St Paul Elder Services, Inc
Inspection history, citations, penalties and survey trends for this long-term care facility in Kaukauna, Wisconsin.
- Location
- 316 East 14th Street, Kaukauna, Wisconsin 54130
- CMS Provider Number
- 525617
- Inspections on file
- 21
- Latest survey
- March 26, 2026
- Citations (last 12 mo.)
- 1
Citation history
Health deficiencies cited at St Paul Elder Services, Inc during CMS and state inspections, most recent first.
A resident with pneumonia and dependence on supplemental O2 had a provider order for 3 LPM via nasal cannula to maintain O2 saturation above 90%, with required documentation of liters per minute and saturation on the TAR. Over multiple shifts, staff documented the resident receiving 4 LPM of O2 with saturations in the low 90s, and a progress note stated the resident remained on 4 LPM to keep saturation above 90%, but there was no evidence of provider notification or an updated order authorizing this increase. Two PAs stated they would have expected notification when O2 was increased for a resident with pneumonia, and the DON confirmed staff should have contacted the provider and obtained an order when the O2 was raised to 4 LPM.
A resident with dementia and behavioral symptoms was involved in multiple physical altercations with other residents, resulting in injuries and distress. Despite updates to the care plan and various interventions, staff did not consistently provide supervision or effective prevention, leading to repeated incidents of abuse and an unsafe environment for several residents.
Surveyors found that food and drink items in several dining room refrigerators and freezers were not labeled with received, opened, or use-by dates, and undated items were served to residents. The activity room freezer was consistently above the required temperature, with staff unaware of proper monitoring procedures. Additionally, cooks reheated food in the microwave without waiting the required two minutes to ensure safe temperatures before serving.
Two residents had inaccuracies in their MDS 3.0 assessments: one was incorrectly coded as having an unhealed stage 3 pressure injury despite staff assessment showing it had resolved, and another's assessments failed to indicate receipt of prescribed opioid medications, even though the DON confirmed the medications were administered during the assessment periods.
A resident with diabetes and impaired cognition developed an open toe wound that was reported to staff, but no wound assessment, documentation, or wound care orders were completed. Staff failed to implement Enhanced Barrier Precautions, did not update the care plan, and did not apply ordered compression stockings. The wound was not checked or treated for several days, and required care was only provided after the issue was identified by a surveyor.
Three residents with significant respiratory and cardiac conditions did not have oxygen therapy documented in their care plans, and two lacked physician orders for changing oxygen tubing. Interviews with the DON and NHA confirmed that these omissions were not in line with facility policy, resulting in a failure to provide necessary respiratory care and services.
Staff did not follow infection control protocols for two residents requiring transmission-based precautions. In one case, two CNAs removed their N95 masks before exiting the room of a resident on airborne precautions, against facility policy. In another case, two CNAs failed to wear gowns during high-contact care for a resident on enhanced barrier precautions, despite clear signage and policy requirements. Both incidents were acknowledged by the staff involved and confirmed by facility leadership.
A resident with moderate cognitive impairment alleged that a CNA removed and returned their Fentanyl patch. The facility's policy requires immediate reporting of such incidents to the State Agency, but this was not done because the patch was returned the same evening. The local police were notified, but the failure to report to the State Agency constitutes a deficiency.
Failure to Notify Provider and Obtain Order for Increased Oxygen Flow
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to notify a provider and obtain an order when nursing staff increased a resident’s supplemental oxygen beyond the prescribed level. The facility’s Condition or Status Change policy required the nurse to notify the physician or on-call physician when there was a significant change in the resident’s physical condition. The resident, who was cognitively intact and their own decision maker, had pneumonia and dependence on supplemental oxygen. On 10/12/25, after low oxygen saturation readings and abnormal lung sounds, the provider was notified and ordered oxygen at 3 LPM via nasal cannula to maintain oxygen saturation above 90%, along with documentation of liters per minute and oxygen saturation three times daily on the TAR. Review of the TAR showed that on 10/14/25 and into 10/15/25, staff documented the resident was receiving 4 LPM of oxygen each shift, with oxygen saturation levels ranging from 92% to 94%. A progress note on 10/14/25 at 2:39 PM also indicated the resident remained on 4 LPM of oxygen to keep saturation above 90%. However, the medical record contained no evidence of physician notification, no progress note documenting provider communication about the increase to 4 LPM, and no updated order authorizing this change in oxygen flow. Interviews with two PAs confirmed they would have wanted to be notified if a resident with pneumonia already on oxygen had their oxygen increased and why, and the DON verified that staff should have contacted the provider and obtained an order when oxygen was increased to 4 LPM.
Failure to Prevent Resident-to-Resident Abuse
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure an environment free from abuse for seven residents, as evidenced by multiple resident-to-resident altercations involving a resident with Alzheimer's disease and other cognitive impairments. This resident, who exhibited physical and verbal behavioral symptoms directed toward others, was involved in at least eight altercations over a five-month period. The incidents included physical aggression such as hitting, slapping, and pushing other residents, often in response to triggers like loud environments, direct tones, or perceived disrespect. Despite the resident's care plan being updated with new interventions after each incident, these measures did not prevent further occurrences of abuse. Several of the altercations resulted in physical harm or distress to other residents, some of whom also had severe cognitive impairments and were unable to fully understand or recall the events. In one instance, a resident was struck on the head after yelling at the aggressive resident, while in another, a resident was punched in the chin and fell, sustaining a cut. Other incidents involved residents being hit during meals or in common areas, leading to fear, anxiety, and psychosocial distress among the victims. Staff interviews confirmed that the interventions in place, such as redirection, engagement, and intermittent 1:1 support, were not consistently effective or documented, and the day room was not always monitored as required. The facility's own policy required appropriate steps to prevent harm from resident-to-resident altercations, but staff acknowledged that supervision and interventions were not always consistently implemented or documented. Staff shortages and competing demands sometimes made it difficult to provide the necessary supervision, and 1:1 support was provided only intermittently or after incidents occurred. As a result, the environment was not free from abuse, and residents continued to be exposed to the risk of physical and psychological harm.
Deficient Food Storage, Temperature Monitoring, and Reheating Practices
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure that food was stored and prepared in a sanitary manner, as required by professional standards and the Wisconsin Food Code. Surveyors observed multiple food and drink items in various dining room refrigerators and freezers that were not labeled with received, opened, or use-by dates. These included undated containers of drinks, cheese dip, chicken soup, beef vegetable soup, lemon-flavored juice, and other beverages. Staff confirmed that these items were not labeled or dated according to facility policy, and an undated drink was served to a resident during meal service. Additionally, the facility did not ensure that the temperature of the activity room freezer was properly monitored. Temperature logs for the activity room freezer showed that the freezer was above the required 0 degrees Fahrenheit on nearly all days in January, February, and March, with recorded temperatures reaching as high as 28 degrees Fahrenheit. The staff member responsible for the logs was unaware of the correct temperature requirements and did not know who was responsible for monitoring the freezer temperatures. Surveyors also observed improper reheating practices in the kitchen. Cooks reheated food in the microwave but did not wait the required two minutes after heating to ensure the food reached and maintained the necessary temperature of 165 degrees Fahrenheit, as specified by the Wisconsin Food Code. Food was stirred and temped, but the two-minute standing time was not observed before serving the food to residents. Staff confirmed that the correct microwave reheating procedure was not followed during the observed meal service.
Inaccurate Coding of MDS Assessments for Two Residents
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to accurately code Minimum Data Set (MDS) 3.0 assessments for two residents. For one resident, the Admission MDS assessment indicated the presence of an unhealed stage 3 pressure injury, based on hospital discharge paperwork. However, upon the facility's own assessment, staff determined that the pressure injury had resolved prior to the assessment, and the Clinical Nurse Coordinator acknowledged the MDS was coded inaccurately. For another resident with a diagnosis of left humerus fracture, physician orders documented the administration of opioid medications, including hydrocodone-acetaminophen and tramadol, during the relevant assessment periods. Despite this, both the Discharge-Return Anticipated and Admission MDS assessments failed to indicate that the resident had received opioid medication. The Director of Nursing confirmed that the resident had been prescribed and had taken opioid medication during the assessment periods, and acknowledged the MDS assessments were not coded correctly.
Failure to Assess and Treat Diabetic Toe Wound and Implement Enhanced Barrier Precautions
Penalty
Summary
A resident with a history of type 2 diabetes, diabetic chronic kidney disease, polyneuropathy, and impaired cognition developed an open wound on the left great toe. The resident reported the wound to staff, who applied ointment and a bandage, but there was no documentation of a wound assessment, wound care orders, or progress notes regarding the wound in the medical record. The wound was not added to the resident's care plan, and staff did not initiate Enhanced Barrier Precautions (EBP) as required by facility policy for residents with wounds. Despite care plan interventions to check the resident's skin and treat breaks promptly, staff failed to assess or document the wound, and the wound care nurse was not notified. The resident did not receive a wound assessment or appropriate wound care for several days, and the bandage applied by staff was not changed or checked during showers. The resident reported that no one had checked the wound since the initial bandage was applied, and the staff member responsible for daily diabetic foot checks and compression stocking application documented these tasks as completed when they were not. Interviews with facility staff confirmed that EBP should have been implemented immediately upon discovery of the wound, and that the wound should have been assessed and documented. The lack of communication and documentation resulted in the wound not being addressed according to facility policy, and the resident did not receive the ordered compression stockings or appropriate wound care until the surveyor brought the issue to staff attention.
Failure to Document and Manage Oxygen Therapy for Residents
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to provide necessary and appropriate respiratory care and services for three residents who required oxygen therapy. For two residents with diagnoses including COVID-19, pulmonary fibrosis, sleep apnea, Lewy body dementia, and acute respiratory failure, their care plans did not indicate that they were receiving oxygen therapy, and there were no physician orders to change their oxygen tubing. Additionally, there was no documentation in their Medication Administration Record (MAR) or Treatment Administration Record (TAR) regarding the changing or scheduling of oxygen tubing. Interviews with the Director of Nursing (DON) and Nursing Home Administrator (NHA) confirmed that these omissions were not in accordance with facility policy and expectations for care planning and physician orders. A third resident, who had diagnoses including cerebral infarction, palliative care, congestive heart failure, and was on supplemental oxygen, also did not have oxygen therapy identified in their care plan. The DON and NHA acknowledged during interviews that oxygen therapy should have been included in the care plan for this resident as well. These findings were based on record reviews and staff interviews conducted by surveyors, and they directly reflect the facility's failure to ensure that respiratory care needs were properly documented and managed for residents requiring oxygen therapy.
Failure to Adhere to Infection Control Precautions for Residents on Airborne and Enhanced Barrier Precautions
Penalty
Summary
Staff failed to follow established infection prevention and control protocols for two residents requiring transmission-based precautions. For one resident with a diagnosis of COVID-19 and on airborne precautions, two CNAs donned appropriate PPE, including N95 masks, gowns, goggles, and gloves before entering the resident's room. However, after providing care, both CNAs removed their N95 masks prior to exiting the room, contrary to the posted airborne precautions signage and facility policy, which required masks to be removed only after leaving the room. Both CNAs acknowledged this error during interviews, and the infection preventionist, DON, and NHA confirmed that the correct procedure was not followed. In a separate incident, another resident with a catheter and on enhanced barrier precautions (EBP) required staff to wear gowns and gloves during high-contact care activities. Two CNAs provided high-contact care, including transferring the resident, emptying a catheter bag, and performing peri-care, without wearing gowns as required by the EBP protocol and signage posted outside the resident's room. Both CNAs confirmed during interviews that they should have worn gowns during these activities, and the DON verified that these were considered high-contact cares necessitating gown use.
Failure to Report Misappropriation of Resident's Fentanyl Patch
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to report an allegation of misappropriation involving a resident's Fentanyl patch to the State Agency as required. The incident involved a resident with moderate cognitive impairment who alleged that a Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) removed and then returned their Fentanyl patch. The facility's policy mandates immediate reporting of such incidents to the Division of Quality Assurance within 24 hours, but this was not done because the patch was returned the same evening. The incident was initially reported to the Nursing Home Administrator (NHA) by the Nurse Manager after the patch was found missing. The resident identified the CNA as the person who removed and returned the patch. Despite the local police being notified and a case number assigned, the facility did not report the incident to the State Agency, which constitutes a deficiency in following the required protocol for reporting suspected misappropriation.
Latest citations in Wisconsin
Two residents did not receive skin care and monitoring consistent with professional standards or their expressed preferences. One resident sustained a right knee abrasion from a fall that was noted on a fall report but not reflected in subsequent weekly skin assessments, MAR/TAR entries, or progress notes; the resident later showed the surveyor a visible wound and reported that staff had not followed up after the initial fall. Nursing staff gave conflicting accounts about the existence and monitoring of this wound, and the DON was unaware of it and unable to describe its progression, while relying on CNAs to observe and report changes. Another resident developed a U-shaped area on the left back that a CNA described as a previously bruised, weeping area and a family member described as a bruise, yet weekly skin checks continued to document intact skin with no open areas and no specific description of this site. A later photo taken by the DON showed a U-shaped scar on the back, but there were no prior measurements, photos, or detailed documentation to track its development or characteristics.
Two residents experienced deficiencies in transfer safety when staff did not follow or update care-planned transfer methods. One resident with CVA and hemiplegia, care-planned for a Lumex transfer with two staff, was transferred by a single RN using the Lumex and was lowered to the floor when unable to continue standing. Another resident with MS, CVA, and severely impaired cognition, care-planned for pivot disc transfers with one staff, was observed being transferred with a Lumex by a CNA, despite the care plan not being revised to reflect this method and no documented therapy re-assessment for renewed Lumex use.
A resident with stroke-related hemiplegia and documented colonization with carbapenem-resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa (CRPA) was care-planned for Enhanced Barrier Precautions (EBP), and the facility’s policy required gown and glove use for high-contact activities such as transfers. Despite EBP signage on the door and PPE available, a CNA and the NHA transferred the resident with a mechanical lift, physically holding and positioning the resident, without wearing gowns or gloves, and then continued tasks in the room. In interviews, the CNA, NHA, and DON stated they believed EBP applied only to direct care and did not include transfers, resulting in noncompliance with the facility’s infection prevention and control program.
A resident was admitted to hospice, which the facility’s DON identified as a significant change in condition requiring a Significant Change in Status Assessment (SCSA) MDS to be completed within 14 days per the RAI User Manual and facility policy. The last MDS for this resident had been completed earlier, and although an SCSA was started after the hospice admission, it was never completed or submitted. The resident later died, and the DON acknowledged that the significant change MDS was not completed within the required timeframe.
A resident with obesity, weakness, and type 2 DM with polyneuropathy, who had no cognitive impairment and required a sit-to-stand mechanical lift with two-person assist per the care plan, experienced a fall during a transfer when a CNA performed the lift alone. The CNA unhooked one side of the sling, had difficulty reaching the other side, unlocked the lift while the resident was partially on the bed with feet on the device and holding a trapeze, and the lift moved forward as the resident pushed with their legs, causing the resident to slide to the floor. Staff interviews confirmed that transfer requirements are obtained from the care plan/Kardex, that mechanical lifts may require two staff depending on the plan, and that this resident specifically required two-person assistance, but only one CNA was present at the time of the fall.
The facility failed to maintain required RN coverage and a full-time DON, resulting in no RN on duty for multiple days and no documented RN supervision of nursing staff. In this context, LPNs completed admission and readmission assessments for several residents with complex conditions such as diabetes, COPD, CHF, sepsis, ESRD, and osteomyelitis, and administered IV antibiotics, including via PICC lines, sometimes without appropriate IV certification. CMA/MTs independently assessed pain, administered PRN oxycodone, and injected insulin for a resident with diabetes and pressure ulcers, all without an RN employed to provide direct supervision. Leadership acknowledged reliance on LPNs and CMAs for these functions and on off-site or sister-facility DONs for support, but could not provide documentation of on-site RN coverage, leading surveyors to cite an immediate jeopardy deficiency.
A resident with COPD, emphysema, and leukemia, who was cognitively intact, reported shortness of breath and wheezing and received a PRN nebulizer treatment documented as effective, but no vital signs or comprehensive respiratory assessment were completed. Later, the resident told an LPN that she might need to go to the hospital due to ongoing shortness of breath; the LPN acknowledged this but did not immediately assess the resident, citing that the resident often complained and did not appear in dire need. The resident and her family member reported that she clearly requested to go to the hospital and that staff did not act, leading the family member to call 911. EMS transferred the resident to the hospital, where she was found to be hypoxic and was diagnosed with acute hypoxic respiratory failure, chronic PE, and bronchiectasis with acute lower respiratory infection.
A resident with a history of lumbar discitis/osteomyelitis and chronic myeloid leukemia had IV daptomycin discontinued after imaging showed improvement, and an ID physician faxed new orders for PO levofloxacin and PO vancomycin. Although the fax was confirmed as received and scanned, nursing did not transcribe these antibiotics into the EMR or MAR, and they were not administered for approximately two months, even as the resident reported to the ID physician via telehealth that she was tolerating levofloxacin, believing she was taking it. The oral antibiotic orders did not appear in the physician order listing until after the resident was hospitalized again for fever and pain, when imaging showed recurrent discitis/osteomyelitis and the hospital continued or resumed levofloxacin and PO vancomycin. In a separate incident, an LPN administered another resident’s IV ertapenem instead of the ordered IV daptomycin to this resident after taking the wrong medication from the refrigerator, contrary to facility policies requiring medications to be administered according to physician orders and pending orders to be checked and confirmed after physician visits.
The facility failed to provide enough qualified nursing staff and allowed improper delegation of nursing and medication tasks. On an evening shift, only three CNAs (one for a partial shift) were assigned to 34 residents, despite the facility’s own staffing plan calling for higher CNA coverage. A resident with multiple serious conditions, dependent for transfers and incontinent, reported waiting over three hours for toileting assistance and described routinely long call-light response times, while a family member reported chronic delays in staff response. A CMA/MT had been independently assessing pain and administering PRN oxycodone, including using a nonverbal pain scale, even though facility policy and state guidance restrict unlicensed staff from performing assessments or making PRN decisions. Multiple residents’ admission and readmission assessments and baseline care plans were completed and signed by LPNs without RN assessment, and LPNs were administering IV ertapenem via PICC lines without documented IV training or formal RN delegation, contrary to facility policy and Wisconsin scope-of-practice standards.
Surveyors found that the facility failed to follow its own food safety and sanitation policies, resulting in expired and improperly labeled food items stored in the walk-in cooler and freezer, including multiple juices and fish past their use-by or manufacturer expiration dates, as well as a torn-open package of hot dog buns exposed to air. They also observed cobwebs, dead insects, and accumulated dust and debris on the wall behind shelving where clean dishes were stored, with nearby window air-conditioning units that could blow contaminants onto the dishes. A dietary aide acknowledged that dietary staff should be monitoring expiration dates, and leadership later confirmed the expectation that expired items and unsanitary conditions should not be present, while 34 residents were placed at risk of foodborne illness.
Failure to Assess and Monitor Skin Wounds and Scars for Two Residents
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to provide treatment and care consistent with professional standards and resident preferences for two residents with skin impairments. For the first resident, who had diagnoses including cerebrovascular accident and hemiplegia and an intact BIMS score of 15, a fall report documented a right front knee abrasion at the time of a fall. Despite this, subsequent weekly skin assessments repeatedly documented intact skin with no indication of a right knee abrasion. When interviewed, the resident reported having a fall that caused a rug burn on the right knee and showed the surveyor a circular wound with a reddened periwound area, yellow center with visible depth, and red lines across the front of the knee. The resident stated staff looked at the wound when the fall occurred but did nothing afterward and expressed a desire for staff to look at and address the wound. Nursing staff interviews revealed inconsistent awareness and monitoring of this wound. An LPN initially stated the resident had no wounds or abrasions and confirmed there was no documentation or monitoring of a right knee wound in the medical record, despite the fall report noting an abrasion. The LPN later acknowledged the right knee wound was related to the fall and that the resident had been picking at it, describing a plan to keep it open to air and monitor, though this plan was not reflected in the record. Another nurse stated that if a wound or bruise is identified, it should be monitored and appear on the MAR or TAR until healed, but also indicated the resident did not have any wounds and only knew of a picked scab from report. The DON was not aware of the wound, found no documentation of it in progress notes, and later stated nurses were not expected to monitor the wound because CNAs observe wounds and report changes, while being unable to state whether the wound had changed in size or wound bed characteristics. For the second resident, who had diagnoses including heart failure and muscle weakness and a moderately impaired BIMS score of 12, the care plan identified potential or actual impairment to skin integrity related to multiple medical conditions. A CNA reported that this resident had a U-shaped area on the left back that had previously been a bruise and had been weeping, and stated this change had been reported to a nurse. A progress note documented a faded bruised area on the left back rib cage with scant blood related to a recent fall, but there was no further documentation of this area in the medical record. Weekly skin check forms over several months repeatedly documented skin as intact, dry, and fragile, with no open areas, and did not identify the U-shaped area on the back. A family member reported observing a U-shaped mark on the resident’s left back rib cage that appeared to be a bruise. Later, the DON presented a photo showing a U-shaped scar on the left back, approximately one inch wide with a line about 1/8 inch thick, but there were no prior photos or measurements to compare, and the scar’s details and location had not been documented on weekly skin assessments. The DON acknowledged that more thorough documentation on the skin check forms would have been helpful and stated that information for these forms was based on CNA observations and nursing assessments, which might not cover all skin areas depending on resident positioning.
Failure to Follow and Update Transfer Care Plans Leading to Unsafe Transfers
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to maintain an environment free of accident hazards and to provide adequate supervision during transfers for two residents. One resident with a history of cerebral vascular accident and hemiplegia, and with intact cognition per a BIMS score of 15/15, had a care plan dated 2/11/26 specifying transfers with a Lumex (manual stand assist lift) and assistance of two staff. Despite this, on 2/15/26 the resident was transferred from a chair to a shower chair by a single RN using a Lumex, during which the resident could no longer stand and was lowered to the ground. The DON confirmed that the care plan required two staff for transfers and that only one staff assisted during the incident, and the RN acknowledged transferring the resident alone, stating they believed only one staff was required. The second resident, with diagnoses including multiple sclerosis and cerebral vascular accident and a BIMS score of 7/15 indicating severely impaired cognition, had an ADL self-care performance care plan dated 2/11/26 that specified transfers with a pivot disc and one staff. However, surveyor observation on 3/31/26 showed a CNA transferring this resident from bed to wheelchair using a Lumex, which the resident successfully completed by following verbal cues. The DON reported that staff had used a Lumex with this resident for four years and verified that the care plan still indicated use of a pivot disc, acknowledging the care plan was incorrect. Therapy documentation showed that a pivot disc had been trialed and recommended for toilet transfers due to a custom-fit wheelchair that did not accommodate the Lumex, and that prior to this trial the resident had used a Lumex for transfers. The DON could not locate therapy notes indicating the resident had been re-assessed for renewed Lumex use, and the care plan had not been revised to reflect the resident’s current transfer method.
Failure to Follow Enhanced Barrier Precautions During Resident Transfer
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to implement its infection prevention and control program, specifically its Enhanced Barrier Precautions (EBP) policy, for a resident colonized with carbapenem-resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa (CRPA). The facility’s EBP policy, revised 9/9/25, requires gown and glove use during high-contact resident care activities, including transfers, and specifies that EBP should be followed outside the resident’s room when performing transfers. The resident had a diagnosis of stroke with hemiplegia and an MDS assessment showing intact cognition with a BIMS score of 15/15. A care plan dated 2/18/26 documented CRPA colonization and included an intervention to observe EBP for infection control. On observation, an EBP sign was posted on the resident’s door and PPE was available next to the room. Despite this, a CNA entered the room without donning a gown or gloves and attached a lift sling to a mechanical lift. The Nursing Home Administrator then entered without gown or gloves and operated the lift while the CNA held the resident in the sling and maneuvered the resident into a wheelchair, including holding the resident’s leg and guiding the resident into the chair. After the transfer, the NHA sanitized the lift while the CNA provided the resident a hat and made the bed. In interviews, both the NHA and CNA stated they did not believe EBP was required because they did not consider the transfer to be direct care, and the DON reported being told that EBP was only required for direct care, which they understood did not include transfers.
Failure to Complete Timely Significant Change MDS After Hospice Admission
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to complete a Significant Change in Status Assessment (SCSA) Minimum Data Set (MDS) within the required timeframe after a resident experienced a significant change in condition. Facility policy on comprehensive assessments, last revised on an unspecified date, states that comprehensive assessments are to be conducted according to the criteria and timeframes in the Resident Assessment Instrument (RAI) User Manual, which requires that an SCSA be completed by the end of the 14th calendar day following determination of a significant change. The Director of Nursing (DON) stated that MDS assessments are completed on admission, annually, quarterly, with a significant change, and as needed, and that a significant change includes a decline or improvement in two or more areas of care or when a resident is admitted to or removed from hospice, with a completion timeframe of 14 or 15 days after recognizing the change. Surveyor review of the resident’s electronic health record showed that the last completed MDS assessment was done on a prior date, and the resident was later admitted to hospice, which the DON identified as a significant change requiring an SCSA. An SCSA was initiated after the hospice admission but was left incomplete and never submitted. The resident subsequently expired, and the DON acknowledged during interview that the significant change MDS had not been completed and was past the 14-day requirement.
Failure to Follow Two-Person Mechanical Lift Transfer Care Plan Resulting in Resident Fall
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to ensure adequate supervision and adherence to the care plan for a resident requiring assistance with mechanical lift transfers. The facility’s own policies on falls and person-centered care planning require implementation of resident-specific fall prevention measures and provision of services as outlined in the care plan. For this resident, the comprehensive care plan identified self-care deficits related to type 2 diabetes and morbid obesity and specified that all transfers were to be completed using a sit-to-stand mechanical lift with the assistance of two staff. The resident, who had diagnoses including abnormal posture, weakness, type 2 diabetes with polyneuropathy, and morbid obesity, and who had no cognitive impairment per a BIMS score of 13/15, experienced a fall during a transfer. Progress notes document that a CNA was performing a sit-to-stand mechanical lift transfer to bed with only one staff member present, despite the care plan requirement for two-person assistance. During the transfer, the CNA had unhooked one side of the sling and was attempting to unhook the other side, had difficulty reaching, and then unlocked the sit-to-stand lift while the resident was partially on the bed, with feet on the lift and holding the bed trapeze. Because the resident was pushing with their legs, the lift moved forward and the resident slowly slid to the floor. Interviews confirmed that staff were aware that mechanical lifts, including sit-to-stand devices, may require two staff depending on the care plan, and that this resident specifically required two-person assistance for transfers. The resident reported that only one CNA was present at the time of the fall and that usually two staff assist due to the resident’s size. Nursing and CNA staff described that they rely on the care plan or Kardex in the computer to determine transfer needs and acknowledged that sit-to-stand lifts can require one or two staff based on the resident’s plan of care. The DON acknowledged that the CNA involved was working alone during the transfer when the fall occurred and was not following the resident’s care plan.
Lack of RN Coverage and Oversight Leading to Out-of-Scope Nursing and Medication Practices
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to employ a full-time RN designated as the DON and to ensure RN services were provided at least eight consecutive hours a day, seven days a week, as required by regulation and by the facility’s own nursing services policy. Payroll-Based Journal staffing data for the first quarter of 2026 showed a one-star staffing rating and multiple days with no RN hours. Review of daily staffing schedules for several consecutive days in March showed no RN scheduled on any of those dates, indicating there was no RN assigned to supervise nursing staff or oversee resident care. The Administrator confirmed that the DON, who had been the only full-time RN, resigned and her last day was mid-March, and the ADON confirmed that since that resignation there had been no RN employed by the facility and that even when a DON was employed, most weekends did not have RN coverage. In the absence of consistent RN presence and oversight, LPNs were performing admission and readmission nursing assessments and administering IV medications, and CMA/MTs were performing pain assessments, administering PRN pain medications, and administering insulin, all of which were outside their scope of practice as described in the report. Multiple residents’ records showed admission data collection and baseline care plan tools completed and signed by LPNs rather than an RN. For example, one resident admitted with diabetes type 2, osteomyelitis of vertebra, and orthopedic aftercare had a 72-hour admission/re-admission assessment documented by an LPN. Another resident admitted with COPD and traumatic ischemia of muscle had admission data collection and baseline care plan tools completed and signed by an LPN, with a late-entry health status note by a sister-facility DON added seven days after admission. Additional residents admitted with chronic congestive heart failure, sepsis, diabetes type 2, congestive heart failure, and ESRD also had admission data collection notes completed by LPNs. The report further documents that LPNs administered IV medications, including through PICC lines, without RN oversight, and in at least one case outside the LPN’s own training and certification. One resident with an order for IV ertapenem had doses administered on three consecutive days by an LPN and the ADON, who is also an LPN. The ADON stated that most LPNs had been trained to administer IV medications, but identified two LPNs who were not certified, while the former DON stated she believed those LPNs were certified and had allowed them to administer IV medications after observing them. CMA/MTs were documented as completing pain assessments and administering PRN oxycodone and insulin injections without an RN employed to provide direct supervision. One resident with diabetes type 2, bilateral stage II heel pressure ulcers, chronic pulmonary embolism, and vertebral osteomyelitis had multiple pain assessments and PRN oxycodone doses documented by a CMA/MT, as well as several insulin doses administered by the same CMA/MT. Interviews with the RDO and Medical Director confirmed that RN coverage was expected to be provided by DONs from sister facilities, but there was no documentation of their presence in the building, and the Medical Director emphasized that RNs are responsible for assessments, IVs, and staff supervision to ensure practice within scope. These combined actions and inactions led surveyors to identify immediate jeopardy beginning in mid-March.
Removal Plan
- Employ a full-time interim DON
- Provide staff education on notification of changes in condition
- Assess nurses' IV competency
- Employ an agency RN to ensure RN coverage on Saturdays and Sundays
- Reassess all residents with IVs, pressure injuries, and new admissions
- Reassess all residents with a documented change in condition
Failure to Assess Resident’s Respiratory Change in Condition and Request for Hospital Transfer
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to assess and respond appropriately to a resident-reported change in condition related to respiratory symptoms. The resident had significant medical diagnoses including COPD, panlobular emphysema, osteomyelitis of the lumbar vertebra, and chronic myeloid leukemia. A recent MDS showed the resident was cognitively intact with a BIMS score of 15 and used a wheelchair for mobility. The care plan also identified a focus on the resident and spouse making inappropriate EMS 911 calls when no true emergency existed, with interventions focused on educating them about appropriate EMS use. On the day of the incident, the resident reported shortness of breath and wheezing and received a PRN nebulizer treatment of Ipratropium-Albuterol, which was documented as effective. However, the LPN did not collect additional assessment data or notify an RN of the resident’s complaint of shortness of breath. No comprehensive respiratory assessment or vital signs were obtained at that time despite the resident’s symptoms. Later that same day, the resident told the LPN that she "may need to go to the hospital" and reported feeling short of breath. The LPN acknowledged that the resident made this statement but did not immediately assess the resident, stating she believed the resident was not in dire need and that the resident often complained of various ailments. According to the resident’s account, she specifically told the LPN that she needed to go to the hospital, was wheezing a lot, and tried to stay calm while waiting about an hour without staff action, after which she called her husband. The husband reported that the resident was crying, calling out in the hallway, and that he called 911 because staff were not doing anything. The facility’s grievance file and staff statements documented that the LPN was aware the resident said she "may need to go to the hospital" but did not complete an assessment before EMS arrived. The resident was transferred to the hospital, where she was found to have hypoxia with low oxygen saturation and was diagnosed with acute hypoxic respiratory failure, chronic pulmonary emboli without acute cor pulmonale, and bronchiectasis with acute lower respiratory infection. The Medical Director later stated her expectation that when a resident states they want to go to the hospital, staff should conduct an assessment, obtain vital signs, and report to the provider.
Failure to Transcribe and Administer Ordered Antibiotics and Wrong IV Medication Administration
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to ensure a resident was free from significant medication errors, specifically related to transcription and administration of ordered antibiotics and the administration of another resident’s IV antibiotic. The resident had a history of lumbar discitis/osteomyelitis and chronic myeloid leukemia and had been receiving IV daptomycin via PICC line following a hospital stay. An MRI in mid-January showed improvement, and the infectious disease (ID) physician initially ordered discontinuation of IV daptomycin, PICC removal, and discontinuation of weekly labs. The following day, after further review of the MRI and inflammatory markers, the ID physician ordered a transition to oral levofloxacin 750 mg daily and oral vancomycin 125 mg daily for several weeks, including vancomycin for C. diff prophylaxis. These orders were faxed to the facility and were later confirmed by the fax company and the Business Office Manager as having been received by the facility. Despite receipt of the faxed orders, the facility did not transcribe the oral levofloxacin and oral vancomycin into the resident’s physician orders or MAR for January or February, and there was no evidence on the MAR that these medications were administered during that period. The physician order listing for the resident showed that the oral levofloxacin and vancomycin orders did not appear until mid-March, when the resident returned from the hospital with those medications ordered. During telemedicine follow-up with the ID physician, the resident reported doing well and tolerating levofloxacin, believing she was taking the ordered antibiotics, even though the MAR showed no administration. The resident, who was cognitively intact per a BIMS score of 15, later stated she only took medications provided by the facility and did not know the oral antibiotics had not been given. The Assistant DON and consultant pharmacist both confirmed that no orders for oral levofloxacin or vancomycin were received by the pharmacy or entered into the system in January or February. In March, the resident was sent to the ER with fever and left knee pain, and imaging showed extensive osseous erosion at L1-2 concerning for discitis/osteomyelitis. The hospital documentation referenced the resident as being chronically on levofloxacin and oral vancomycin for discitis and continued or resumed these medications, which were then first documented as administered at the facility in mid-March. Separately, in January, a medication occurrence report documented that an LPN administered another resident’s IV antibiotic, ertapenem, instead of the ordered daptomycin to this resident. The LPN later stated she did not check thoroughly enough and took the wrong IV medication from the refrigerator, describing it as an honest mistake and noting that previously there had only been one resident with an IV. The facility’s own policies required medications to be administered according to physician orders and required licensed nurses to check and confirm pending orders after physician visits, but the faxed ID orders for oral antibiotics were not processed, and the wrong IV antibiotic was administered on one occasion. The Medical Director stated she was not aware that the resident was supposed to start two oral antibiotics in January as ordered by the ID physician and indicated her expectation that any faxed orders for oral antibiotics would be processed and administered. The Business Office Manager described the process for handling telehealth visit notes and faxed orders, explaining that nursing staff received faxed records and placed them in a bin for scanning into the EMR under a miscellaneous tab. With assistance from the fax company, the BOM confirmed that the fax containing the orders to start oral levofloxacin and add oral vancomycin was received by the facility. The facility’s policies on medication errors and physician orders emphasized preventing significant medication errors and ensuring orders were entered and confirmed, but the failure to transcribe and administer the ordered oral antibiotics and the administration of another resident’s IV antibiotic constituted significant medication errors for this resident.
Inadequate Staffing and Improper Delegation of Nursing and Medication Tasks
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to provide sufficient and appropriately qualified nursing staff to meet residents’ needs, and failure to ensure that LPNs and CMAs/MTs practiced within their legal scope and professional standards. The facility’s own facility assessment called for a CNA-to-resident ratio of one CNA for ten to sixteen residents on the evening shift, yet on the evening of survey entry there were only three CNAs for 34 residents, with one CNA scheduled for only a partial shift. Interviews and documentation, including a police body-worn camera narrative, showed that staff and leadership acknowledged difficulty providing needed care due to lack of staffing. The Nursing Home Administrator told police that one resident needed constant care that was difficult to provide because of staffing shortages, and an LPN stated she felt residents needed more attention than staff could provide. One resident with osteomyelitis of the lumbar vertebra, COPD, emphysema, and chronic myeloid leukemia, who was wheelchair-bound, dependent for transfers, and frequently incontinent of bowel, reported waiting over three hours for assistance after a bowel movement, prompting a call to local police. This resident later told the surveyor that call lights usually took 30–45 minutes to be answered and that care was timelier while surveyors were present. A family member reported that it took staff “forever” to respond to this resident’s needs and that he had complained to the ADON about response times. These accounts, combined with staffing records, demonstrated that the facility did not have enough staff on duty to meet residents’ immediate care needs. The facility also failed to ensure that CMAs/MTs and LPNs practiced within their scope and under appropriate RN oversight. A CMA/MT had been independently assessing residents’ pain and administering PRN oxycodone, including documenting pre- and post-administration pain levels, despite state guidance that assessments cannot be delegated to unlicensed personnel and facility policy stating that CMAs/MTs are not to assess pain or administer PRN medications without an RN’s assessment. The CMA/MT reported using both verbal reports and a nonverbal pain scale and believed this was within her scope, while the VPCO and FDON later stated it was not. Additionally, multiple admission and readmission nursing assessments and baseline care plan tools for several residents were completed and signed by LPNs without evidence of RN assessment, even though state standards limit LPNs to data collection and require RNs to complete resident assessments. The FDON and ADON acknowledged that, in the absence of an RN DON and because most admissions occurred on evenings, LPNs had been completing all initial nursing assessments for years. Further, the facility did not ensure that LPNs performing IV therapy had the required additional training and RN delegation as outlined in facility policy and state guidance. One resident with an order for IV ertapenem via PICC line received this medication on multiple days from LPNs, including an LPN whose personnel file contained no documentation of IV therapy training. The ADON confirmed that this LPN was not certified to administer IV/PICC medications, while the LPN stated she had been hanging IV medications via PICC lines since hire, without formal facility training, and was sometimes the only nurse available to administer PICC medications, with the other staff person being a CMA/MT. The FDON stated she supervised licensed staff and had observed LPNs administering IV medications without concerns, but there was no evidence of the documented training and competency validation required by facility policy for delegation of IV tasks to LPNs. Collectively, these findings showed that the facility did not maintain adequate RN presence, did not follow its own delegation and competency policies, and allowed LPNs and CMAs/MTs to perform assessments and IV tasks beyond their scope, affecting all residents in the facility.
Expired Food and Unsanitary Kitchen Conditions in Dietary Services
Penalty
Summary
Surveyors identified a deficiency in the facility’s food service operations related to failure to follow its own food safety and sanitation policies. The facility’s policies required that all local, state, and federal standards be followed, that food be protected from contamination, and that perishable foods be used prior to their use-by or expiration dates, with out-of-date foods discarded. During an observation of the kitchen’s walk-in cooler, surveyors found multiple juice containers labeled by the facility with use-by dates that had already passed, including cranberry juice, orange juice, and apple juice. They also found a container of concentrated lemon juice with a manufacturer’s expiration date that had already passed, despite the facility having applied a later “use by” date that extended beyond the manufacturer’s expiration. Further observations in the kitchen’s walk-in freezer revealed a torn-open package of hot dog buns with several buns exposed to air and an opened box of fish with a manufacturer’s expiration date that had already passed. Additional inspection of the kitchen area showed multiple cobwebs and dead insects on the wall behind portable shelving where clean dishes were stored, along with a buildup of black and gray dust and debris. Two window unit air conditioners were located next to this shelving, with the potential to blow debris and pests onto the clean dishes if turned on. A dietary aide acknowledged these conditions during the survey, stating that all dietary staff should be checking use-by and expiration dates. The Regional Director of Operations later stated it was her expectation that there would be no items beyond use-by or expiration dates and no dust or dead bugs in the kitchen. These failures placed all 34 residents at risk of foodborne illnesses.
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.
