Despite this, an audit revealed that the necessary checks were not completed, and the corporate office had not yet conducted a promised audit of the EMR/NAR checks. The failure to perform these checks as required could potentially place residents at risk of abuse and neglect, as acknowledged by both the Administrator and Human Resources staff.
Failure to Implement Enhanced Barrier Precautions for Resident with Gastrostomy Tube
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to implement Enhanced Barrier Precautions for a resident who required feedings via a gastrostomy tube. During an observation of perineal care, it was noted that two CNAs did not follow the necessary precautions by donning a gown, despite a sign indicating the need for such precautions on the resident's door. The resident, who was unable to respond verbally, was observed to follow movements with his eyes. The CNAs involved acknowledged their failure to adhere to the precautions, with one citing forgetfulness and the other being new to the facility and unaware of the location of personal protective equipment (PPE). The Director of Nursing, who also serves as the Infection Preventionist, confirmed that Enhanced Barrier Precautions should have been implemented for the resident's gastrostomy tube. The facility's policy on Enhanced Barrier Precautions, dated April 1, 2024, outlines the need for targeted gown and glove use during high-contact resident care activities to reduce the transmission of multi-drug resistant organisms. The failure to adhere to these precautions could potentially lead to the spread of infection, as noted by the DON.
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.
