Bethany At Silver Lake
Inspection history, citations, penalties and survey trends for this long-term care facility in Everett, Washington.
- Location
- 2235 Lake Heights Drive, Everett, Washington 98208
- CMS Provider Number
- 505403
- Inspections on file
- 29
- Latest survey
- March 20, 2026
- Citations (last 12 mo.)
- 10
Citation history
Health deficiencies cited at Bethany At Silver Lake during CMS and state inspections, most recent first.
The facility failed to provide a summary of the baseline care plan to four residents within 48 hours of admission, as required by policy. The baseline care plan, which should be developed by the admitting nurse and signed by the resident, was not reviewed with the residents or documented in their EHRs. Interviews with staff revealed inconsistencies in the process, leading to a deficiency in meeting residents' immediate needs.
The facility failed to update and revise care plans for several residents, leading to deficiencies in care. A resident with Alzheimer's Dementia had outdated interventions, while another resident's Restorative Eating Program was not updated in their care plan. Discharge planning was not addressed for a resident with amputations, and dental needs were unmet for another. Communication aids were not included in a resident's care plan, and urinary management was not updated for an incontinent resident. Staff interviews revealed a lack of awareness and updates to care plans.
The facility failed to honor the preferences of three residents regarding daily routines and healthcare, impacting their quality of life. A resident was repeatedly woken up earlier than preferred, leading to refusals of care. Two residents faced issues with the shower schedule, receiving fewer showers than desired and not being offered alternatives when preferences for female aides were not met.
A resident reported a missing arthritis glove, which was not documented in the grievance logs despite informing multiple staff members. The facility's policy required immediate initiation of grievance procedures, but this was not followed, leading to delays in resolution and potential frustration for the resident.
A resident with diabetes type 2 had their blood sugar checked after eating, and insulin was administered without coordinating with mealtime, contrary to facility policy. Staff interviews revealed inconsistencies in following the policy, with some staff not notifying the provider for guidance when blood sugar was checked post-meal.
A facility failed to provide appropriate respiratory care for a resident with COPD by not adhering to physician orders for oxygen therapy. The resident was observed using oxygen at 4 lpm, contrary to the prescribed 2 lpm, risking unmet needs and diminished quality of life. Staff interviews revealed a lack of awareness of the correct order and inconsistent monitoring of oxygen settings.
The facility failed to prevent sexual abuse between two cognitively impaired residents on a secured Special Care Unit (SCU). Resident 1, with a history of hypersexual behavior, was found providing oral sex to Resident 2, causing emotional distress. Both residents had severe cognitive impairment and were unable to consent to sexual activity. The facility's inadequate supervision and failure to follow care plans led to the incident.
Failure to Provide Baseline Care Plan Summary to Residents
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to provide a summary of the baseline care plan to four out of five residents within 48 hours of their admission, as required by their policy. The baseline care plan is intended to be developed by the admitting nurse using information from hospital records, physician orders, and discussions with the resident. It should be signed by the resident and included in the medical record. However, for Residents 28, 86, 35, and 508, the sections indicating that the baseline care plan was reviewed with the resident and that a copy was provided were left blank. Additionally, there was no documentation in the Electronic Health Records (EHR) for Residents 35 and 508 that a written summary was provided. Interviews with facility staff revealed inconsistencies in the process of developing and providing the baseline care plan. Staff H, an RN/NM, stated that the admission nurse should initiate the baseline care plan within 48 hours, and it was the social service's responsibility to arrange a meeting with the family, including nursing and therapy departments. Staff B, the Interim Director of Nursing, indicated that the admission nurse should compile the baseline care plan information within 24 hours and discuss it with the resident. The plan should be printed, signed by the resident or representative, and scanned into the EHR. However, there was no evidence that the baseline care plans for the mentioned residents were reviewed with them or their representatives, leading to a deficiency in meeting the residents' immediate needs upon admission.
Failure to Update and Revise Care Plans
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to review and revise care plans for several residents, leading to deficiencies in their care. Resident 18, diagnosed with Alzheimer's Dementia, had a care plan that was not updated to reflect the absence of a memory care unit and the resident's current needs. Despite being at high risk for falls, interventions such as a floor mat and a four-wheeled walker were not present in the resident's room, and staff confirmed that these interventions were not being used. The care plan had not been updated to reflect the resident's current condition, as they no longer walked and required total assistance. Resident 69, who was cognitively intact, reported that staff left meals on their table without waking them up. The care plan indicated that the resident was on a Restorative Eating/Swallowing Program, but staff interviews revealed that the resident was no longer on this program, and the care plan had not been updated accordingly. Similarly, Resident 75, who had bilateral below-knee amputations, expressed a desire to return to the community, but no discharge planning was included in their care plan, and social services had not discussed discharge plans with the resident. Other deficiencies included Resident 40, who needed dental services but had a care plan indicating they did not want dentures, despite expressing a need for them. Resident 9, with communication issues due to hearing loss, had a care plan that did not include the use of a dry erase board, which the resident used for communication. Lastly, Resident 83, who was incontinent, had a care plan that did not reflect their current needs, as there was no information about establishing a voiding pattern. Staff interviews revealed a lack of awareness and updates to the care plans, contributing to these deficiencies.
Failure to Accommodate Resident Preferences in Daily Routines
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to accommodate the preferences of three residents regarding their daily routines and healthcare, which compromised their quality of life. Resident 508 expressed a preference not to be awakened before 8:00 AM, as documented in their choice assessment. Despite this, staff continued to wake the resident at 6:00 AM, leading to the resident refusing vital checks, breakfast, and medication. Although the nurse practitioner was informed and responded to change the medication schedule, the orders were not updated, and the staff remained unaware of the resident's preferences due to a lack of care conference. Resident 35 preferred more frequent showers and specifically requested female aides for assistance. However, the resident only received one shower in 30 days, and their preference for female caregivers was not documented in their care plan. The facility's shower schedule did not accommodate the resident's preferences, and staff failed to offer alternative shower arrangements when male aides were the only option available. Resident 92 also experienced issues with the facility's shower schedule, which only allowed for one shower per week. When the resident refused a shower, they were not offered an alternative time or assistance from a female aide. Documentation showed that the resident received only one shower in November, and staff did not adequately address the resident's preferences or reasons for refusing showers.
Failure to Promptly Report and Document Resident Grievances
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to promptly report and document resident grievances, specifically for a resident who was cognitively intact and had been admitted to the facility. The resident reported a missing left-hand arthritis glove, which provided comfort for their hands, and had been missing for one week. Despite informing multiple staff members, including aides, the grievance was not logged in the facility's grievance logs, which covered the period from July to December 2024. Interviews with staff revealed that the Occupational Therapist and the Registered Nurse/Nurse Manager were aware of the missing glove but did not complete a grievance form. The Social Service Director only received the grievance form after the resident had been without the glove for a week. The facility's policy required any employee informed of a grievance to immediately initiate the procedures for resolution, which was not followed in this case, leading to delays in grievance resolution and potential frustration for the resident.
Failure in Blood Sugar Monitoring and Insulin Administration
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure that blood sugar (BS) monitoring for Resident 82 was conducted according to professional standards of care. Resident 82, who was admitted with a diagnosis of diabetes type 2, had their BS checked after consuming lunch. Staff Q, an LPN, administered sliding-scale insulin based on the BS level of 292 without coordinating the insulin administration with mealtime as per the facility's policy. This action was contrary to the facility's policy, which requires insulin administration to be coordinated with meals and snacks. Interviews with various staff members revealed inconsistencies in the understanding and implementation of the facility's policy regarding BS monitoring and insulin administration. Staff R, an LPN, indicated that sliding-scale insulin should be administered even after a meal without notifying the provider. However, Staff E, an RN/Nurse Manager, and Staff B, the Director of Nursing Services, stated that the provider should be notified for guidance if BS is checked post-meal. Staff C, another RN/Nurse Manager, mentioned that a note should be placed in the resident's record if BS is taken after a meal. These discrepancies highlight a lack of adherence to the facility's policy and a failure to ensure professional standards of quality in BS monitoring and insulin administration for Resident 82.
Failure to Adhere to Oxygen Therapy Orders
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to provide respiratory care consistent with professional standards of practice for a resident with heart failure and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). The resident was observed using a nasal cannula connected to an oxygen concentrator set at 4 liters per minute (lpm), despite having a physician's order for oxygen therapy at 2 lpm to maintain oxygen saturations between 88-92 percent. This discrepancy was noted during observations on two consecutive days. Interviews with staff revealed that the Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) was unaware of the correct physician order and stated that the resident's oxygen was usually set at 2 lpm. The Registered Nurse/Nurse Manager confirmed that oxygen settings should be checked each time a nurse enters a resident's room, or at a minimum, each shift. However, the resident's oxygen was consistently set higher than the prescribed amount, indicating a failure to adhere to the physician's orders and the facility's policy on oxygen administration.
Failure to Prevent Sexual Abuse Between Cognitively Impaired Residents
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure that two residents residing on a secured Special Care Unit (SCU) were free from sexual abuse. Resident 1, who had severe cognitive impairment and a history of hypersexual behavior, was found in bed with Resident 2, who also had severe cognitive impairment and was rarely understood. Both residents were naked, and Resident 1 was observed providing oral sex to Resident 2. This incident caused emotional distress to Resident 2, who was tearful after the event. The facility's failure to prevent this sexual activity between two cognitively impaired residents who were unable to consent to sexual relations placed all residents on the unit at risk of unwanted sexual contact, injury, and psychological harm. Resident 1 had a history of wandering and hypersexual behavior, which was documented in their care plan. Despite these known behaviors, the resident was not adequately monitored, leading to the incident with Resident 2. Resident 1's care plan included interventions such as cueing, reorienting, and supervising as needed, but these measures were insufficient to prevent the incident. The resident was eventually placed on 1:1 monitoring after the incident, but this action came too late to prevent the harm. Resident 2, who also had severe cognitive impairment and a history of wandering, was found in a vulnerable position due to the facility's lack of adequate supervision and intervention. Staff interviews revealed that Resident 2 liked to hold hands with others and sometimes disrobed, behaviors that were documented in their care plan. However, the facility failed to provide the necessary supervision to prevent Resident 1 from entering Resident 2's room and engaging in sexual activity. This lack of oversight and failure to follow care plans contributed to the incident and the resulting emotional distress for Resident 2.
Latest citations in Washington
A resident with cerebral palsy and a court-appointed guardian experienced multiple episodes of nausea, vomiting, loose stools, abdominal discomfort, fatigue, and later refusal of meals and medications, leading to changes in the care plan including close monitoring, lab testing, and IV fluid administration. Despite a facility policy recognizing court-appointed guardians as resident representatives with decision-making authority, staff did not document any notification to the guardian during these changes in condition or treatment decisions. The guardian reported not being contacted when the resident stopped eating or developed stomach issues and felt the facility did not respect the guardianship, while the DON acknowledged there were multiple missed opportunities to notify the guardian of the resident’s change from baseline.
A resident with depression, anxiety, moderate cognitive impairment, and urinary incontinence, care-planned for q2h checks and assistance with toileting, was found by a visitor to be soaking wet, unusually agitated, and reporting they had been told to wait to be changed and referred to with a derogatory remark. The visitor filed a written grievance alleging abuse/neglect related to delayed incontinence care and removal of the resident’s tablet as a consequence. Although an incident report noted that the matter was reported to the state and that the resident was not soaking wet, a CNA who actually changed the resident later reported the resident’s brief, pants, wheelchair, and socks were soaked and that the resident was acting timid and repeatedly saying they had to sit for five minutes, but this CNA was never interviewed. The DON acknowledged not investigating the resident’s behavior or interviewing this CNA, and the grievance official acknowledged the facility did not fully investigate or communicate findings and resolution to the complainant, resulting in a failure to follow the facility’s grievance policy.
A resident with dementia, respiratory failure, and heart failure developed new shortness of breath with an O2 sat of 90%, and a physician ordered transfer to the ED for tx and eval. An RN completed an SBAR, notified the MD and family, and reported to the oncoming nurse that the resident needed ED transfer and that paramedics should be contacted, then left the facility. Instead of calling 911 for this emergent respiratory distress, staff arranged non-emergent transport through a contracted ambulance service, resulting in the resident remaining at the facility for several hours without pickup until the dispatcher later instructed staff to call 911. The DON stated that 911 is expected to be used for emergent conditions and the contracted service only for non-emergent transport.
A resident with anoxic brain injury, dysarthria, and documented lack of decisional capacity alleged physical abuse and expressed fear of their identified representative, yet social services only reported the allegation to the state and did not complete an incident report, revise the care plan, or implement protective interventions. The same representative continued to be treated as the resident’s decision-maker and visited frequently, with staff noting suspicious odors of foreign substances and concerns about possible illicit substance use. Psychiatry later documented concern that the representative was providing illicit substances, and the resident was subsequently hospitalized for altered mental status and overdose, after which the representative was banned. Key staff, including the DON, unit manager, and administrator/abuse coordinator, were unaware of the initial abuse allegation, and social services did not timely explore or clarify legal decision-making authority or alternative representation for the resident.
A resident with severe cognitive impairment, osteoarthritis, and spinal spondylosis, care planned for 2-person Hoyer transfers, was being moved by two CNAs using a mechanical lift when one corner loop of the sling became disengaged, causing the resident to fall about four feet, strike the floor and the lift, and sustain head abrasion, multiple rib fractures, and lumbar vertebral fractures. Facility policy required staff to verify secure sling attachment, examine hooks, clips, fasteners, and strap stability, and ensure the sling bar was sound before lifting, but during this transfer the sling loop detached despite staff believing it was properly fastened and hearing it click into place; post-incident assessment showed the loop had come loose, the sling appeared in good condition, and a CNA later reported thinking one of the round metal disks on the lift might have been slightly loose, while maintenance logs documented no prior concerns with the lifts or slings.
The facility failed to revise and individualize care plans to reflect current needs and preferences for multiple residents, including one cognitively intact resident with hemiplegia, hemiparesis, and mononeuropathy who had bilateral shoulder surgery and could not tolerate BP measurements on the upper arms but preferred forearm readings. Despite repeatedly informing staff, this preference was not documented in the care plan or Kardex, and direct care staff and the RN/UM were unaware of it. Another cognitively intact resident with hemiplegia, contractures, and weakness reported they were supposed to get out of bed for two hours daily, but some NACs did not know this, even though the MAR/TAR contained an order to document times up and back to bed. The surveyors concluded that care plans were not accurately revised for several residents, placing them at risk for unidentified and unmet care needs and diminished quality of life.
Surveyors found that two residents with hemiplegia, hemiparesis, weakness, and contractures did not receive restorative nursing services, including ROM exercises and splint/brace or orthotic assistance, after therapy discharge. Although PT and OT discharge summaries documented established restorative ROM and transfer programs, recommended PROM to affected extremities, and recommended splint/brace use and assistance with orthotic wear, these recommendations were not entered as restorative referrals in the EHR. As a result, the residents’ care plans and records showed no restorative programs, and both residents reported that therapy and restorative exercises had stopped, while the DON, rehab director, and MDS coordinator confirmed they were unaware of and had not implemented the recommended restorative services.
A resident with cancer, cognitive impairment, and declining strength experienced multiple unwitnessed falls, most occurring while attempting to toilet or move toward the bathroom, culminating in a fractured ankle requiring ED treatment. Although assessments identified fall and incontinence risks and the facility’s policy required individualized interventions, the comprehensive care plan lacked a toileting plan and did not include several interventions that were discussed in incident investigations, such as consistent wheelchair placement and frequent rounding for bathroom assistance. Staff reported relying on verbal reminders and education to use the call light, despite acknowledging the resident’s impulsivity and failure to call for help, and the resident’s bed remained furthest from the bathroom while repeated bathroom-related falls occurred without the trend being recognized or addressed in the care plan.
A resident with a history of acute urinary retention and acute kidney injury had a Foley catheter deemed permanent by the hospital, with instructions that it not be removed in the SNF. At a later urology visit, the catheter was removed, and the resident returned with no new orders documented. Facility staff did not document bladder assessments, post-void residuals, or urine output, and CNA documentation showed the resident did not void that evening. Over the next day, the resident had vomiting, poor intake, altered level of consciousness, tachycardia, hypotension, and no documented wet briefs. A bladder scan eventually showed more than 2000–2500 mL of retained urine, and a new catheter drained a large volume. The resident and a roommate reported moaning, crying out in pain, and repeatedly alerting staff that the resident was not urinating and that the catheter was not draining, while nurses documented catheter care when no catheter was in place and later had to flush and replace the catheter due to continued complaints.
Surveyors found that nurses and nurse aides did not consistently administer medications according to professional standards and facility policy. Multiple residents reported that agency nurses were slow with medications, did not fully follow instructions, and often gave routine meds late. Observations showed an LPN administering expired Humalog/Lispro insulin well past the scheduled time, an LPN giving several scheduled meds (including Tizanidine) late and all at once, and an RN attempting to give sliding-scale insulin nearly two hours late, which a resident refused after already eating. Another resident received Methocarbamol two hours late after questioning the RN, and a resident on scheduled Tramadol had doses given without timely documentation, with a discrepancy between the narcotic count and pills remaining. These events demonstrated failures in timely administration, use of non-expired medications, and immediate, accurate MAR and narcotic documentation.
Failure to Notify Court-Appointed Guardian of Resident’s Clinical Changes
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to notify a resident’s court-appointed guardian of significant clinical changes and care decisions, contrary to its own policy and state requirements. The facility’s policy on Resident Representatives, revised 02/2021, states that a resident representative includes a court-appointed guardian or conservator and that the facility treats the representative’s decisions as those of the resident to the extent delegated or required by the court. Resident 1, admitted with cerebral palsy, had a Superior Court guardianship letter dated 02/07/2025 indicating a guardian of person and conservator of the estate with full authority, identifying Collateral Contact 1 (CC1) as the guardian. Despite this, multiple clinical events and changes in condition were documented without any corresponding documentation that CC1 was notified. Progress notes and provider notes show that Resident 1 experienced an episode of nausea and vomiting, frequent loose stools, abdominal discomfort, bloating, worsening fatigue, generalized weakness, and later refusal of meals and medications over at least a 24-hour period, with observations that the resident appeared frailer, more fatigued, and had no energy or interest to talk. The provider developed care plans including close monitoring for deterioration, sending stool to the lab, and later initiating IV fluids for rehydration, with a plan to call family/POA for discussion. However, there was no documentation that the guardian was notified at any of these points, including when IV fluids were started. CC1 reported that they were not contacted when the resident stopped eating or developed stomach issues, and expressed that the facility did not respect their guardianship and that involvement in care planning took too long. The DON confirmed on record review that there were many opportunities to notify the guardian when the resident’s condition changed from baseline and that there was no evidence staff did so.
Failure to Thoroughly Investigate and Resolve Resident Grievance Regarding Incontinence Care and Staff Conduct
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to thoroughly investigate and resolve a grievance alleging neglect and disrespect toward a resident, as required by its grievance policy. The resident had depression, anxiety, moderate cognitive impairment, occasional urinary incontinence, and required moderate assistance with toileting, with a care plan directing staff to check the resident every two hours, ask about toileting needs, and ensure they were clean and dry. A collateral contact reported arriving to visit the resident and finding them soaking wet and agitated, with behavior that was not typical for the resident. The collateral contact documented in a written grievance that the resident’s tablet was off, the resident appeared upset, and the resident reported being told they had to wait five minutes to be changed and that staff would change their “nasty *ss” in five minutes, leading the collateral contact to believe the resident had been given a consequence of no tablet and sitting in wet clothes, which they characterized as abuse/neglect and requested immediate removal of the responsible staff and a report filed. The facility documented receipt of the grievance and created an incident report indicating the matter was reported to the state agency, and that the unit manager interviewed the collateral contact and the resident, with the resident described as confused and denying being soaking wet. The incident report stated that a different nursing assistant was assigned to assist with the brief change and that the unit manager believed the resident was not soaking wet, and that the resident and collateral contact were satisfied when they left the room. However, a CNA who actually changed the resident reported that the resident’s brief was soaked through their pants onto the wheelchair and their socks were soaked, and that the resident was timid, repeatedly saying they had to sit for five minutes, and not acting like themselves; this CNA stated they were never interviewed or asked about the grievance or the resident’s condition. The DON acknowledged not interviewing this CNA or investigating the resident’s behavior and why they were upset, and the unit manager did not recall whether the collateral contact was present during follow-up and did not believe they followed up with the collateral contact regarding the grievance. The administrator, identified as the Grievance Official, stated the facility should have thoroughly investigated the grievance and discussed findings and resolution with the collateral contact, indicating the grievance process was not fully carried out in accordance with policy and WAC 388-97-0460.
Failure to Obtain Timely Emergency Transport for Resident in Respiratory Distress
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to obtain timely emergency medical services for a resident experiencing new-onset respiratory distress. The resident had dementia, respiratory failure, and heart failure, with severe cognitive impairment and a need for substantial assistance with activities of daily living. On the day the resident was sent to the hospital, a collateral contact observed the resident having difficulty breathing, appearing unable to get enough air, and looking as if they were sleeping or unconscious, and reported this to staff with a request to contact the doctor. An SBAR Communication Form documented that the resident was experiencing shortness of breath that had not occurred before, with an oxygen saturation of 90%. The physician was notified and ordered the resident sent to the emergency department for treatment and evaluation, and the collateral contact was notified shortly thereafter. Progress notes later documented that, despite the order for emergency department transfer, the resident was still awaiting pickup by Olympic transportation several hours later, with no estimated time of arrival. At approximately 3:30 AM, the dispatcher informed the facility that they could not provide transportation and instructed that 911 be called; only then was 911 contacted and the resident transported to the hospital via ambulance for respiratory distress. The RN caring for the resident stated they completed the SBAR, notified the physician and family, and at the end of their shift reported to the oncoming nurse that the resident needed to be sent to the emergency department for respiratory distress and that paramedics should be contacted, then left assuming 911 would be called. The DON stated that staff are expected to contact 911 for emergent conditions such as shortness of breath or respiratory distress, and that Olympic Ambulance is used only for non-emergent transport.
Failure to Provide Social Service Advocacy After Abuse Allegation and Questionable Representative
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to provide appropriate medically-related social services and advocacy for a resident following an allegation of abuse and concerns about the resident’s representative. The resident had an anoxic brain injury, dysarthria, moderate cognitive impairment, and was dependent on staff for activities of daily living. A hospital palliative care note documented that the resident lacked decisional capacity, had no DPOA, that the legal next of kin (CC4) did not want to be part of care decisions, and that care decisions were being deferred to another contact (CC5). CC5 accompanied the resident on admission, signed admission forms, and was listed as the primary contact in the medical record profile. On a date in February, during communication therapy, the resident reported that CC5 had done something to them, pounded their hands on their chest, recalled being hit in the back of the head by an unknown person, and stated they were sometimes afraid of CC5. A social services staff member reported this allegation to the state agency but did not complete a facility incident report, did not initiate care plan changes or interventions, and took no further action. CC5 continued to be treated as the resident’s representative, and progress notes documented CC5 at the bedside on multiple dates, including an entry noting the room smelled like foreign substances and that CC5 was seen waking the resident and then asking the nurse to administer pain medications. A psychiatry note later documented concern that CC5 was providing the resident with illicit substances and stated it would be prudent for the resident to identify a POA. Subsequently, the resident was found unresponsive, transported to the hospital, and later readmitted after altered mental status and overdose, with a provider note stating that CC5 posed a significant danger to the resident and was banned from visiting. After readmission, staff attempted to contact CC4 for consent to treat but initially reached someone who stated they were not CC4. The social service director acknowledged that, beyond reporting the initial allegation, no additional interventions were implemented, that CC5 continued to be used as the resident’s representative after the allegation, and that they had not explored legal authority for decision making following the abuse allegation or concerns about substances. The social service assistant reported they did not speak with the resident about the hospital stay or CC5 and did not complete an incident report or care plan changes after the allegation. The unit manager and DON were unaware of the initial abuse allegation, and the administrator, who served as abuse coordinator, also stated they were unaware of the allegation and that an investigation should have been initiated and a representative for the resident investigated at a minimum.
Injury from Mechanical Lift Sling Detachment During Transfer
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure a safe mechanical lift transfer when a resident was being moved with a Hoyer lift and sling, resulting in a fall and injury. Facility policy for using a mechanical lifting machine required staff to securely attach sling straps to the sling bar according to manufacturer’s instructions, double-check the security of the sling attachment before lifting, examine all hooks, clips, or fasteners, check strap stability, and ensure the sling bar was securely attached and sound. Despite these requirements, during a transfer for dinner, two CNAs placed the sling under the resident, attached the loops at each corner of the sling to the lift, and raised the resident off the bed into the space between the bed and wheelchair when the bottom left corner of the sling became disengaged from the lift. The resident involved had multiple diagnoses including osteoarthritis, cervical and thoracic spondylosis, and Alzheimer’s disease, with the Minimum Data Set documenting severely impaired cognitive skills for daily decision-making. The resident’s care plan required the assistance of two staff during Hoyer lift transfers. During the transfer, the resident fell approximately four feet, landing on her buttocks, bouncing, and then falling backward and striking her head on the leg of the Hoyer lift. Hospital records documented that the resident sustained an abrasion to the back of the head, fractures of the 6th, 7th, 8th, and 10th ribs, and fractures of the 1st and 2nd lumbar vertebra. Staff interviews and observations showed that staff believed the sling loops had been securely fastened and reported hearing the loops click into place before lifting. One CNA stated that they had barely lifted the resident off the bed when the bottom left loop became disconnected and the resident fell. Another CNA reported being shocked and unable to figure out what had happened. A nurse who assessed the resident and then examined the equipment after the fall noted that one of the loops of the sling had become disengaged but stated the sling appeared to be in good condition. During a later demonstration, a CNA indicated she thought one of the round metal disks on the lift might have been a little loose. Maintenance logs for Hoyer slings and lifts for the preceding months documented no concerns with the slings or lifts, and the DON acknowledged expecting a citation due to the resident’s injury from the fall.
Failure to Revise Care Plans to Reflect Resident Needs and Preferences
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to revise and individualize comprehensive care plans to reflect residents’ current needs and preferences, as required by its own care planning policy. For one resident with hemiplegia, hemiparesis following cerebrovascular disease, and mononeuropathy of the upper limb, the admission MDS showed intact cognition and upper extremity impairment. This resident reported having bilateral shoulder surgery and an inability to tolerate blood pressure measurements on the upper arms due to pain, and stated a preference for BP measurements on the forearms. The resident reported having informed multiple nursing staff of this preference, but staff continued to place the cuff on the upper arms. Review of the resident’s care plan and Kardex showed no interventions or instructions regarding forearm BP cuff placement. A NAC confirmed they were unaware of the preference until the resident told them directly and that this instruction was not documented in the Kardex. The RN/Unit Manager, who stated they were responsible for revising and reviewing care plans when there were changes, also confirmed they were not aware of the resident’s preference and that it should have been updated in the care plan. Another resident, readmitted with hemiplegia and hemiparesis following a nontraumatic subarachnoid hemorrhage, contracture of the left hand, and weakness, was cognitively intact and required maximum assistance for bed mobility per a quarterly MDS. This resident stated they were supposed to get out of bed for two hours every day, but some NACs were not aware of this care requirement. Review of the resident’s March 2026 MAR/TAR showed an order to document the time the resident got up and the time they returned to bed daily. The report states that, overall, the facility failed to revise care plans accurately to reflect residents’ needs for three of four residents reviewed for care plan revision, placing them at risk for unidentified and unmet care needs and a diminished quality of life.
Failure to Implement Restorative Nursing and Splint/Brace Programs After Therapy Discharge
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to provide restorative nursing services, including range of motion (ROM) exercises and splint/brace assistance, to maintain or prevent decline in mobility and contractures for two residents with significant motor impairments. The facility’s undated Restorative Nursing Services policy stated that residents would receive restorative care as needed to achieve and maintain optimal functioning and that residents may initiate a restorative program upon discharge from rehabilitative care. Despite this, surveyors found that residents with documented hemiplegia, hemiparesis, weakness, and contractures were not placed on restorative programs and had no restorative interventions documented in their electronic health records (EHRs). Resident 1 was admitted with hemiplegia and hemiparesis following cerebrovascular disease, a left lower leg fracture, and weakness, and the admission MDS showed intact cognition, moderate assistance needs for bed mobility and transfers, and one-sided upper and lower extremity impairment. During observation, the resident was seen lying in bed with a bent inward left forearm and hand and reported no longer receiving therapy or nursing-assisted exercises. The care plan initiated in January showed no restorative services, and the care plan history and EHR contained no restorative nursing interventions. However, the PT discharge summary from February documented that restorative ROM and transfer programs had been established and trained, including PROM to the left upper and lower extremities and stand-by assist with transfers, and the OT discharge summary recommended a splint/brace to prevent contracture. The OT stated that the splint/brace was not tried due to lack of time before insurance was discontinued, and both the Director of Rehab and the MDS coordinator confirmed there was no restorative referral in the EHR and they were unaware of the recommendations. Resident 2 was readmitted with hemiplegia and hemiparesis following a nontraumatic subarachnoid hemorrhage, a left-hand contracture, and weakness, and the quarterly MDS showed intact cognition, maximum assistance needs for bed mobility, total assistance for transfers, bilateral upper and lower extremity impairment, and no therapy or restorative programs. The resident reported that therapy had been discontinued months earlier and that no restorative staff were assisting with exercises. The care plan and EHR showed no restorative services. OT evaluation documented left upper extremity ROM impairment, a left-hand contracture, and prior use of a left orthotic to manage flexion tone, and the OT discharge summary recommended restorative care and assistance with donning/doffing the orthotic. The PT discharge summary recommended restorative programs if Medicaid Part B services did not continue. The Director of Rehab confirmed therapy was discontinued and that restorative nursing programs were recommended, but both the Director of Rehab and the MDS coordinator stated there were no restorative referrals in the EHR after readmission, and the MDS coordinator confirmed the resident had no restorative programs since readmission.
Failure to Implement Effective Fall and Toileting Interventions for High-Risk Resident
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to provide adequate supervision, identify fall trends, and implement progressive, resident-centered interventions for a resident with multiple falls and declining strength. The facility’s own Falls and Fall Risk Management policy required staff to identify interventions related to residents’ specific risks and causes to prevent falls and minimize complications. The resident’s Care Area Assessment identified cancer-related risks for pain, falls, and ADL decline, and stated that falls and urinary incontinence would be addressed in the care plan with an objective of improvement and risk minimization. However, the comprehensive care plan did not include a urinary or ADL care plan and contained no toileting plan, despite the resident’s identified risks and prior fall history. Over a series of falls, the resident repeatedly fell while attempting to toilet or move toward the bathroom, yet the facility did not recognize or address this pattern in its investigations or care planning. The resident had multiple unwitnessed falls: next to the bed while getting up to use the restroom, in the bathroom while standing to use the toilet, and near or in the bathroom on several occasions. Incident investigations and post-fall assessments documented environmental factors such as clutter, items on the floor, water on the floor, and issues with footwear, as well as the resident’s increasing weakness, impulsivity, poor safety awareness, and poor insight into limitations. Interventions documented in investigations and risk reviews included encouraging use of the front-wheeled walker, keeping the wheelchair and walker accessible, ensuring proper footwear and non-skid socks, and providing resident education on safe transfers, ambulation, and assistive device use. However, several of these planned interventions, including placement of the wheelchair and frequent rounding/toileting assistance, were not added to or reflected in the care plan as stated. Staff interviews further showed that the resident frequently fell while trying to go to the bathroom and that staff relied on verbal education and reminders to use the call light, even though the resident often did not use it. Staff acknowledged the resident’s impulsivity and tendency to get up independently despite instructions, and one staff member stated that nursing assistants were verbally instructed to offer bathroom assistance, but this intervention was not documented in the care plan. The resident’s bed remained the one furthest from the bathroom throughout the stay, and none of the facility’s investigations identified the trend of bathroom-related falls or addressed toileting options in the care plan. Ultimately, the resident sustained a left ankle fracture after another bathroom-related fall, requiring transfer to the emergency department for evaluation and treatment, and later records documented additional fractures and a decline in condition. The surveyors concluded that the facility’s failures placed residents at risk of repeated falls and injuries.
Failure to Monitor Urinary Retention After Foley Removal Leading to Prolonged Pain
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to adequately assess and monitor a resident for complications associated with an indwelling urinary catheter and urinary retention, particularly after catheter removal. The resident had a history of acute kidney injury due to urinary retention, which improved after Foley catheter placement in the hospital. Hospital discharge documentation indicated the catheter was placed for acute urinary retention, was deemed permanent, and included instructions that, given the resident’s significant retention and acute renal failure, staff at the skilled nursing facility should not attempt Foley removal. The facility’s catheter care plan directed staff to empty the catheter as needed and record output in milliliters, but review of the last 30 days of documentation showed continence was not rated due to the indwelling catheter and there was no documented urinary output in milliliters on the treatment administration records. The resident had a scheduled urology appointment at which the urinary catheter was discontinued. Upon return from this appointment, nursing documentation initially indicated no new orders, and an alert note later stated the catheter was discontinued and staff were monitoring for retention or pain. However, there was no documented bladder assessment or urinary output following catheter removal. Nursing assistant documentation showed that the resident did not void on the evening shift that same day. Despite the catheter having been removed, the treatment administration record showed staff continued to document provision of catheter care on subsequent shifts when no catheter was in place. Over the next day, the resident experienced vomiting, decreased oral intake, and an altered level of consciousness, with vital signs showing tachycardia and low blood pressure, and staff documented decreased urine output. A bladder scan performed later revealed more than 2000–2500 milliliters of urine in the bladder, and an indwelling catheter was reinserted, initially draining a large volume of urine. The provider note indicated the resident had not eaten since the prior night, was unable to hold down fluids, and staff were unsure whether the resident had urinated in incontinence briefs, with no wet briefs reported since the resident’s return from the hospital after catheter removal. The provider expressed concern that the documented early-morning wet brief might not be accurate given the large bladder volume on scan and stated this should require further investigation. Subsequent notes described the resident moaning and complaining of pain, with limited urine output in the catheter bag and staff flushing and then replacing the catheter due to continued complaints. Interviews with the resident, the roommate, and staff indicated the resident was crying out and moaning in pain, the roommate repeatedly alerted staff that the resident was not urinating and that the catheter was not draining, and staff had to seek assistance to replace the catheter. Facility leadership and clinical staff later acknowledged that typical practice after catheter removal would include contacting the provider, placing the resident on alert, performing post-void residuals with bladder scans, and documenting monitoring, which was not done in this case.
Medication Administration Delays, Documentation Errors, and Use of Expired Insulin
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to ensure sufficient nursing staff with appropriate competencies and skill sets to administer medications according to professional standards of practice, facility policy, and prescriber orders. The facility’s medication administration policy required medications to be given as prescribed, in accordance with manufacturers’ specifications and good nursing principles, with no expired medications used, and doses administered within 60 minutes of the scheduled time and documented immediately after administration. Multiple residents reported that agency nurses often gave medications late, did not read full instructions, or were slow in bringing medications, and that routinely scheduled medications were not consistently provided without residents having to ask. Surveyors observed several specific medication administration failures. For a resident with diabetes, an LPN drew up and administered Humalog/Lispro insulin from a multi-dose vial that had been opened and dated “02/16” with no year, making it expired per policy, and administered the dose nearly 1 hour and 45 minutes after it was due. Another resident with care plan instructions to receive medications as ordered had multiple scheduled medications (Gabapentin, Oxybutynin, Baclofen, and Tizanidine) that were ordered at specific times throughout the day; the LPN was observed administering all four together and acknowledged that at least one (Tizanidine) was late, while the resident reported that receiving them together at that time was typical and not at their request. For another diabetic resident, an RN checked blood sugar and prepared sliding scale Humalog/Lispro insulin almost two hours after the scheduled time; the resident refused the insulin, stating they had already finished lunch. Additional deficiencies were identified with other residents’ pain and scheduled medications. One resident with a pain care plan and an order for Methocarbamol four times daily at set times approached the cart requesting Methocarbamol and Tylenol; the RN initially stated the Methocarbamol had already been given, but then administered it two hours after it was due when the resident pointed out the scheduled timing. For another resident with a risk for pain care plan and Tramadol ordered three times daily at specific times, an LPN retrieved a PRN pain medication while the electronic record showed no 8:00 AM medications documented; the LPN stated they had given them but had not yet documented. Later, an RN prepared the 2:00 PM Tramadol dose, and review of the narcotic count showed a discrepancy between the number of pills documented and the number remaining in the card. The RN stated they had given the 8:00 AM Tramadol but had not signed it out, then signed out both the 8:00 AM and 2:00 PM doses at that time. Residents interviewed consistently reported that medications were sometimes or frequently late, that agency nurses did not always follow instructions, and that they often had to request medications that were routinely scheduled.
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.
