Citations in Louisiana
Statistics, citations and compliance trends for long-term care facilities in Louisiana.
Statistics for Louisiana (Last 12 Months)
Financial Impact (Last 12 Months)
Latest citations in Louisiana
Medical Director Did Not Participate in Quarterly QAA Meetings: The facility failed to ensure the Medical Director took part in quarterly QAA meetings. Record review showed no documentation of the Medical Director attending any QAA program meetings over several months, and both the Administrator and the previous Medical Director confirmed the absence of attendance.
Failure to Follow EBP During Resident Care: Staff did not wear required gown and gloves during high-contact care for multiple residents with EBP orders, including suctioning for residents with trachs and PEG tube care and a bed bath for residents with PEG tubes. PPE was available, EBP signage was posted, and the DON confirmed the staff should have used PPE; one LPN stated she did not know what EBP meant.
Failure to honor a resident’s room privacy and dignity occurred when a confused resident repeatedly wandered into another resident’s room despite complaints to staff. The affected resident, who had intact cognition and required varying levels of assistance with ADLs, reported that staff dismissed his concerns, while multiple staff members confirmed the wandering behavior and the Administrator acknowledged it should not have happened.
A resident admitted with schizoaffective disorder, HIV, bipolar disorder, and insomnia did not have a baseline care plan developed within the required 48 hours. The Unit Manager confirmed she was responsible for completing and tracking baseline care plans, and verified the resident’s plan was not completed on time.
A resident with seizures, MDD, insomnia, HTN, and constipation had documented behaviors including hitting, punching, kicking staff, and throwing feces, yet the care plan did not include a behavior plan. The MDS also noted the resident was short tempered and easily annoyed, and staff confirmed the care plan had not been revised to reflect the behaviors.
Failure to provide needed grooming and hygiene assistance: two residents who were dependent for ADLs did not receive adequate personal care. One resident with severe cognitive impairment and total ADL dependence was observed with untrimmed, jagged fingernails and black debris under the nails despite a care plan calling for nail care during daily baths. Another resident, dependent for bathing and personal hygiene, was observed with dirty, dry/flaky, matted hair, and staff, the hospice nurse, and the DON confirmed the hair was not clean and needed washing.
Medical Director Did Not Participate in Quarterly QAA Meetings
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure the Medical Director participated in the Quality Assessment and Assurance (QAA) process quarterly meetings. Review of the Monthly and Quarterly QAA records showed no documented evidence that the Medical Director attended any QAA program meetings from 12/2025 through 05/2026. During interview, the Administrator confirmed the previous Medical Director had not attended any QAA program meetings during that period and stated she should have. In a separate telephone interview, the previous Medical Director also confirmed she had not attended any quarterly QAA meetings from 12/2025 to 05/2026.
Failure to Follow Enhanced Barrier Precautions During Resident Care
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to maintain its infection prevention and control program by not following Enhanced Barrier Precautions for residents with indwelling devices. The facility’s policy stated that EBP applies to residents with devices such as tracheostomies, feeding tubes, and urinary catheters, and that gown and gloves are to be used during high-contact care activities. Surveyors observed staff providing care without the required PPE for multiple residents who had EBP orders in place. Resident #7 was admitted with diagnoses including acute respiratory failure and encounter for attention to tracheostomy, and had a physician’s order for Enhanced Barrier Precautions. During observation, a respiratory therapist suctioned the resident without wearing any PPE, even though EBP signage was posted on the bedroom door and PPE was available in the hallway or on the back of the door. Resident #34 had similar diagnoses and an EBP order, and was also observed being suctioned by the same respiratory therapist without PPE. Resident #73 had a diagnosis of acute respiratory failure and an EBP order, and was observed being suctioned without PPE under the same conditions. Resident #17 had diagnoses including iron deficiency anemia, hypotension, traumatic brain injury, and major depressive disorder, with moderate cognitive impairment on the quarterly MDS. The resident had a PEG tube and an active care plan and physician’s order for EBP related to the PEG/catheter. A LPN administered a bolus PEG feeding without wearing gown and gloves and stated she did not know what EBP meant. Resident #31 also had a PEG tube and an active care plan for EBP. Two CNAs provided a complete bed bath without wearing gown and gloves, and one CNA stated she understood EBP required PPE for residents with PEG tubes but did not wear it during the bath.
Failure to Honor Resident Room Privacy and Dignity
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure that a resident was treated with respect and dignity in a manner that promoted the resident’s quality of life by not honoring the resident’s choice regarding another resident entering his room. Resident #10 had diagnoses including hemiparesis following cerebral infarction affecting the left non-dominant side, type 2 diabetes mellitus, bipolar disorder, unspecified dementia, PTSD, generalized anxiety, and schizophrenia. The resident’s quarterly MDS showed a BIMS score of 15, indicating intact cognition, and documented that he required set-up assistance with eating, personal hygiene, and oral hygiene, and substantial to maximal assistance with toileting hygiene, dressing, and bathing. Resident #10 stated that Resident #27, who lived across the hall, had been coming into his room and that he had complained to staff, but nothing had been done. During the interview, Resident #27 entered the doorway of Resident #10’s room. Staff interviews confirmed that Resident #27 had a history of wandering into other residents’ rooms, including Resident #10’s room, and that staff had seen him in multiple residents’ rooms. The Administrator acknowledged awareness that Resident #27 propelled himself throughout the facility and was confused, and confirmed that if staff were aware of him wandering into Resident #10’s room, they should have reported it. The Administrator also confirmed that Resident #27 should not have been wandering into Resident #10’s room.
Failure to Complete Baseline Care Plan Within Required Timeframe
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to develop and implement a baseline care plan that included the instructions needed to provide effective and person-centered care within 48 hours of admission for Resident #78. Resident #78 was admitted on 05/29/2026 with diagnoses including Schizoaffective Disorder, Unspecified; Asymptomatic Human Immunodeficiency Virus; Bipolar Disorder; and Insomnia. Review of the medical record showed that Resident #78 did not have a baseline care plan. During interview, Resident #78 stated he was new to the facility and had recently been admitted. The Unit Manager stated she was responsible for completing baseline care plans, including follow-up to ensure they were completed within the required 48-hour timeframe, and confirmed that Resident #78's baseline care plan was not developed or completed within 48 hours, although it should have been.
Care Plan Not Updated for Resident Behaviors
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure the Comprehensive Resident Centered Plan of Care was revised to include behaviors for one resident. The resident was admitted with diagnoses including Other Seizures, Essential Hypertension, Major Depressive Disorder, Insomnia, and Constipation. The Annual MDS indicated a BIMS could not be performed and noted the resident was short tempered and easily annoyed. During observation, the resident was seated in the day room in a Geri chair and was hitting the side of the chair constantly. Staff interviews and record review showed the resident had ongoing behaviors that were documented in multiple nursing notes and EMAR entries, including hitting, punching, kicking at staff during direct care, and throwing feces in the room. A CNA reported these behaviors to the Adm and DON. Review of the resident’s care plan showed there was no plan of care for behaviors, and the MDS Nurse and DON both confirmed the care plan had not been revised to reflect the resident’s behaviors.
Failure to Provide Needed Grooming and Hygiene Assistance
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure that residents who were unable to perform ADLs received the necessary services to maintain grooming and personal hygiene. The deficiency involved two sampled residents: one resident with hemiplegia and hemiparesis following cerebral infarction, dementia, anxiety, and an unstageable pressure ulcer, and another resident with osteomyelitis, anxiety disorder, major depressive disorder, pain, unspecified dementia, and nonspecific skin eruptions. Facility policy stated that residents unable to carry out ADLs independently were to receive appropriate support and assistance with hygiene, including bathing, dressing, grooming, and oral care. For the first resident, the quarterly MDS showed severe cognitive impairment and total dependence for all ADLs. The care plan directed staff to check nail length and trim and clean the nails on bath day and as necessary, and the task log showed a daily bed bath on the day shift, with the last documented bath completed on 06/01/2026. However, observations on 06/01/2026, 06/02/2026, and 06/03/2026 showed untrimmed, jagged nails with a black unknown substance underneath the fingernails. A CNA stated the resident required total care, received a daily bed bath, and that the fingernails should not have looked that way, and a unit manager also confirmed the nails were untrimmed, jagged, and dirty. For the second resident, the quarterly MDS showed the resident was dependent for oral hygiene, toileting hygiene, shower/bathe, and personal hygiene, and required set-up or clean-up assistance with eating. The care plan called for a daily bed bath and assistance with personal hygiene and oral hygiene, but the bath roster did not document when the resident’s hair had been washed. Observations showed the resident’s hair was dirty, dry/flaky, and matted to the head, and the resident could not say when it had last been washed. The resident’s sister reported that the hair was not being washed regularly and that complaints to staff had been ignored. An LPN, another LPN, the hospice nurse, and the DON each confirmed the hair was dirty, dry/flaky, and needed to be washed.
Find your facility
Search by name to see its inspection history, citations and penalties — and how to prepare for the next survey.
Get alerted when Immediate Jeopardy citations hit in Louisiana — free
You're all set
Compliance trends in Louisiana
Data through Mar 2026Comparisons below measure the most recent period Apr 2025 – Mar 2026 against the prior period Apr 2024 – Mar 2025 (two equal 12-month windows). The most recent 3 months are excluded because CMS is still publishing them.
Top tags by month · last 24 months
dashed = still reportingMonthly citation counts for the 5 most-cited tags. The dashed tail is the 3-month reporting lag.
Frequency movers
Biggest change in how often each tag is cited, as a rate per 100 inspections (so it isn't skewed by survey volume): Apr 2025 – Mar 2026 vs the prior period Apr 2024 – Mar 2025. Only tags with at least 20 citations in both periods are shown.
Severity movers
Tags whose average scope/severity shifted the most: Apr 2025 – Mar 2026 vs the prior period Apr 2024 – Mar 2025. The number is the average severity on the A–L scale (A=0…L=11); the letter is the band it falls in. A rise means the same tag is being cited at a more serious level — note the average can move enough to rank here while staying within the same letter. Same 20-citation minimum applies.
Care domain movers
Citations grouped into CFR care domains — F-tags by their §483 regulatory section (CMS State Operations Manual, Appendix PP) — measured as a rate per 100 inspections: Apr 2025 – Mar 2026 vs the prior period Apr 2024 – Mar 2025. Share is the domain's portion of citations this period; avg severity is the mean scope/severity letter and immediate jeopardy the percentage cited at J–L, both over the current period. Domains with at least 20 citations in both periods are shown; the sparkline tracks the last 12 months (left = oldest).
Immediate jeopardies · this period
Citations at the most serious scope/severity — J–L, immediate jeopardy, residents placed at risk of serious harm or death — over Apr 2025 – Mar 2026 vs the prior period Apr 2024 – Mar 2025. "Surveys with an IJ" counts distinct health inspections that had at least one.
Survey activity · by month
faded/dashed = still reportingCitations each month split into complaint-driven (unscheduled, triggered by grievances) vs standard surveys — bars, left axis — with the number of inspections as a line on the right axis. Rising inspections signal more scrutiny; a rising complaint share means more off-cycle surveys. The most recent 3 months are still being reported.
Deficiency-free survey rate
Share of health surveys that found zero deficiencies — the odds of a clean survey. Apr 2025 – Mar 2026 vs the prior period Apr 2024 – Mar 2025; the most recent 3 months are still being reported (dashed).
Penalties · by month
faded = still reportingTotal civil money penalty dollars imposed on the state's facilities each month — how hard the state is enforcing. The most recent 3 months are still being reported, and penalties often lag citations by several months.
Emerging tags
Tags that weren't established last period but surged — an early warning, distinct from movers (which track already-common tags). Criteria: fewer than 20 citations in the prior period, but at least 10 this period and 2.5× their prior volume. The sparkline shows monthly counts over the last 12 months (left = oldest).
Trusted data from CMS and state health departments
Every citation, penalty and Plan of Correction is sourced from public CMS records (latest release July 29, 2026) and official state health department websites — never guesswork.
Some of the Latest Corrective Actions taken by Facilities in Louisiana
- Implemented a policy requiring all nurses (including new hires) to be trained on checking residents’ code status in the EMAR and proper CPR procedures prior to working on the floor (L - F0678 - LA)
- Removed the code status binder and red dot stickers and required code status be verified in the EMAR (L - F0678 - LA)
- Established DON monitoring to verify required training was completed before nurses were scheduled to the floor (including weekly audits of training documentation and withholding scheduling if training was incomplete) (L - F0678 - LA)
- Updated the resident-death review policy/procedure and implemented a Death Review form with required DON/designee review (including unexpected/high-risk deaths) and QAPI review/monitoring of Death Review forms and follow-through on discrepancies (L - F0835 - LA)
Failure to Ensure CPR per Code Status and Wound Care Coverage in Absence of Treatment Nurse
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to administer operations in a way that ensured effective and efficient use of resources to maintain residents’ highest practicable physical well-being, specifically in relation to CPR and code status verification. One resident with a physician’s order for full code status was found unresponsive, pulseless, and not breathing. Licensed nursing staff did not accurately determine this resident’s code status and failed to initiate and continuously provide CPR in accordance with the physician’s full code order until EMS arrived. When the hospice nurse arrived, no life-saving measures were in progress, and the resident was later pronounced deceased. The DON stated she had not identified this incident as deficient practice at the time it occurred and did not realize the magnitude of the problem until it was brought to her attention during the survey. The DON also acknowledged that the facility did not provide additional education to nursing staff on verifying code status and continuing CPR until EMS assumed responsibility. The facility’s administration, including the Administrator and DON, did not have an adequate system in place to identify this deficient practice, determine its root cause, or ensure that nursing staff were trained and competent in verifying residents’ code status and implementing CPR according to orders. The Administrator indicated that when it was discovered that the LPN had not properly determined the resident’s code status and had not continued CPR until EMS arrival, administrative staff should have reviewed the incident to determine the root cause and re-educated nursing staff on the CPR policy and procedure. However, this did not occur prior to the surveyors’ identification of the issue. As a result, the surveyors determined that an Immediate Jeopardy situation existed related to the failure to ensure CPR was initiated and continued for a resident with full code status. A second deficiency involved the facility’s failure to have an adequate system to ensure that licensed nursing staff were made aware of their responsibilities for wound care in the absence of a Treatment Nurse. Multiple residents with pressure ulcers did not receive wound care as ordered by their physicians on days when no Treatment Nurse was assigned. The Treatment Nurse stated that weekend nurses should perform wound care when a Treatment Nurse is not present. Several LPNs reported they did not provide ordered wound care to residents with Stage III and Stage IV pressure ulcers because they were not aware they were responsible for completing wound care on their assigned residents. The DON indicated that on specific dates without a Treatment Nurse, it was the RN Supervisor’s responsibility to remind floor nurses to complete wound care, and a communication sheet instructed the RN Supervisor to remind nurses to perform wound care and sign the Treatment Administration Record. The RN Supervisor stated it was an understood responsibility that floor nurses were responsible for wound care in the absence of a Treatment Nurse, but the interviewed LPNs’ statements showed they had not been effectively informed of this responsibility, resulting in missed wound treatments as ordered. Overall, the facility’s administrative systems did not ensure that critical clinical responsibilities—verifying and acting on residents’ code status with appropriate CPR, and providing ordered wound care in the absence of a Treatment Nurse—were clearly assigned, communicated, and carried out by nursing staff. The DON’s and Administrator’s own interviews confirmed that they had not identified the CPR incident as deficient practice at the time, had not conducted a root cause review, and had not re-educated staff on CPR procedures, and that the process for ensuring wound care coverage on days without a Treatment Nurse relied on informal understandings rather than a consistently implemented system, leading to missed treatments for residents with pressure ulcers.
Removal Plan
- In-service nurses on checking a resident's Code Status in the EMAR and proper procedures for CPR.
- Review all active residents' EMAR to ensure Code Status is posted.
- Identify residents with DNR status.
- In-service all nurses on each shift on checking Code Status in the EMAR and proper procedures for CPR.
- Update the policy and procedure for Review of Resident Deaths.
- Implement a Death Review form for the DON and/or Quality Nurse to complete and immediately initiate changes as needed.
- Require all resident deaths be reviewed by the DON/designee.
- Require unexpected/high-risk deaths be reviewed by the DON/designee.
- Require cases be presented to QAPI at the next scheduled meeting.
- Consult on the death review policy/procedure, how to complete the Death Review form, actions for discrepancies, training nurses to look up code status in the EMAR, and proper CPR procedure.
- QAPI Team to verify the DON is reviewing completed Death Review forms and following through on discrepancies.
- QAPI to monitor Death Review forms.
- QAPI to review all Death Review forms.
Failure to Provide CPR According to Full Code Status and Physician Orders
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to provide basic life support, including CPR, in accordance with a resident’s documented full code status and physician orders. The facility’s CPR policy required staff to provide basic life support prior to the arrival of emergency personnel, consistent with the resident’s physician orders and advance directives. The American Heart Association Basic Life Support Algorithm referenced in the report emphasized that high-quality CPR is the most critical part of basic life support and should continue until advanced medical providers arrive or the patient shows signs of life. For this resident, multiple documents, including a Louisiana Physician Orders for Scope of Treatment form, monthly physician orders, hospice certification and plan of care, and the comprehensive care plan, all indicated a full code status, requiring CPR if the resident was unresponsive, pulseless, and not breathing. On the day of the incident, the resident, who had diagnoses including hypertensive heart and chronic kidney disease with heart failure, stage 5 chronic kidney disease, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, was found unresponsive and not breathing. Surveillance footage showed that a CNA exited the resident’s room and quickly summoned the CNA supervisor, who then returned to the room and called for additional staff. Two LPNs entered the room shortly thereafter, but video review from the time the incident began until well after showed that no cardiopulmonary emergency equipment, such as a backboard, Ambu bag, or crash cart, was brought into the room. Documentation in a health status note by one of the LPNs stated that she was summoned to the room, found the resident unresponsive and not breathing, and that she attempted CPR but was unsuccessful, with the time of death later documented as pronounced by the hospice nurse. Interviews and video review, however, did not corroborate that CPR was initiated or continued as required. One LPN reported that when she assessed the resident, he had no pulse, was still warm, and showed no signs of prolonged death, but she did not discuss or verify the resident’s code status and assumed the resident was DNR because he was on hospice. She stated she was not aware the resident was full code and had not observed anyone performing CPR. The DON reported that the other LPN had initially believed the resident was DNR and admitted she had not yet implemented CPR; the DON then instructed her to return to the room and start CPR. The hospice nurse stated she was notified that the resident had expired and, upon arrival, found the resident in bed with a sheet over his head and no life-saving measures in progress. She was told that CPR had been started and stopped, but she did not instruct staff to stop CPR and expected it to continue until EMS or a physician directed otherwise. The facility was unable to provide evidence that any licensed nursing staff immediately verified the resident’s code status or ensured continuous CPR from the time the resident was found without a pulse and not breathing until the official time of death, resulting in an Immediate Jeopardy determination.
Removal Plan
- S5LPN was in-serviced on checking Code Status in the Electronic Medication Administration Record (EMAR) and proper procedures for CPR.
- All active residents' EMARs were reviewed to ensure code status was posted.
- All nurses for each shift were in-serviced for checking code status in the EMAR and proper procedures for CPR.
- Implemented a policy to train all nurses on checking code status in the EMAR and proper procedures for CPR prior to working on the floor.
- All new hire nurses will be trained on checking code status and proper procedures for CPR prior to working on the floor.
- Removed the code status binder and red dot stickers; they are no longer in use.
- Required that a resident's code status must be checked in the EMAR.
- The DON will monitor weekly to ensure proper training is provided to all nurses and completed prior to working on the floor.
- The DON will audit training documents prior to scheduling nurses to the floor on a weekly basis and before all new hires.
- The DON will not schedule any nurse who has not completed the required training.
Unverified Individual Assigned to Provide Direct Resident Care Without Screening or Orientation
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to administer an effective screening and onboarding system for non-employee staff, which allowed an unknown individual (S12) to be assigned to provide direct resident care without verification of employment, credentials, or required training. On the morning of 03/12/2026, S12 entered the locked building after inquiring about job openings and was allowed entry by a CNA (S14). She was directed to the nurses’ station to speak with LPNs identified as S10 and S13. After briefly leaving to change her footwear at the request of S10, she re-entered the building and was allowed back in by staff member S9R. Upon her return, S12 told S10, S11, and S13 that she was agency staff reporting for an open shift. Without verifying her identity, employment with the staffing agency, or CNA credentials, S11 provided S12 with a temporary ID badge and assigned her to a group of residents (R1 through R10) on the daily assignment sheet, where her name was handwritten. These residents had significant medical conditions, including hemiplegia and hemiparesis following cerebral infarction or other cerebrovascular disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease with acute exacerbation, gastrostomy malfunction, unspecified atrial fibrillation, non-traumatic subarachnoid hemorrhage, hypertensive urgency, acute infarction of the spinal cord, and encephalopathy. S12 reported that she rounded on residents, answered call lights, and obtained snacks from the kitchen for some residents. She specifically described answering a call light for one resident on barrier precautions, donning gown and gloves, entering the room, rolling the resident to remove a brief, and becoming soiled with feces before calling other CNAs for assistance and then leaving the room. Interviews with administrative nursing staff confirmed that there was no process in place at the time to verify the identity of non-employees upon entry, to confirm agency assignment and credentials, or to provide facility orientation, abuse/neglect training, or competency evaluation before assigning resident care. S13, identified as part of the administrative staff, acknowledged that when S12 presented herself as agency staff, neither she nor S10 verified S12’s agency status or credentials before S11 placed S12 on the assignment sheet for residents R1–R10. S11 confirmed she did not verify that S12 was agency staff and still issued a temporary ID and resident assignment. S10 and the DON (S2) both confirmed that the facility frequently used agency staff but had no existing process to pre-screen non-employees, verify credentials, or ensure completion of orientation and abuse/neglect training prior to allowing them to provide direct care. The administrator (S1) further confirmed that there was no process to verify the identity of non-employees upon entry and that S12 was not employed by the facility or its staffing agency, yet was allowed to provide care to residents for approximately two hours before the issue was discovered. The surveyors determined that this failure to verify and approve agency personnel prior to assignment of resident care created an Immediate Jeopardy situation beginning at 8:00 a.m. on 03/12/2026, when S12 first presented herself as agency staff and was subsequently assigned to provide direct care to residents R1 through R10. The facility’s ineffective administrative system for screening and onboarding agency personnel resulted in residents being placed at a likelihood of serious harm, injury, impairment, or death, as stated in the report. The visitor log for that day did not list S12, further evidencing the lack of a functioning entry and verification process for non-employees.
Removal Plan
- Removed the individual (S12) from the facility and ensured only verified nursing staff were permitted to provide resident care.
- Conducted an immediate search of the facility to locate S12 and confirmed she was no longer present in the building.
- Verified with the staffing agency that S12 was not employed by the agency and confirmed through the facility staffing system that she was not an active employee.
- Ensured S12 was not permitted to provide resident care and confirmed she was no longer present in the building.
- Contacted the Police Department to document the incident and obtain identifying information related to S12.
- Implemented monitoring of the front entrance to ensure all individuals entering are identified, verified, and logged in before entering.
- Interviewed residents assigned to the unit where S12 was listed on the assignment sheet to determine whether she provided care or performed CNA duties.
- Interviewed all residents with a BIMS score of 8 or greater regarding concerns related to care provided by unknown staff.
- Completed head-to-toe assessments for residents with a BIMS score less than 8 to evaluate for signs of injury, neglect, abuse, or improper care.
- Implemented a trained facility staff member as a front desk monitor to verify all individuals entering the facility.
- Required all staff and visitors entering the building to sign in and out at the front desk.
- Continuously monitored the front desk to ensure the entry process is followed and unknown individuals are not allowed entry.
- Changed keypad door codes throughout the facility, deleted previously stored codes, and input new codes to prevent unauthorized access.
- Educated all staff in all departments on verification of agency staff to be completed by the scheduler and/or Payroll Benefits Coordinator and maintained on file prior to placement on the daily schedule; on weekends/holidays verification to be performed by the DON.
- Verified abuse training requirements for agency staff by obtaining documentation from the agency and providing facility abuse training at the beginning of the agency staff member’s first scheduled shift.
- Educated staff on the responsibility to report unknown individuals attempting to provide resident care immediately to the DON or Administrator after ensuring resident safety.
- Educated staff on facility entry procedures and sign-in requirements.
- Educated staff on abuse prevention and resident safety.
- Completed education for staff not present during initial sessions prior to their next scheduled shift.
- Provided education/training for leadership/administrative staff by the Chief Nursing Officer with the Regional Director of Clinical.
- Implemented regional/corporate onsite monitoring of administrative staff compliance with agency staff verification and abuse training, and compliance with sign-in/out and continuous front desk monitoring.
- Restricted resident care assignments to only nursing staff whose employment status, credentials, and agency authorization have been verified by facility leadership prior to assignment.
- Administrator and DON to review the entry sign-in log daily and ongoing to ensure all staff entering are verified.
- Administrator, DON, ADON, and SDC to conduct random audits of staffing assignments and ongoing to confirm only verified employees/agency staff provide resident care.
- Required verification of agency staff credentials and agency confirmation to be completed prior to assigning any agency staff to provide resident care by the Scheduler/Payroll Benefits Coordinator.
Failure to Secure Wheelchair-Dependent Resident and Provide Supervision During Van Transport
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to ensure adequate supervision and proper use of the transportation van’s restraining seatbelt for a wheelchair-dependent resident during transport. The facility had a written Transportation Policy and Passenger Assistive Techniques procedure requiring that residents who use wheelchairs be safely secured with passenger restraints and that seat belts be used for all passengers. The CNA responsible for transport had completed the Transportation Training Checklist and acknowledged the transportation policy and passenger assistive procedures, which included guidance on safe wheelchair transportation, use of restraints, and what to do if someone falls. The resident involved was admitted with multiple significant diagnoses, including hemiplegia and hemiparesis following cerebral infarction, chronic systolic (congestive) heart failure, type 2 diabetes mellitus with diabetic autonomic neuropathy, chronic pain due to trauma, cervical spinal stenosis, and COPD. A quarterly MDS assessment documented that the resident was cognitively intact with a BIMS score of 15, was dependent on a wheelchair for mobility, and required staff assistance with transfers using a lift. Despite this dependence on staff for safe mobility and transfers, the resident was transported in the facility van without the restraining lap belt being applied. During the return trip from a medical appointment, the resident reported to the CNA driver that she felt she was sliding down in her wheelchair. The CNA did not stop the van to reposition or secure the resident with the restraining seatbelt and continued driving until reaching her own personal residence. The CNA then left the resident unattended in the van while she went inside her residence. While unsupervised and not secured by a seatbelt, the resident slid out of the wheelchair onto the floor of the van. When the CNA returned, she found the resident on the floor but did not call the facility for assistance and did not transfer the resident back into the wheelchair. Instead, the CNA drove the resident back to the facility while the resident remained sitting on the floor of the van. Upon arrival, staff, including an LPN, observed the resident on the van floor and assisted with assessment and lifting the resident from the floor. The incident was determined by surveyors to constitute an Immediate Jeopardy situation on the date of occurrence.
Removal Plan
- Immediately assessed Resident #26 upon return to the facility.
- Terminated the employment of S4CNA.
- Updated the facility's transportation policy to state to call the facility in the event of a fall if non-emergent or to call 911 if it is an emergency.
- Completed an in-service with transportation drivers to communicate policy changes and perform competency checks on loading and unloading residents in wheelchairs; counseled drivers on never leaving residents unsupervised and on notifying nursing immediately in the event of a fall.
- Implemented mandatory monitoring by the DON or designee: checks upon arrival and departure 3 times per week to ensure residents are safely anchored in the van and properly seated; quiz transport drivers at each departure/arrival on who to call in the event of a fall; counsel on notifying nursing immediately in the event of a fall.
- Monitor compliance weekly at staff meetings and address at quarterly QAPI meetings and other intervals as needed to ensure compliance.
Resident Neglect During Unsafe Wheelchair Van Transport
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to protect a resident from neglect during transportation in the facility van. A CNA responsible for transport did not follow the facility’s transportation safety policies and procedures, including the requirement to properly secure residents with restraining seatbelts. The resident involved had multiple medical diagnoses, including hemiplegia and hemiparesis following cerebral infarction, chronic systolic heart failure, type 2 diabetes with autonomic neuropathy, chronic pain due to trauma, cervical spinal stenosis, and COPD. The resident was cognitively intact with a BIMS score of 15 and was dependent on a wheelchair for mobility and staff assistance for transfers using a lift. During a return trip from a physician appointment, the CNA failed to attach the van’s restraining lap belt across the resident’s lap. While en route, the resident told the CNA that she felt like she was sliding down in her wheelchair. Despite this verbal report, the CNA did not stop the van to reposition the resident or correct the lack of restraint. Instead, the CNA continued driving until reaching her personal residence. The CNA then went inside her residence, leaving the resident unattended in the van and still not properly secured or repositioned. While the CNA was inside her personal residence, the resident slid out of her wheelchair onto the floor of the transportation van. When the CNA returned to the van, she found the resident on the floor but did not call the facility for assistance and did not transfer the resident back into the wheelchair. The CNA then drove approximately 15.3 miles back to the facility with the resident remaining on the floor of the van. Upon arrival, the CNA did not inform facility staff when the fall had occurred or how long the resident had been on the floor. The resident was later assessed with no injuries, and the facility’s investigation substantiated neglect based on these events and the CNA’s failure to follow established policies on abuse, neglect, fall management, and transportation safety. The facility’s policies in place at the time defined neglect as the failure of the facility, its employees, or service providers to provide goods and services necessary to avoid physical harm, pain, mental anguish, or emotional distress. The transportation policy required adequate training of personnel transporting residents, including safe wheelchair transportation, proper use of restraints, and procedures for what to do if someone falls. The CNA had completed annual abuse and neglect training and had acknowledged the transportation training checklist and passenger assistive techniques, which included always using seat belts and ensuring passenger restraints fit securely. Despite this training and policy framework, the CNA did not secure the resident with the lap belt, did not respond appropriately when the resident reported sliding, left the resident unattended in the van, failed to seek assistance after the fall, and transported the resident back to the facility while she remained on the floor of the van. These actions and inactions led to the substantiated neglect and the Immediate Jeopardy determination.
Removal Plan
- Immediately assessed Resident #26 upon return to the facility.
- Terminated the employment of S4CNA.
- Updated the facility's transportation policy to state to call the facility in the event of a fall if non-emergent or to call 911 if it is an emergency.
- Completed an in-service with transportation drivers regarding policy changes and performed competency checks on loading and unloading residents in wheelchairs; counseled drivers on never leaving residents unsupervised and on notifying nursing immediately in the event of a fall.
- Implemented mandatory monitoring by the DON or designee 3 times per week, including checks on arrival/departure to ensure residents are safely anchored and properly seated, quizzing drivers on who to call in the event of a fall, and speaking with residents about their trip.
- Monitor transportation compliance weekly at staff meetings and address at quarterly QAPI meetings and other intervals as needed to ensure compliance.
Neglect During Resident Van Transport and Failure to Report Incident
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the neglect of a wheelchair‑dependent resident during transport by a facility van. The resident had ataxia, required a wheelchair for mobility, and was care planned to need staff assistance for all ADLs due to an unsteady ataxic gait. On the date of the incident, the transport driver was responsible for taking the resident to a medical appointment using the facility’s transport van. The driver had previously received training on how to safely transport and secure wheelchair‑bound residents in the van. The driver reported that when loading the resident, he believed he did not have the appropriate wheelchair seat belt or safety straps available in the van. Instead of reporting this to administration or refusing to transport without proper equipment, he placed the resident in his wheelchair in the back of the van between two seats and attempted to secure the resident by using a regular van seat belt. He attached the seat belt from a van seat to the side of the wheelchair, wrapped it around the resident, and fastened it to the seat belt buckle, despite knowing this was not the correct method and that it did not properly secure or lock the resident in place. The facility’s vehicle safety checklist completed earlier in the month documented that all doors, seat belts, and wheelchair straps were present and working properly, and subsequent inspection after the incident confirmed that wheelchair seat belts and safety straps were in the van and in good repair. As the driver exited the facility parking lot with the resident in the wheelchair, the van hit a pothole, causing the back door to open, the ramp to deploy, and the resident to roll backwards out of the van onto the gravel driveway. Video surveillance reviewed by the administrator and DON showed the van exiting, hitting the pothole, the back door opening, the ramp coming down, and the resident rolling down the ramp onto the gravel. The driver stopped, assisted the resident back into the van, and placed the resident into a regular van seat. He then drove away from the facility without notifying the administrator, DON, or other facility staff of the incident, despite facility policy requiring immediate reporting of all incidents and accidents during transport. The facility only became aware of the event when a passerby who witnessed the fall came into the building and reported what they had seen. The driver later acknowledged that he knew he should have reported the incident at the time it occurred.
Removal Plan
- S2DON drove S3TD back to the facility and S8TD drove Resident #1 back to the facility using a regular van seat and the van seatbelt; S3TD was suspended pending investigation.
- S9NP assessed Resident #1 and noted no injuries and no complaints of pain.
- Van keys were locked in S1ADM’s office and the van was not used again.
- Corporate Maintenance Coordinator, Maintenance Supervisor, and S1ADM inspected the van; found missing screws on the back door latch; confirmed wheelchair straps and regular seatbelts were available and working; confirmed wheelchair ramp and latches were in good working order.
- The van was taken out of service and removed from site.
- S1ADM in-serviced transportation staff on proper restraint/securement for residents transported via wheelchair (demonstration) and on notifying the Administrator and/or DON immediately of any issues/incidents and reviewing van forms/binder; clarified that residents who can safely transfer to a van seat may ride in a traditional seat.
- S3TD was terminated.
- The Administrator completed a ride-along with S8TD and S7TD and completed the Driver In-service Checklist and the Transportation Policy Acknowledgement Form.
- A 3rd party consultant provided training on wheelchair securement and lift operations and issued certificates of completion (S7TD, S8TD, S1ADM, S21ESS).
- Administrator ordered additional transport safety items discussed during the 3rd party training: a seatbelt lock and Q-straint loops; items were placed into the van.
- Transportation monitoring was initiated weekly for 6 weeks via Administrator/designee ride-alongs to ensure resident safety, proper securement, and safe driving.
- Facility borrowed a van from a sister facility to continue resident transports and completed Driver In-service Checklists.
- Facility rented vans so bariatric residents could be safely transported and completed Driver In-service Checklists.
- Facility scheduled ambulance transfers as needed.
- Administrator/designee planned ongoing ride-alongs/training with each approved van driver approximately every 6 months.
In your survey window? See what surveyors are citing.
The Survey-Prep Report maps your facility's risk from 12 months of CMS and state citation data — what's being cited around you and what to check first. $129 one-time.
