Mcdowell Healthcare Center
Inspection history, citations, penalties and survey trends for this long-term care facility in Gary, West Virginia.
- Location
- 150 Venus Road, Gary, West Virginia 24836
- CMS Provider Number
- 515162
- Inspections on file
- 18
- Latest survey
- February 26, 2026
- Citations (last 12 mo.)
- 4
Citation history
Health deficiencies cited at Mcdowell Healthcare Center during CMS and state inspections, most recent first.
The facility failed to update PASRRs for five residents with new qualifying diagnoses. A resident's PASRR from 2016 did not reflect new diagnoses of dementia and psychosis. Another resident's PASRR from 2023 missed a diagnosis of schizoaffective disorder. A third resident was diagnosed with major depressive disorder in 2020, but no new PASRR was completed. A fourth resident's PASRR from 2022 did not include multiple mental health diagnoses. The DSS and social worker acknowledged the backlog of updates needed.
The facility failed to update PASRR forms for several residents, missing critical diagnoses such as major depressive disorder, bipolar disorder, and psychosis. Staff acknowledged a backlog and the need for updates, but these were not completed, leading to deficiencies in the admission process.
A facility failed to change wound dressings as ordered for two residents, with discrepancies in documentation. Another resident experienced a delay in receiving a necessary x-ray after a fall, and a resident with diabetes did not receive a scheduled accu-check. These deficiencies were identified and substantiated by investigating staff.
A resident reported that an employee was disrespectful when responding to their call bell. The facility's grievance report lacked a statement from the employee, contrary to the policy requiring a thorough investigation involving staff interviews.
The facility failed to update care plans for three residents with new diagnoses. A resident with Major Depression Disorder was only monitored for anti-depressant use, another with schizoaffective disorder, bipolar type, was only monitored for anti-psychotic medication, and a third resident's hallucinations were not care-planned. The CM RN confirmed these omissions during interviews.
A resident using smokeless tobacco did not have a smoking assessment completed upon admission, as required by the facility's policy. The deficiency was identified during a survey when the resident was observed using smokeless tobacco in their room. The Interim Director of Nursing confirmed the oversight, acknowledging that the assessment was only completed after surveyor intervention.
The facility failed to monitor side effects of psychotropic medications for three residents, as identified during a survey. A resident was not monitored for side effects of antidepressant, antianxiety, and antipsychotic medications on multiple occasions. Another resident experienced a lack of side effect monitoring for various medications, including antianxiety, antidepressant, antipsychotic, and mood stabilizers. Similarly, a third resident was not monitored for side effects of antianxiety, antidepressant, and antipsychotic medications as ordered.
The facility failed to accurately document POST forms for two residents, missing required MPOA signatures and relying on insufficient witness signatures and email communication, contrary to professional standards.
The facility failed to ensure required attendance and signatures for QAPI meetings, with the DON not signing in for several meetings. The Medical Director did not attend, and the Administrator suggested the DON might have forgotten to sign or was absent. This issue was identified during a survey, potentially affecting more than a limited number of residents.
Failure to Update PASRRs with New Diagnoses
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to update the Pre-admission Screening and Resident Review (PASRR) for five residents with new qualifying diagnoses during the long-term survey process. Resident #17 had a PASRR dated 08/19/16 with no level two required, but new diagnoses of unspecified dementia with psychotic disturbances and unspecified psychosis were not updated. The Director of Social Services (DSS) acknowledged the need for updates but had not completed them, and the issue was not addressed in the Quality Assurance meeting. Resident #26's PASRR dated 06/12/23 did not reflect a new diagnosis of schizoaffective disorder. Although the DSS completed the update on 08/06/24, it was not discussed in the Quality Assurance meeting. Resident #49 was diagnosed with major depressive disorder on 01/08/20, but a new PASRR was not completed. The Social Worker stated there was a backlog of PASRRs to be updated. Resident #14's PASRR dated 01/28/22 did not reflect multiple mental health diagnoses, and the social worker was aware of the need for updates but was still working on them for the entire building.
Deficiencies in PASRR Updates for Residents
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure accurate diagnoses on the Pre-Admission Screening and Resident Review (PASRR) forms for five residents, leading to deficiencies in the admission process. Resident #53 was admitted with a diagnosis of major depressive disorder, which was not reflected in the PASRR, and the facility did not submit a new PASRR upon this diagnosis. The Social Worker acknowledged a backlog of PASRRs needing resubmission, including Resident #53. Similarly, Resident #33's PASRR did not reflect multiple diagnoses present at admission, including Bipolar Disorder and Major Depressive Disorder, and the facility failed to update the PASRR accordingly. Resident #7's PASRR was also outdated, missing diagnoses of Major Depressive Disorder and Psychosis present at admission. The Administrator and Social Worker confirmed the oversight. Resident #17's PASRR lacked a diagnosis of major depressive disorder, and the Director of Social Services admitted awareness of the need for updates but had not completed them. Lastly, Resident #29's PASRR was missing diagnoses of hallucinations and psychotic disorder with delusions, which were not included upon submission. The Director of Social Services acknowledged the missing information and the need for resubmission.
Deficiencies in Wound Care and Diagnostic Follow-Up
Penalty
Summary
The facility experienced a deficiency related to the failure to change wound dressings according to physician orders for two residents. Resident #45 had an order to change the dressing on the coccyx daily, but the dressing was not changed for three days, as evidenced by the old dressing being dated 07/18/24 and the documentation inaccurately reflecting a change on 07/20/24. Similarly, Resident #77 had an order to change the dressing on the right heel daily, but the dressing was also not changed for three days, with the same discrepancy in documentation. These incidents were substantiated by the investigating staff. Additionally, Resident #84 reported a fall and was supposed to receive an x-ray for the left stump of her amputated leg, but the x-ray was delayed due to issues with the x-ray service provider. The resident expressed concern about the delay affecting her prosthetic leg process. Furthermore, Resident #29 had an order for accu-checks twice a day due to Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus, but the morning accu-check on 07/22/24 was not completed, as confirmed by the Director of Nursing.
Failure to Investigate Resident Grievance
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to properly investigate and resolve a grievance from a resident, identified as Resident #19, during the Long Term Care Survey Process. The resident reported that an employee, identified as Employee #86, was disrespectful when responding to the resident's call bell, using dismissive language. The surveyor informed the facility Administrator, who indicated that the Social Worker would address the issue with the resident. However, upon review, it was found that the facility's Grievance/Complaint Report did not include a statement from Employee #86, which was a requirement according to the facility's Resident Grievance policy. The policy mandates a timely investigation involving interviews with staff and others involved in resident care, which was not fully adhered to in this case.
Failure to Update Care Plans for New Diagnoses
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to update the care plans for three residents with new diagnoses, as identified during a medical record review and staff interview. Resident #17 was diagnosed with Major Depression Disorder, but the care plan only included monitoring for the use of an anti-depressant, not the diagnosed condition itself. Similarly, Resident #26 had a diagnosis of schizoaffective disorder, bipolar type, but the care plan only addressed monitoring for anti-psychotic medication use, omitting the specific condition. Additionally, Resident #29 was diagnosed with hallucinations, but the care plan did not reflect this diagnosis. The Clinical Manager Registered Nurse (CM RN) #51 confirmed during interviews that the care plans for these residents did not include the necessary updates for their respective conditions. This oversight affected three out of thirty residents reviewed, indicating a lapse in the facility's care planning process.
Failure to Conduct Smoking Assessment for Smokeless Tobacco Use
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure a resident environment free from accident hazards by not completing a smoking assessment for a resident using smokeless tobacco upon admission. This deficiency was identified during a survey process where it was observed that a resident was using smokeless tobacco in their room. Upon reviewing the resident's records, it was found that no smoking assessment had been completed since the resident's admission. The Interim Director of Nursing (IDON) confirmed that the facility's policy required smokeless tobacco assessments to be completed on admission, quarterly, and upon significant changes in condition. However, the assessment for the resident in question was only completed after surveyor intervention, indicating a lapse in following the facility's policy. This oversight was acknowledged by the IDON, who confirmed that the assessment was not conducted as required upon the resident's admission.
Failure to Monitor Psychotropic Medication Side Effects
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to monitor side effects of psychotropic medications for three residents, as identified during a survey process. Resident #30 was not monitored for side effects of antidepressant, antianxiety, and antipsychotic medications on multiple occasions, as documented in the Medication Administration Record (MAR). The Interim Director of Nursing (IDON) confirmed the lack of documentation for side effect monitoring on specific dates and was unable to provide additional evidence that monitoring had occurred. Resident #29 also experienced a lack of side effect monitoring for various medications, including antianxiety, antidepressant, antipsychotic, and mood stabilizers. The behavior monitoring documentation revealed numerous instances where monitoring was not completed as ordered. The Director of Nursing (DON) acknowledged the discrepancies in the monitoring orders during an interview, confirming that the required monitoring was not conducted. Similarly, Resident #82 was not monitored for side effects of antianxiety, antidepressant, and antipsychotic medications as ordered. The behavior monitoring documentation showed missing entries for several dates, indicating that the monitoring was not performed. The DON agreed that the monitoring was not completed as required, highlighting a consistent issue with medication side effect monitoring for these residents.
Deficiency in Accurate Documentation of POST Forms
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure that medical records for residents were accurately documented, specifically regarding the Physician Orders for Scope of Treatment (POST) forms. For one resident, a verbal consent was obtained, but the POST form was only signed by one witness and lacked the required signature from the Medical Power of Attorney (MPOA). This was contrary to the guidance which requires two witness signatures if the MPOA is unavailable, until the original signature can be obtained. The facility acknowledged this oversight during an interview with the administrator and social worker. For another resident, the POST form was missing the necessary signature from the patient or their MPOA representative. Instead, there was a handwritten note indicating communication via email with a case worker, which is not an acceptable form of signature according to the guidance. The Director of Social Services confirmed the deficiency and acknowledged that the email did not meet the signature requirements. The facility was in the process of addressing these documentation issues.
Deficiency in QAPI Meeting Attendance and Documentation
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure that all required members attended and signed the Quality Assurance Performance Improvement (QAPI) meetings, as discovered during a long-term care survey. The Director of Nursing (DON), who was also the Person In Charge (PIC), did not sign in attendance for several QAPI meetings. The meetings in question occurred on specific dates, and the absence of the DON's signature was noted during a record review. The QAPI information was reportedly reviewed with the Medical Director verbally, but the Medical Director did not attend the meetings. The Administrator suggested that the DON might have forgotten to sign or was not present, and the Medical Director and his Family Nurse Practitioner signed the form later. The report highlights multiple instances where the required signatures and attendance were not documented, potentially affecting more than a limited number of residents. The Administrator acknowledged the discrepancies, noting that the DON might have forgotten to sign or was absent due to other commitments. In one instance, the DON was an interim and might have left for the week. Despite verbal reviews with the Medical Director, the lack of proper documentation and attendance at these meetings was a significant issue identified during the survey.
Latest citations in West Virginia
A deficiency occurred when a lunch tray on A Hall was found to be served below required hot-holding temperature standards. During a survey, a random tray containing mashed potatoes and gravy with steak was tested by the Traveling Dietary Manager in the presence of the Administrator, and both food items measured 110°F, which did not meet required serving temperatures. The Traveling Dietary Manager and the Administrator each confirmed that the food temperature was not at the required level, and the administrative team later acknowledged this deficiency.
Surveyors found that the facility failed to provide residents with consistent and accurate readily available menus reflecting their food preferences. The Traveling Dietary Manager reported that residents could choose from multiple egg preparations, but these options were not listed on the posted menu available to residents. Additionally, the “always available” menu used in the kitchen did not match the menu provided to residents, and this discrepancy was confirmed by the Traveling Dietary Manager. The issue was identified on all menus reviewed and had the potential to affect many residents in the facility.
The facility failed to follow its abuse reporting policy when a cognitively intact resident reported that two nurses were frequently sleeping on duty and later provided an audio recording of a nurse calling the resident a "jerk." The allegation was reported by the resident to an LPN and then to an RN Infection Preventionist, but the Administrator remained unaware until the survey, and the incident was not reported to authorities within the required 2-hour timeframe. In a separate case, another resident had a verbal abuse incident reported to the state, but the facility did not complete or submit the required 5-day follow-up report, and the Administrator confirmed there was no record of that follow-up.
A resident reported unknown charges on her debit card and alleged that a former roommate had used the card without permission, estimating losses of several hundred dollars. The facility documented initial steps such as notifying external agencies, involving law enforcement, cancelling the card, separating the roommates, and assisting the resident in obtaining bank statements. However, the facility did not maintain or retain key documentation, including copies of bank statements, the total amount of funds involved, or clear follow‑up on the status and outcome of the allegation. The resident reported not receiving updates, and the BOM acknowledged that the facility lacked the resident’s financial records because they had been turned over to law enforcement and were not requested or reviewed by facility staff until shortly before the survey, resulting in an incomplete internal investigation record of the alleged misappropriation.
A resident who was cognitively intact but lacked capacity for health care decisions left the facility after breakfast and morning meds. An activities assistant saw the resident walking outside and reported this to the Manager on Duty, but no effective action was taken to verify the resident’s whereabouts or initiate a search. Nursing staff later assumed the resident was in the bathroom or out smoking when he was not in his room at mid-morning and lunchtime. The facility did not recognize the resident as missing or begin search efforts until hours later, during which time the resident hitchhiked and accepted a ride from a stranger in the community. Surveyors determined that staff had witnessed the resident outside but failed to intervene or report effectively, and that the facility remained unaware of the resident’s absence for several hours, resulting in an Immediate Jeopardy finding for neglect.
A resident who is blind and requires specific instruction during ambulation was transferred from therapy to Restorative with documented recommendations to ambulate using a walker, gait belt, and a wheelchair behind her, along with ROM and strengthening exercises. Despite a physician’s order for a Restorative Nursing Program for ambulation and ROM and the therapy recommendations communicated via an Excel spreadsheet, Restorative staff ambulated the resident without a gait belt. The resident reported becoming tired while walking, with a wheelchair behind her but not close enough, and then falling hard. She and a PTA both stated that no gait belt was used. The fall resulted in fractures to the resident’s left distal femur and right distal femur/knee area, with osteopenia noted, and the DON acknowledged that therapy recommendations had not been carried over for Restorative staff to follow.
A resident experienced multiple leg fractures after a fall, resulting in a significant change in condition and non–weight-bearing status. Although the MDS reflected that it was important for the resident to participate in group activities, favorite pastimes, and church services, the activity care plan was not revised after the injury to address her new limitations. The existing plan listed numerous preferred activities such as resident council, food committee, religious services, music, gardening, and in-room pursuits, but no new individualized interventions were added, and documentation showed only two 1:1 visits after her return from the hospital. The resident reported she could no longer get into her wheelchair, attend council or church, or join groups she enjoyed, and stated that activity staff did not visit often, while the Director of Recreation confirmed she had not attended groups since the injury and that in-room social visits were not consistently documented, resulting in a decline in activity participation and social isolation.
A resident was discharged to a motel with home health services, a wheelchair, medications, and a follow‑up medical appointment arranged, and received education on medications, blood glucose monitoring, emergency response, and home health services. Discharge planning discussions and a referral to the Take Me Home program were documented, and the facility agreed to pay for an initial period of the motel stay. However, record review and staff interviews confirmed that the resident was not given the required 30‑day written discharge notice prior to leaving, limiting the resident’s ability to prepare for discharge and exercise discharge‑related rights.
A resident sustained multiple lower extremity fractures after a fall, resulting in hospitalization, non-weight-bearing status, and loss of prior functional abilities such as standing, pivoting, and walking with therapy. Before the fall, the resident actively participated in out-of-room activities including Resident Council, food committee, church, and socials, but after returning from the hospital she no longer attended group activities and had only two documented 1:1 visits. Despite an MDS indicating a significant change in status and clear changes in activity participation, the activity care plan—last revised months earlier—was not updated with new interventions to address her altered condition and in-room activity needs, as confirmed by record review and staff interviews.
A resident with intact cognition and a history of active participation in group activities, Resident Council, and church sustained bilateral lower-extremity fractures and returned from the hospital non–weight bearing. The MDS significant change assessment and the activity care plan documented that group involvement, church services, and various preferred activities were important to the resident, yet no new interventions were added to the care plan after the change in condition. Activity participation records showed that the resident had no out-of-room activities and only two documented 1:1 visits, while the Director of Recreation acknowledged that group attendance had stopped and that in-room social visits were not consistently documented. The resident reported feeling unable to attend her usual groups, Resident Council, or church and stated that activity staff did not visit often, leading surveyors to find that the facility failed to provide an activities program that met her needs and interests following her significant change.
Improper Hot Food Serving Temperatures During Lunch Service
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to provide resident meals at proper serving temperature during a lunch meal service on A Hall. On 03/24/26 at approximately 12:10 PM, a surveyor had a random lunch tray on A Hall temperature-tested by the Traveling Dietary Manager, with the facility Administrator present. The tested items—mashed potatoes and gravy with steak—were both measured at 110°F. During an interview at approximately 12:15 PM, the Traveling Dietary Manager confirmed that the food did not meet the required serving temperature, and at approximately 12:16 PM, the Administrator also confirmed that the food did not meet the required serving temperature. This deficiency was acknowledged by the facility’s administrative team upon survey exit on 03/25/26 at approximately 4:00 PM. No additional resident-specific clinical information or conditions were provided in the report.
Inconsistent Readily Available Menus for Resident Food Preferences
Penalty
Summary
Surveyors identified a deficiency in the facility’s failure to provide residents with consistent and accurate information about readily available menu items that accommodate resident preferences. During document review and staff interviews, the Traveling Dietary Manager stated that residents could choose from several egg preparations (omelet, scrambled eggs, hard-boiled egg, or hard-fried egg) as part of the facility’s readily available items. However, the posted readily available menu accessible to residents did not list these egg options. Additionally, the “always available” menu used in the kitchen did not match the menu provided to residents, and the Traveling Dietary Manager confirmed that the readily available menus did not correlate. This inconsistency was found on 2 of 2 menus reviewed and had the potential to affect more than a limited number of residents in a facility with a census of 90. On a subsequent interview, the facility Administrator acknowledged the deficiency during the exit interview.
Failure to Timely Report Verbal Abuse Allegation and Submit Required 5-Day Follow-Up
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to follow its abuse prohibition policy requiring that allegations of abuse be reported to the proper authorities within two hours of identification and that required follow-up reports be completed. The policy defined verbal abuse as the willful use of disparaging or derogatory language toward residents or within their hearing. A cognitively intact resident with a BIMS score of 15 reported that two nurses who worked Monday through Thursday were "always sleeping" and that, after he reported this to administration, one of the nurses called him a "jerk." The resident had an audio recording dated 03/11/26 capturing a staff member calling him a "jerk" and confirming this characterization when questioned by the resident. The resident stated he informed an LPN, who then reported it to the RN Infection Preventionist. The RN Infection Preventionist acknowledged awareness of a phone conversation in which someone called the resident a jerk but stated she did not know the full details and thought it might have been discussed in a care plan meeting. The Administrator reported being unaware of the situation until interviewed by the surveyor, at which time the incident had not been reported within the required two-hour timeframe. The facility also failed to complete and submit a required five-day follow-up report for a separate allegation of verbal abuse involving another resident. Record review showed that this resident had been admitted and later discharged to the hospital, and that a verbal abuse incident involving this resident had been reported to the state agency on 04/15/25. However, review of the facility’s list of reportable incidents for one year revealed no evidence that the corresponding five-day follow-up report was ever sent. The Administrator confirmed there was no record of that reportable incident or of a five-day follow-up. These failures were identified for two of two residents reviewed for abuse, with a facility census of 67.
Failure to Thoroughly Investigate and Document Alleged Financial Exploitation
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to ensure a thorough investigation and ongoing documentation of an allegation of misappropriation of resident property for one resident. Record review showed that the resident reported unknown charges on her debit card, and the facility initiated an investigation and notified OHFLAC, APS, the Ombudsman, and local law enforcement. Progress notes documented that law enforcement interviewed the resident, the resident cancelled her debit card, and she planned to obtain information from her bank. Notes also showed that the resident obtained bank statements, attempts were made to contact the investigating officer, and law enforcement later returned to obtain the resident’s banking information and ask additional questions. The facility’s 5‑day investigation report documented that the Administrator and DON reported the allegation, assisted the resident in obtaining bank statements, reviewed charges with her, identified the alleged perpetrator as the former roommate, separated the residents, and deactivated the debit card. The investigation was labeled inconclusive with law enforcement continuing the investigation, and a later Grand Jury subpoena was issued for the resident related to alleged fraudulent use of her debit card. Despite these initial steps, at the time of survey the facility was unable to provide additional documentation or evidence of follow‑up regarding the alleged misappropriation, including the total amount of funds involved, the outcome of the investigation, or any ongoing tracking of the allegation until requested by the State Agency. In interviews, the resident stated that her former roommate used her debit card without permission, estimated that approximately $800–$900 had been spent, and reported she had not received any updates about the situation. The BOM stated the facility did not have copies of the resident’s bank statements because they had been turned over to law enforcement and that law enforcement would not release information due to an ongoing investigation. In a follow‑up interview, the resident reported that no one from the facility had requested or attempted to review her bank statements, aside from law enforcement, until shortly before the interview when the BOM inquired, demonstrating that the facility did not maintain documentation necessary to determine the extent of the alleged misappropriation. A staff member later provided a written statement that they accompanied the resident to a Grand Jury proceeding related to fraudulent use of the debit card, but the facility still lacked internal documentation of the scope and outcome of the allegation.
Failure to Respond to Known Resident Elopement and Prolonged Unnoticed Absence
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to protect a resident from neglect by not responding to a known elopement. A cognitively intact resident, who had a BIMS score of 14 but had been deemed by the physician to lack capacity to make health care decisions, left the facility in the morning after having breakfast and receiving morning medications. The resident’s elopement risk evaluation score was 0, indicating low risk for elopement, and the MDS indicated no wander/elopement alarm was used less than daily. The resident’s care plan identified adjustment issues related to change in lifestyle and difficulty accepting placement, with interventions focused on coping and adjustment, but did not identify elopement risk prior to the incident. At approximately 9:00 AM, an activities assistant saw the resident walking outside down a public street near a store. The activities assistant contacted the social worker, who was the Manager on Duty, shortly thereafter to report the resident’s location. The activities assistant then clocked in for her shift around 9:03–9:05 AM. Despite this report, no effective action was taken by facility staff at that time to verify the resident’s whereabouts, intervene, or initiate a search. The social worker later stated she did not realize anything was going on until early afternoon, explaining that she missed the information about the resident being at the store while she was talking with other residents during the phone call. During the period from roughly 9:15 AM to 1:55 PM, there was a delay in supervision and monitoring of the resident. The LPN assigned to the resident reported administering morning medications and exchanging pleasantries with the resident earlier that morning, consistent with the facility’s elopement timeline. The CNA assigned to the resident stated that the resident was in the room during breakfast, but when she entered the room around 10:30 AM to provide a snack to the roommate, the resident was not present and she assumed he was in the bathroom. At lunchtime, when the CNA did not see the resident, she assumed he was out smoking. The facility did not recognize the resident as missing or initiate search or recovery actions until approximately 1:30 PM, when the activities assistant reported that the resident was not present for a smoke break. The State Agency determined that staff had witnessed the resident outside the facility but failed to intervene or report effectively, and that the facility remained unaware of the resident’s absence for about 4.5 hours, creating an Immediate Jeopardy situation due to the resident being unsupervised in the community for an extended period. The resident later reported that he was attempting to travel to another town to attend to personal business, hitchhiking to a nearby city and then walking further when he found the bus station closed. He described being offered a ride and food by a man who drove him to a restaurant, where he was eventually picked up by someone from the nursing home. The State Agency concluded that the facility’s failure to act on the known elopement and to promptly identify and respond to the resident’s absence constituted neglect and placed the resident at immediate risk for serious harm or death.
Failure to Use Gait Belt During Restorative Ambulation Resulting in Resident Fractures
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to provide care and services in accordance with professional standards of practice when a resident participating in Restorative Therapy ambulation was walked without a gait belt, contrary to therapy recommendations. Record review showed the resident experienced a fall and was sent to the emergency room with pain in both legs, where diagnostic imaging revealed an anterior apex angulated distal femur diametaphyseal fracture with impaction in the left femur and an impaction and comminuted anterior apex angulated fracture of the distal fifth metaphysis in the right knee, with osteopenia noted. The resident, who is blind and requires specific instruction when ambulating, had been transferred from therapy to Restorative with recommendations documented on an Excel spreadsheet to ambulate with a walker, gait belt, and wheelchair behind the resident, up to 70 feet, along with ROM and strengthening exercises. A physician’s order for a Restorative Nursing Program for ambulating and ROM was in place, with the expectation that Restorative staff would refer back to therapy’s recommendations for safety measures. Interviews confirmed that on the day of the fall, staff ambulated the resident without a gait belt. The PTA identified the location of the fall and stated that a gait belt had not been used while walking the resident. The DOR reported that therapy staff had always used a gait belt with this resident and that the recommendation to use a gait belt was communicated via the Excel spreadsheet used by Restorative Therapy to receive therapy orders and recommendations. The resident, who had a BIMS score of 15 and thus had capacity, stated that she became tired while walking with Restorative staff, that a wheelchair was behind her but not close enough, and that she fell hard; she reported that staff did not have a gait belt on her and believed that if a gait belt had been used, she would not have fallen so hard. The DON stated she was not aware of the Excel spreadsheet and confirmed that therapy recommendations were not carried over for Restorative Therapy to follow.
Failure to Revise Activity Care Plan After Significant Change in Condition
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to ensure a resident received ongoing opportunities to participate in meaningful activities consistent with her interests and preferences following a significant change in condition. The resident experienced a fall on 02/18/26, was sent to a local emergency room for pain in both legs, and diagnostic radiology revealed an anterior apex angulated fracture of the distal left femur with impaction and an impaction and comminuted anterior apex angulated fracture of the distal right femur metaphysis, with osteopenia noted. She was hospitalized for these fractures and returned to the facility on 02/24/26. A subsequent MDS with an ARD of 02/27/26 documented a significant change in status and indicated that it was important for the resident to do things with groups of people, participate in her favorite activities, and attend church services. Record review showed that the resident’s activity care plan, originally initiated in 2020 and revised multiple times through 03/03/2025, contained numerous interventions reflecting her preferences, including in-room visits, participation in food committee and resident council, church and religious services, group singing and cooking, gardening, pet visits, listening to religious/bluegrass/country music, watching TV and keeping up with the news, and engaging in favorite activities such as church, sewing, cooking, reading, and gardening. The care plan also noted her use of a wheelchair and need for accommodations for visual impairments. However, there were no new or revised activity interventions added to address her new non–weight-bearing status and functional limitations after the fractures, and no changes to the activity care plan were documented following the significant change in condition. During interview, the resident, who had decision-making capacity and a BIMS score of 15, reported that prior to the fall she had been able to stand, pivot, and walk with therapy, and that she had been active in resident council, church, and social activities. She stated that since her return from the hospital she could not get into her wheelchair, could not attend resident council meetings or church, and could not participate in the group activities she enjoyed. She reported that activity staff did not visit her very often and became tearful while describing her situation. The Director of Recreation confirmed that the resident had not attended group activities since returning from the hospital, was non–weight-bearing for 10 weeks, and that anything done with her was now in-room. The Director of Recreation also stated that the resident did not receive one-to-one visits “per se” and that social visits were not documented. Surveyors identified that only two one-to-one visits had been documented since the resident’s return from the hospital and that there was a significant decline in her activity participation without corresponding revisions to her care plan, which led to the finding of failure to provide consistent, individualized activity interventions and ongoing opportunities for meaningful activities.
Failure to Provide Required 30‑Day Written Discharge Notice
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to provide a required 30‑day written discharge notice to a resident prior to discharge. A complaint was received by the State Agency stating that the resident was being discharged to a hotel and that the facility would pay for the first 28 days, after which the resident would be responsible for their own expenses. The complainant reported the resident had no income and uncertainty existed about how the resident would obtain food and medications. Record review showed that on one date, Social Services documented discharge planning discussions and a referral to the Take Me Home program at the resident’s request, and an assessment note indicated discharge planning documentation was completed. Further record review revealed that on the day of discharge, Social Services documented that the resident was discharged to a motel with home health services arranged, a wheelchair provided, medications supplied, and a follow‑up appointment scheduled. Nursing documentation from the same day showed the resident received education on medications, blood glucose monitoring, emergency response, and home health services prior to discharge. However, there was no evidence in the medical record that the resident was provided a written 30‑day discharge notice before leaving the facility. In an interview, the Social Worker, in the presence of the Administrator, confirmed that the resident had chosen discharge to a motel and that the facility paid for 28 days at the hotel and provided 14 days of medications, and also confirmed that a 30‑day discharge notice was not issued. The deficient practice had the potential to affect the resident by limiting the ability to adequately prepare for discharge and exercise rights regarding the discharge process.
Failure to Update Activity Care Plan After Significant Change in Condition
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to update an activity care plan following a resident’s significant change in condition and participation. The resident experienced a fall on 02/18/26, resulting in fractures to the left distal femur and right distal femur/knee, with osteopenia noted on diagnostic imaging. She was hospitalized and returned to the facility on 02/24/26. A subsequent MDS with an ARD of 02/27/26 identified a significant change in status. Despite this, the resident’s activity care plan, originally initiated in 2020 and revised multiple times through 03/03/2025, was not revised after the fall and significant change to reflect her new limitations and altered participation in activities. Prior to the fall, the resident had been able to stand, pivot, and transfer to her wheelchair, and was walking up to 100 feet with therapy. She was active in out-of-room activities, including Resident Council, food committee, parties, socials, church, and other group activities. After the fall, she reported that she now had a rod in her left leg, a brace on her right leg, and was non-weight bearing for 10 weeks, which prevented her from getting into her wheelchair and attending the activities she previously enjoyed. She expressed distress about no longer being able to attend Resident Council meetings, church, and family gatherings, and stated that activity staff did not visit very often and that she could not go out to the groups she liked. During the interview, she was observed to be tearful. Record review of activity participation from 01/01/2026 to the present showed that the resident had participated in out-of-room activities before the fall but had no out-of-room participation after her return from the hospital. The records also showed that since the significant change, she had only two documented one-to-one visits, both on 03/04/26. The Director of Recreation confirmed that the resident had not attended group activities since returning from the hospital and was non-weight bearing, and stated that anything done with her was now in-room. The Director also stated that social visits were not documented as one-to-one visits. Surveyors noted that there were no new or revised interventions on the activity care plan since 01/2025 despite the significant change in the resident’s condition and participation, and the Administrator and Director of Recreation confirmed that the documentation reflected this lack of update.
Failure to Adjust Activities Program After Resident’s Significant Change in Condition
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to provide an activities program that met the interests and needs of a resident who experienced a significant change in condition and activity participation. The resident, who was cognitively intact with a BIMS score of 15 and served as president of the Resident Council, sustained fractures to the left distal femur and right distal femur/knee area after a fall and was hospitalized. Diagnostic imaging showed an anterior apex angulated, impacted distal femur diametaphyseal fracture on the left and an impacted, comminuted anterior apex angulated fracture of the distal fifth metaphysis of the right knee, with osteopenia noted. After hospitalization, the resident returned to the facility and had an MDS with a significant change assessment, with Section F indicating that it was important for her to do things with groups of people, participate in favorite activities, and attend church services. Record review showed that prior to the fall and fractures, the resident participated in out-of-room activities, including Resident Council, food committee, parties, and socials. The activity care plan, originally created in 2020 and revised multiple times through early 2025, documented numerous preferences and important activities for the resident, such as in-room visits, participation in food committee, church, singing, cooking, gardening, going outside in good weather, pet visits, listening to religious and other music, watching TV, reading, and engaging in religious services and voting. The care plan also noted that it was important for her to engage in her favorite activities and to have opportunities to make choices related to meaningful activities. However, there were no new interventions added or changes made to the activity care plan after her significant change in condition and return from the hospital. Activity participation records from the beginning of the year through the time of survey showed that since her readmission from the hospital, the resident had no out-of-room activity participation and only two documented one-to-one visits, both on the same day. During interview, the resident reported that she could no longer stand, pivot, or get into her wheelchair, and that she was now unable to attend Resident Council meetings, church, or be around people as she had before. She expressed distress about missing family gatherings she had been working toward attending and stated that activity staff did not visit very often and that she could not go out to the groups she liked. The Director of Recreation confirmed that the resident had not attended group activities since returning from the hospital due to being non–weight bearing, that anything done with her was now in-room, and that social visits were not consistently documented. The Administrator and Director of Recreation acknowledged that documentation showed only two one-to-one visits and no updated interventions on the care plan since before the significant change, leading to the finding that the facility failed to provide a program of activities to meet this resident’s needs and interests after her change in condition.
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.
