Facility Failed to Honor Resident's Visitation Rights
Summary
The facility failed to honor a resident's right to receive visitors of their choosing, as evidenced by the restriction of visitation based on the wishes of the resident's Power of Attorney (POA). The facility's visitation policy, revised in February 2017, allows residents to receive visitors at any time, subject to the resident's wishes. However, in two documented instances, the facility contacted the resident's POA, who did not want a friend of the resident to visit. The facility then informed the friend that they could not visit, and in one instance, the POA instructed the facility to call the police if the friend attempted to visit. The resident involved had diagnoses including hypertension and anxiety disorder. Interviews with facility staff, including an LPN and the Social Services Director (SSD), revealed that the facility should not have restricted visitation based on the POA's wishes. The Director of Nursing (DON) and the Corporate Administrator acknowledged that the facility could not restrict visitation based on the POA's wishes, as informed by the ombudsman during a care plan meeting. This deficiency highlights a failure to adhere to the facility's visitation policy and respect the resident's rights.
Penalty
Resources
Below are regulatory guidelines relevant to this citation:
Failure to Communicate Resident Visitation Restriction Request: A resident with dementia and no decision-making capacity had a family representative request that no visitors be allowed without the representative present. The BOM forwarded the request to the SSD, but the DON and other staff stated they were unaware of any visitation restriction, and the request was not documented or communicated to all staff as described in the report.
Restricted Visitation Hours: A posted sign and staff interviews showed that residents were limited to visiting hours from 8:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m., and visitors arriving outside those times were turned away or told to return later. Two residents stated they did not like the limits and believed they should be able to decide when to receive visitors. The admission agreement also stated that residents have the right to visit anyone during visiting hours.
A resident’s long-time friend, a former employee previously terminated over an abuse allegation, was barred from entering the facility when she attempted to visit, and was told law enforcement would be called if she returned. Another individual confirmed awareness of the restriction, expressed no concern about the friend abusing the resident, and stated that the facility did not offer supervised or common-area visits. A staff member reported that any former employee terminated for an abuse allegation was categorically prohibited from returning to the building, without considering the resident’s relationship with the visitor, despite a visitation policy stating residents have the right to receive visitors of their choice and allowing only limited or supervised access when abuse is suspected or found.
Staff denied further visitation by two family members after a responsible party instructed the facility not to allow them to visit or receive medical updates, without confirming the resident’s own wishes. The resident, who had dementia but could express needs, later stated that these and other family members were allowed to visit and became sad upon learning they had been barred. The SSD acknowledged that facility policy allows family visitation based on the resident’s wishes and that staff should have asked the resident, but instead followed the responsible party’s directive contrary to the written visitation policy.
A cognitively intact resident with a history of substance abuse and prior overdose had an active care plan requiring monitoring for signs of substance use, but staff did not document such monitoring despite repeated episodes involving contraband and substance use. Over time, staff observed the resident with vape devices, pills, and marijuana-like smoke in the room, and later saw the resident smoking an unknown substance outside with a family member, yet the care plan was not meaningfully revised and no consistent monitoring was documented. The same family member later admitted giving the resident alcohol after the resident was found vomiting with alcohol odor and was hospitalized for alcohol intoxication, but the facility still allowed this visitor and others to continue unsupervised, unrestricted visitation, and did not inform the MD of earlier incidents or instruct staff on specific behaviors to monitor, contrary to the facility’s own visitation and substance use policies.
A resident with Parkinson’s disease, dementia, and moderate cognitive impairment stated he wanted unrestricted visits from his children, but staff followed a posted sign listing specific family members whose visitation was to be restricted per the POA. When a daughter arrived to visit, staff asked her name, informed her she was not allowed to see the resident based on the POA’s directive, and called the police when she refused to leave or provide ID; the police then told her she was trespassing. The Ombudsman reported that the POA was denying visitation and that there should not have been a barrier to the visit, while facility leadership acknowledged that the POA could not deny visitation and that the resident did want to see his daughter, yet the posted restriction and staff actions still prevented the visit.
Failure to Communicate Resident Visitation Restriction Request
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure visitation restrictions were addressed for one resident when it was not aware of the resident representative’s request that the resident have no visitors without the representative’s presence. Resident 41 was admitted with diagnoses including ESRD, unspecified dementia, hyperlipidemia, anemia, pneumonia, and nicotine dependence. The resident’s H&P stated that the resident lacked capacity to make and understand decisions and identified a designated family representative. The resident’s MDS indicated the resident had adequate hearing, clear speech and vision, and required extensive assistance with bed mobility, transferring, toileting, and personal hygiene, with partial to moderate assistance with eating. A review of the resident representative’s email showed a request that Resident 41 not have any visitors without the representative present and that all CNAs and charge nurses be alerted. The BOM stated she immediately forwarded the email to the SSD, but the DON stated she had not seen the email and did not know of any residents with visiting restrictions. The SSD stated he verbally reported the request to the department head but could not elaborate further, and multiple staff members stated they were unaware of any visiting restrictions for the resident. The SSD later stated that visiting restriction requests needed to be communicated to the front desk and staff, and the DON stated the request should have been communicated to all staff.
Restricted Visitation Hours
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to honor residents’ right to receive visitors of their choosing at the time of their choosing for 2 sampled residents. During observation, a sign posted above the double doors near the security desk stated, “Resident Visiting Hours 8:00 A.M. - 8:00 P.M.” During interview, one resident stated she did not like the limitations on visiting hours and believed she should be able to have visitors at a time she chose. Another resident stated the facility did not allow visitors outside the posted visiting hours and said she thought residents should be allowed to decide when they have visitors. Staff interviews confirmed the restriction. One staff member stated residents were not allowed to have visitors before 8:00 a.m. or after 8:00 p.m. Another staff member stated visiting hours were between 8:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m., that visitors were not allowed outside those times, and that if visitors came outside visiting hours they would be told to come back during visiting hours. A third staff member stated the facility did not have a separate visitation policy and that the visiting hours were included in the admission agreement, which stated that all residents have the right to visit anyone during visiting hours.
Failure to Honor Resident’s Right to Chosen Visitor
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to honor a resident’s right to receive visitors of her choosing. A long-time friend of the resident, identified as NF1, reported that when she first attempted to visit the resident after the resident’s admission, staff member B escorted her out of the building and told her that law enforcement would be called if she returned. NF1 had previously been employed by the facility approximately four years earlier and had been terminated due to an allegation of abuse toward a resident. The facility did not allow her to visit the resident in any capacity. Another individual, NF2, stated he was aware that the facility was not allowing NF1 to visit the resident and that he knew about the prior abuse allegation but was not concerned about NF1 abusing the resident. NF2 stated he wanted NF1 to be allowed to visit and that the facility did not offer supervised visits or visits in a common area. He was hesitant to raise the visitation issue with the facility because he was concerned it might change how the resident was treated. Staff member B confirmed that any employee terminated due to an abuse allegation was not allowed to return to the building for any reason, and that this restriction was applied without considering the resident’s history with the visitor. The facility’s visitation policy stated residents have the right to receive visitors of their choice and that limitations may include denying or limiting access to individuals suspected of abuse until an investigation is completed or abuse is found, but the facility applied a blanket prohibition in this case.
Failure to Honor Resident Visitation Rights Over Responsible Party Objection
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to honor a resident’s right to receive visitors of their choosing when family members were denied further visitation based on instructions from the resident’s responsible party (RP) without confirming the resident’s wishes. The resident had been admitted with diagnoses including a UTI and unspecified dementia, and documentation indicated the resident could make needs known but could not make medical decisions and had impaired cognitive skills for daily decision-making. During a visit, two family members requested a medical update from the Social Service Director (SSD). After the SSD spoke with the RP, the RP instructed the facility not to provide medical updates or allow further visitation by these two family members. The facility then denied these family members further access to the resident. In subsequent interviews, the resident stated that the two family members, as well as any family members, had permission to visit and later expressed sadness upon learning that these family members had been denied visitation, stating that family members were their life, with tears observed. The SSD acknowledged that facility policy was to allow any family members to visit when residents permit it and that staff should have asked the resident whether the two family members were allowed to visit. The facility’s written visitation policy stated that residents may receive visitors subject to the resident’s wishes and the protection of other residents’ rights and safety. Despite this policy, staff relied solely on the RP’s direction and did not consult the resident, resulting in the violation of the resident’s visitation rights and the resident not receiving visits from the two family members.
Failure to Restrict and Monitor Visitor Access for Resident With Ongoing Substance Use Incidents
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to implement and monitor its visitation and substance use disorder policies for a resident with a known history of psychoactive substance abuse and prior fentanyl overdose. The resident, who was cognitively intact but dependent on staff for transfers and with impaired mobility, had an active care plan for substance use that called for monitoring for signs and symptoms of substance use and abuse, such as confusion, drowsiness, outbursts of anger, and mood changes. Despite this, there was no documented evidence over multiple months that staff monitored the resident for these signs as outlined in the care plan. The facility’s visitation policy allowed for limiting or supervising visitors who abused, coerced, or exploited residents or who had a history of bringing illegal substances into the facility, but the facility did not operationalize these restrictions for this resident. Multiple documented incidents showed that the resident possessed or used substances and smoking materials, often in the presence of a specific family member visitor. On one occasion, staff observed the family member staying almost every night in the resident’s room and notified the DON and police due to suspicious behavior, but there was no documented investigation to determine the source of contraband. On another date, staff found the resident with vape devices and Blue Chew pills; these items were removed and given to a family member, and a late entry note by the DON recommended ongoing monitoring due to the resident’s substance-related history. However, there was no subsequent documentation that the resident was supervised or monitored for suspicious behaviors or signs of substance use as recommended. Later, staff documented that the resident’s room smelled like marijuana while the resident was with a visitor, and both were educated on facility policy, but the care plan was not revised to add new interventions related to this event. Further incidents continued without changes to visitation practices or documented monitoring. A restorative nursing assistant reported seeing the resident outside the facility with the same family member, who appeared to place an unknown smoking material to the resident’s mouth; this was reported to nursing and the administrator, and an order was obtained to closely monitor the resident for changes in level of consciousness, but there was no documentation that such monitoring occurred. Subsequently, the resident was found in his room vomiting, with foaming at the mouth and a smell of alcohol present; the family member at the bedside admitted giving the resident alcohol, and the resident was sent to the hospital and diagnosed with alcohol intoxication and alcohol abuse. When the resident returned from the hospital, there was no documentation that supervision or monitoring of the resident or the family member’s visits was implemented. Visitor sign-in records showed that the same family member and other friends continued to visit without restrictions or supervision. Interviews with the administrator, DON, nursing staff, and receptionist confirmed that no visitation restrictions or supervision were put in place for this family member, that there was no investigation into earlier contraband incidents, that the physician was not informed of key events, and that staff were not instructed on specific behaviors to monitor, despite the resident’s history and repeated episodes involving visitor-introduced substances.
Failure to Honor Resident’s Right to Receive Family Visitors
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to honor a resident’s right to receive visitors of his choosing. The resident, who had Parkinson’s disease, unspecified dementia, and moderate cognitive impairment, reported that he had a blended family with three daughters and a stepson who served as his POA. He stated there had been internal family conflict, that his stepson did not get along with his daughters, and that the stepson had blocked his daughters from phone contact and visiting. The resident clearly stated there should not be any restrictions on any of his children visiting him. Despite this, a sign was posted at the nurse’s station stating that, per the resident and his wife/POA’s request, specific daughters and their spouses, as well as another family member, were to have their visitation restricted and that police could be contacted if they refused to leave. A daughter reported that she drove several hours to visit her father and, upon arrival, was told by staff she was on a list of people not allowed to visit per the POA; staff then called the police, who informed her she was trespassing and could not be there. The Ombudsman stated that the POA was denying visitation, that the facility believed there was to be no contact, and that there should not have been a barrier to the visit. Facility staff, including the receptionist and an RN, described following the posted note by asking visitors for their names, denying the daughter access, and calling the police when she refused to leave or provide identification. The RN stated the note restricting visitation was put up after a prior disturbance involving the daughter and that the POA had said to restrict visitation for these individuals. The Administrator and Director of Operations both acknowledged that the POA could not deny visitation and that visitation ultimately depended on the resident’s wishes, which were that he wanted to see his daughter, yet the posted restriction and staff actions continued to deny the daughter’s visit based on the POA’s request.
Trusted data from CMS and state health departments
Every citation, penalty and Plan of Correction is sourced from public CMS records (latest release August 26, 2026) and official state health department websites — never guesswork.
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.