Failure to Update Interdisciplinary Care Plan for Resident With Ongoing Refusals
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to develop and maintain a timely, person-centered, comprehensive care plan and to ensure that it was reviewed and revised by an interdisciplinary team with resident and representative involvement. For Resident #1, a male with multiple complex diagnoses including metabolic encephalopathy, stroke, Type 2 diabetes, end-stage renal disease, cognitive communication deficit, dependence on renal care, and a left below-knee amputation, the care plan dated 1/1/26 addressed only wound care. The care plan documented pressure injuries to the right hip, right heel (stage 3), sacrum (stage 3), and an unstageable wound to the left BKA, but contained no additional information regarding other care needs. Despite the resident’s severe cognitive impairment (BIMS score of 6) and total or maximal dependence for most ADLs, the care plan was not expanded to address his broader clinical and behavioral needs. Record review showed extensive, ongoing refusals by the resident of medications, blood sugar checks, meals, ADLs, and wound care over a period of weeks, yet these refusals were not incorporated into the care plan. Progress notes documented repeated refusals of insulin, blood sugar checks, antibiotics, pain patches, and other medications on numerous dates, as well as refusals of meals and both meals and accuchecks during specific shifts. Wound care notes indicated that the resident sometimes allowed assessment but then refused completion of treatments, stating that wound care had already been done, and continued to refuse despite reorientation and education. Staff also documented that attempts to notify the family member (FM) were sometimes unsuccessful, and that the resident’s wounds showed decline, including increased redness and irritation in the gluteal folds, while refusals of wound care persisted. Interviews with staff revealed that the care plan was not updated to reflect the resident’s consistent refusals or his nutritional issues. The DON acknowledged that none of the refusals were documented in the care plan and attributed care plan updating primarily to the MDS nurse, who had resigned and taken time off during the resident’s admission. The WCN stated she was familiar with the resident’s multiple wounds and frequent refusals of care and that she contacted the FM to encourage cooperation. A CMA reported that the resident appeared very depressed, frequently said “not right now” to medications, and that she tried multiple strategies (pudding, soda, ice cream, soup) to facilitate medication administration, but he continued to refuse. The DSS stated she did not realize she was responsible for completing care plans and initially held care plan meetings without involving department heads. The DM reported she was not made aware of the resident’s meal refusals, and the RA stated the resident refused follow-up weekly weights after the admission weight. Facility policies required care plan meetings upon admission and after significant changes, and required care plan review and revision upon status changes, but these processes were not carried out for this resident’s ongoing refusals and nutritional concerns. The resident’s point-of-care documentation showed low meal intake and frequent non-occurrence of meals, yet this was not translated into care plan interventions. Nutrition task records indicated that on multiple days the resident consumed only 0–25% or 26–50% of meals, and on several days meal intake was marked as not occurring. The RA confirmed that after the initial admission weight of 185.5 lbs, the resident refused subsequent weekly weights, and no additional weights were documented. Despite these patterns, the dietician was not successfully contacted by surveyors, and the DM stated she had not been informed of the refusals. Staff interviews further showed that some CNAs and nurses were unaware of the full extent of the resident’s refusals, relying instead on verbal shift reports rather than an updated care plan. Overall, the facility did not revise the care plan to address the resident’s persistent refusals of medications, ADLs, meals, and wound care, and did not ensure interdisciplinary, resident, and representative participation in developing and updating a comprehensive, person-centered care plan as required by facility policy. The ADM and DON described that care plan completion was a shared responsibility between nurse management and the MDS nurse, with corporate support available in the MDS nurse’s absence, but this process did not result in an updated plan for this resident. The DSS acknowledged she had not been educated initially on completing care plans and did not involve department heads in early care plan meetings. The DON stated that care plans not being updated could affect how aides provided care, but indicated that staff relied on daily nurse communication instead. Facility policies on care plan revisions specified that upon identification of a change in status, the nurse should notify the MDS coordinator, physician, and resident representative, and that the IDT should collaborate on interventions and update the care plan accordingly. Despite clear documentation of significant changes and ongoing refusals in the record, these steps were not followed for Resident #1, resulting in a care plan that remained limited to wound care and did not reflect his current needs and behaviors.
Penalty
Resources
Below are regulatory guidelines relevant to this citation:
Failure to Update Care Plans for Comfort Care and Pressure Ulcers: The facility did not revise the care plan for a resident placed on comfort care after a clinic visit showed worsening fluid retention, cough, swelling, and decreased strength; the plan omitted the no-hospitalization order, discontinuation of labs, and guidance for comfort if the resident declined. The facility also failed to update another resident’s care plan after the MDS identified four Stage II pressure ulcers, leaving only general skin-risk interventions instead of wound-specific goals and treatment measures.
Care plans for two residents were not updated to match their current status and care needs. One resident had PTSD and generalized anxiety disorder and was receiving a psychotropic medication, but the care plan listed monitoring for antipsychotic and anticonvulsant meds that were not prescribed and did not include the anxiety diagnosis or related behaviors and interventions. Another resident had new upper and lower dentures, but the oral/dental care plan only noted edentulous status and difficulty chewing, with no mention of dentures or denture-related interventions.
Care plans and related care guides were not updated for a resident with pain, a resident with recurrent falls, and a resident with severe cognitive impairment and transfer needs. One resident’s plan lacked individualized nonpharmacological pain interventions, another resident’s plan omitted a motion sensor that staff were using for fall prevention, and a third resident’s plan and Kardex incorrectly stated the resident was independent with transfers despite staff using a transfer belt and Hoyer lift with two-person assistance.
Failure to revise care plans for two residents left key safety and behavior needs undocumented. One resident with dementia had scissors removed after cutting clothing and hair, but the care plan did not include supervised scissor use. Another resident with a wander guard repeatedly wanted to go outside and attempted to go out on his own, but the care plan did not identify elopement risk or specific interventions for staff. Interviews confirmed staff knew about both residents’ needs, yet the care plans did not reflect those changes.
Failure to update care plan after change in condition: A resident was hospitalized with acute urinary retention and constipation related to neurogenic bowel, but the care plan was not revised to reflect the new diagnosis or related interventions. The MDS Director and MDS Coordinator stated they were unaware of the hospital transfer and acknowledged the care plan should have been updated to support coordinated, individualized care.
A resident with a history of anemia, moderate dementia, and chronic pain had active orders for aspirin for CAD and sertraline (Zoloft) for depression and chronic pain, but the comprehensive care plan was not revised to reflect current diagnoses and medication indications. The care plan continued to reference anemia and daily aspirin for antiplatelet therapy and included a directive to administer antidepressants for chronic pain without specifying sertraline’s use for both depression and chronic pain. An MDS nurse acknowledged that the resident no longer had an active anemia diagnosis and that the care plan should have been updated to clarify the current clinical rationale for aspirin therapy and the indication for sertraline.
Failure to Update Care Plans for Comfort Care and Pressure Ulcers
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to revise the care plan for a resident who was changed to comfort care only after a clinic visit identified worsening fluid retention, weight gain, generalized swelling, decreased strength, occasional shortness of breath, and a persistent cough. The physician ordered that the resident not be hospitalized, that metolazone be stopped, Lasix be increased to 80 mg twice daily, and that labs be discontinued per family request. The current care plan addressed diuretic therapy and a goal for the resident to be free of discomfort, but it did not include the comfort care status, the order not to hospitalize, the discontinuation of lab draws, or instructions for maintaining comfort if the resident’s condition worsened. Nursing notes showed the resident remained in her room in a recliner and was heard coughing continuously, with the cough worsening. Staff administered PRN morphine for chronic cough related to fluid overload, but it was ineffective and the resident reported severe pain and no relief from the cough and discomfort. Additional notes documented continued coughing, shortness of breath, and little relief after cough syrup and morphine were given. The DON acknowledged the care plan should have been revised to identify what staff were to do to provide comfort if the resident’s condition worsened. The facility also failed to revise the care plan for another resident who developed pressure ulcers. The resident’s comprehensive MDS identified four Stage II pressure ulcers, and the CAA directed staff to address the wounds on the care plan with daily treatment, weekly and as-needed monitoring, physician notification for decline or signs of infection, and goals to slow or minimize decline and provide symptom relief or palliative measures. However, the current care plan only identified the resident as at risk for skin integrity impairment and included general measures such as nutrition, moisture control, skin care, and barrier cream use; it did not identify the actual pressure ulcers or include interventions to promote healing or reduce infection or discomfort. The MDS nurse stated she missed revising the care plan to include the pressure ulcers, and the DON stated it was her expectation that a pressure ulcer be identified on the care plan with appropriate goals and interventions.
Care plans did not reflect current diagnoses, medications, or denture status
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure that care plans were revised and accurately reflected residents’ current status and care needs for 2 of 21 sampled residents. Resident 6 was admitted with diagnoses including heart failure, respiratory failure, and PTSD, and was able to make needs known. The EHR showed Resident 6 also had generalized anxiety disorder and was receiving a psychotropic medication, but the current care plan dated 05/05/2026 documented monitoring for side effects of antipsychotic and anticonvulsant medications even though Resident 6 was not prescribed those medications. The care plan also identified PTSD but did not include generalized anxiety disorder or behaviors to monitor and interventions related to PTSD or anxiety disorder. Staff F, LPN/CC, stated the care plan did not accurately reflect the resident’s current status or prescribed medications, and Staff B, DNS, stated it did not meet expectations because it did not address the anxiety disorder or target behaviors and interventions. Resident 71 was admitted with diagnoses including PTSD, high blood pressure, and depression and was able to make needs known. Observation on 05/06/2026 showed a denture cup by the sink with the resident’s name on the lid and new upper and lower dentures dated 01/12/26. The resident stated the lower dentures did not fit well and that denture adhesive had been provided, but the dentures still did not fit right and the resident had not told staff yet. The focused oral/dental care plan, initiated on 06/23/2026, identified the resident as edentulous and having difficulty chewing, but did not show that the resident had dentures or include interventions related to denture use or maintenance. Staff E, CNA, stated they had not seen the resident wear dentures and were unaware of the new dentures, Staff C, LPN/CC, stated the care plan should have been updated when the dentures were obtained, and Staff B, DNS, stated the care plan should have reflected the dentures and interventions.
Care plans not updated for pain interventions, fall precautions, and transfer needs
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to update care plans and related care guides to reflect current, individualized interventions for three residents. For one resident with quadriplegia related to a spinal injury and ongoing pain, the admission MDS showed intact cognition, scheduled pain medication, and no non-medication pain interventions. The resident stated he had a lot of pain and had been seen by a pain doctor, but the care plan only listed general pain management and comfort measures without identifying the resident’s preferences for nonpharmacological interventions or documenting whether any had been attempted, effective, ineffective, or preferred. The MAR/TAR and progress notes also lacked identification of nonpharmacological pain interventions. For another resident with moderately impaired cognition and a history of multiple falls, the quarterly MDS documented two or more falls with no injury and one fall with nonmajor injury. The care plan included several fall precautions such as frequent safety checks, a low bed, a floor mat, and non-slip footwear, but it did not include the motion sensor with automated auditory reminders that staff were using. Staff observed the resident with the motion sensor in place, and nursing staff stated the device had been used since after a fall in November 2025. The care plan did not identify when the motion sensor should be used or what adverse effects should be monitored. For a third resident with severe cognitive impairment, delusions, behavioral symptoms, and diagnoses including dementia with behavioral disturbances, anxiety, affective disorder, diabetes, and hearing loss, the care plan and Kardex stated the resident was independent with transfers. However, staff observed the resident being transferred with a transfer belt, requiring assistance from two nursing assistants, and later being moved to and from twin mattresses placed on the floor using a Hoyer lift with two staff. Staff confirmed the resident was not independent with transfers and that the care plan and Kardex had not been revised to reflect the resident’s current transfer ability or the use of the Hoyer lift and mattresses on the floor.
Failure to Revise Care Plans for Safety and Elopement Needs
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to revise the care plan for 2 of 12 sampled residents, R15 and R18, after changes in condition and identified needs were documented. The report states the care plan was not updated within 7 days of the comprehensive assessment and was not prepared, reviewed, and revised by a team of health professionals as required. Review of the records and interviews showed that the existing care plans did not reflect the residents’ current assessed needs and behaviors. For R15, the 4/6/26 quarterly MDS showed severely impaired cognition, with independence in dressing, toileting, and ambulation using a walker, and diagnoses including Alzheimer’s disease, dementia, muscle weakness, hallucinations, anxiety disorder, and long-term pain medication use. On 5/4/26, R15 stated the facility had taken away her scissors and she could no longer use them for knitting, while a bag of yarn and string was observed near her recliner. A 4/15/26 progress note documented housekeeping staff reported R15 had been cutting her clothes and had cut her hair, and social services noted a plan for supervised scissor use. R15’s care plan addressed leisure preferences and one-to-one interactions, but it did not include supervised assistance with scissors for safety reasons. The IDON confirmed R15 had been cutting her clothing and hair, was not safe to use scissors unsupervised, and that the care plan should reflect that need. For R18, the 5/6/26 quarterly MDS showed a BIMS score of 13, indicating cognition intact, with independence in dressing, toileting, and ambulation using a walker, wandering noted during the assessment period, and use of oxygen and multiple medications including antipsychotic, antidepressant, hypnotic, anticonvulsant, pain, and antiplatelet drugs. On 5/4/26, R18 stated he had an alarm on, wanted to go outside, and believed it was illegal that he could not go out by himself; he also said staff told him he needed someone to go outside with him but there was never anyone available. His care plan noted cognition-related needs and a wander guard, but it did not identify elopement risk, a goal, or interventions for what staff should do if he attempted to leave or when he wanted to go outside. The elopement evaluation left the risk for wandering and/or elopement blank, and interviews confirmed staff knew he wanted to go outside, sometimes attempted to go out on his own, and that the care plan lacked detailed interventions.
Failure to Update Care Plan After Hospitalization
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to revise the comprehensive care plan for Resident #38 to reflect a significant change in condition after the resident was diagnosed in the hospital with acute urinary retention and constipation related to neurogenic bowel. A review of the resident’s hospital record showed this diagnosis on 04/21/2026 at 12:05 AM, but none of the resident’s care plans reflected the new condition or related needs. During an interview on 04/27/2026, Resident #38 stated that episodes of constipation had previously led to urinary retention requiring self-catheterization. On 04/30/2026, the MDS Director and MDS Coordinator stated that care plans were revised after hospitalizations and with changes in condition, but they were not aware the resident had been transferred to the hospital. They acknowledged that the care plan should have been updated to include the resident’s new diagnosis and appropriate interventions and monitoring, and the facility policy stated that care plans are revised as residents’ information and condition change.
Failure to Update Care Plan With Current Diagnoses and Medication Indications
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure a comprehensive, person-centered care plan was revised to reflect accurate and current information for one resident. The resident was admitted with multiple diagnoses including anemia, moderate dementia, and chronic pain, and had physician orders for aspirin 81 mg daily for CAD and sertraline (Zoloft) 50 mg daily for depression and chronic pain. The comprehensive care plan continued to list a problem statement indicating a history of anemia with a requirement for daily aspirin for antiplatelet therapy, initiated several years earlier, and included a directive for licensed nursing staff to administer antidepressants for chronic pain. However, the care plan was not updated to specify that sertraline was being administered for both depression and chronic pain, and it was not revised to reflect that the resident no longer had an active diagnosis of anemia or to clarify the current clinical rationale for aspirin therapy. During an interview, the MDS nurse acknowledged that the care plan should have been revised to accurately reflect the resident’s current diagnoses and medication indications. This failure created the potential for inaccurate care planning and inconsistent implementation of care, as the written care plan did not align with the resident’s current clinical status and medication orders as identified through record review and staff interview.
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.