Failure to Follow Physician Orders and Track Return of Cardiac Event Monitor
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to follow physician orders and professional standards related to the use, monitoring, and return of a prescribed cardiac event monitor for one resident. The resident was admitted from an inpatient psychiatric facility with diagnoses including atrial fibrillation, hypertension, catatonic disorder, and major depressive disorder, and had intact cognition. The hospital discharge summary documented that cardiology recommended a 2‑week heart monitor at discharge with electrophysiology follow‑up. Despite this, the resident’s care plan revised on 12/29/25 contained no information about the heart monitor, and the facility lacked documentation that the monitor was applied on admission as expected by the clinic. An order was entered on 1/3/26 by an LPN to monitor the heart monitor for placement every shift and to mail the monitor back on Friday and discontinue the order when done, with an order end date of 1/6/26. However, the Medication Administration Record and Treatment Administration Record for that month contained no documentation that staff monitored the placement of the heart monitor. Progress notes showed the resident arrived on 12/17/25 and that on 12/24/25 a family member requested staff place the monitor, but there were no further notes describing when the monitor was applied, how long it was worn, when it was removed, or who removed it. Multiple CMAs and CNAs interviewed either were unaware of the monitor or could not recall the resident wearing it, while one LPN recalled reapplying the monitor after it came off, and another CNA recalled giving the removed monitor to an LPN who no longer worked at the facility. The facility also failed to have or follow a process for tracking and returning the monitor to the vendor. Staff interviews revealed confusion about who was responsible for entering and managing the monitor orders, handling the device, and arranging its return. One LPN reported removing the monitor, packing it, and taking the box to the DON’s office 3–4 weeks prior to the survey, after calling the vendor’s 800 number and involving an ADON who later left employment. The DON initially stated she did not believe the resident had a monitor and did not know if one was received, later reporting that she mailed a labeled box by dropping it in a downtown post office mailbox without knowing its contents or required shipping method, and acknowledging there was no specific person or department responsible for outgoing mail or package tracking. The University Hospital Clinic confirmed they had not received the monitor or data, that their system still showed they were waiting for data, and that the monitor should have been applied on the admission date and returned via UPS after the 15‑day recording period. The administrator confirmed there was no mail policy, and the facility could only produce a medication order policy rather than a broader physician’s orders policy, while the resident assessment policy required that assessment information be consistent with progress notes and care plans, which did not occur in this case. The deficiency is further supported by the family’s report that the monitor was not placed until about a week after admission, that it had been left on the floor before being reapplied, and that the hospital called about the monitor being three weeks overdue. Facility records lacked any process for tracking the disposition of the monitor or ensuring it was returned to the appropriate vendor or provider facility. The clinic nurse confirmed that, because the monitor had not been received, they were unable to download the information to determine if there was any arrhythmia, and that the computer system still showed they were waiting for data. The NP stated she wrote orders and expected them to be processed and followed, and that she informed facility management when orders were not carried out, noting that this happened frequently. Overall, the documented lack of care plan integration, missing monitoring documentation, unclear responsibility for the device, and absence of a mail/return process led to the monitor not being timely returned, delaying data analysis and physician follow‑up for this resident. The facility’s own documentation and staff statements show that the resident should have had the monitor applied on admission and worn it for the prescribed period, with staff monitoring its placement each shift and returning it promptly per the order. Instead, there were gaps in documentation, inconsistent staff awareness of the monitor, and no clear chain of custody or tracking once the device was removed. The DON and regional leadership acknowledged the absence of a mail policy and the lack of a defined process or tracking system for outgoing packages, including medical devices such as the heart monitor. The University Hospital Clinic’s confirmation that no monitor or data had been received, combined with the facility’s inability to verify when or how the monitor was shipped, demonstrates that the facility did not ensure services were provided in accordance with professional standards and physician orders for this resident.
Penalty
Resources
Below are regulatory guidelines relevant to this citation:
A resident with a fractured wrist returned from an orthopedic visit wearing a new black wrist splint after the cast was removed, but the clinical record lacked an updated physician order and instructions for splint use and care. Staff also did not document follow-up with the physician, and the care plan was not revised when the splint began being used; the DON acknowledged the missing order and lack of a policy for obtaining updated physician information.
A resident with peripheral vascular disease and a left above-knee amputation, who was moderately cognitively impaired and receiving PRN opioid analgesia for pain, had a Hydrocodone/Acetaminophen order changed from 10 mg/325 mg to 5 mg/325 mg every 6 hours PRN. The MAR for the month showed both the discontinued 10 mg/325 mg order and the new 5 mg/325 mg order, and review of the controlled substance declining count sheets revealed that nurses repeatedly removed 10 mg/325 mg tablets while documenting administration of 5 mg/325 mg on the MAR, and on two occasions removed 10 mg/325 mg tablets with no corresponding MAR entry. The NP confirmed the resident should have been receiving only the 5 mg/325 mg dose during this period, and the DON stated the discontinued 10 mg/325 mg supply and count sheet should have been removed when the order was changed.
Medication administration and ordering did not meet professional standards when an LPN incorrectly held an antihypertensive despite the BP parameter, disposed of an unadministered tablet in a resident’s room trash instead of using approved disposal methods, and failed to instruct a resident to rinse their mouth after a Breyna inhaler as ordered. Additionally, two PRN bowel medications for a resident with a colostomy were ordered for rectal administration, even though, according to an RN, this resident could not receive medications rectally.
A resident with a history of traumatic brain injury and multiple falls did not receive complete neurological checks, skin assessments, or shift‑by‑shift alert charting as required by facility policy after several falls, including events with head impact and documented abnormal pupil findings that were never reported to a physician. Documentation shows missed neuro‑check intervals, discontinued monitoring before the 72‑hour period ended, and no internal records of head and facial injuries later described in hospital records. In a separate incident, two cognitively intact residents involved in a resident‑to‑resident altercation, where one kicked the other’s knee, were placed on 72‑hour alert charting, but nursing staff failed to complete alert charting every shift as ordered. Interviews with nursing leadership and other staff confirmed that these monitoring and documentation expectations were not met and that required physician notification for neurological changes did not occur.
A resident with an order for Divalproex DR 250 mg, two tablets in the morning and three at bedtime, was instead given 500 mg tablets over an extended period after the contracted pharmacy dispensed the wrong strength. The MAR continued to reflect the 250 mg order and was signed daily as given, while nurses did not detect that the medication cards contained a different strength than the physician’s order. The resident later developed altered mental status and was sent to the ER, and a NP documented that the resident had been receiving the incorrect Divalproex dose. Staff interviews and facility policy confirmed that nurses were expected to verify the right dose by comparing the medication label to the MAR and order, but this verification process failed in this case.
Failure to Follow Ordered Urology Consultation: A resident with urinary retention and a Foley catheter had a physician order for urology referral after a failed trial without catheter, but the consultation was not completed. An LPN knew the resident was supposed to be seen by urology but did not know why it had not happened, and the DON and ADON/IP stated the physician was expected to make the referral and that the status was not discussed in later monthly rounds.
Missing Physician Order and Care Plan Update for New Wrist Splint
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure follow-up was obtained for physician orders and instructions after a resident returned from an orthopedic follow-up appointment with a new left wrist splint. The resident had a fractured carpal bone from a fall that occurred while in the facility and was severely cognitively impaired on the admission MDS. After the resident’s cast was removed at the orthopedic visit, the resident returned wearing a black splint with tie string and was to wear it at all times except for bathing, but the clinical record did not contain an updated physician order or associated instructions for the splint. The record also lacked documentation that facility staff contacted the physician to obtain the updated order and instructions, and the care plan was not revised when the splint was first used. During interviews, the Unit Manager and DON acknowledged that the care plan had not been updated until later and that the record lacked a physician order showing the cast had been discontinued and the splint ordered. The DON also stated the facility lacked a policy for obtaining updated physician orders, progress notes, and specific instructions for the facility.
Wrong Opioid Dose Administered After Order Change
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to follow a physician’s order for an opioid pain medication, resulting in administration of the wrong dose multiple times. The resident involved had peripheral vascular disease and a left above-knee amputation and was moderately cognitively impaired, receiving PRN opioid medication for pain rated 6/10. A physician’s order for Hydrocodone/Acetaminophen 10 mg/325 mg every 6 hours as needed was discontinued and replaced with an order for Hydrocodone/Acetaminophen 5 mg/325 mg every 6 hours as needed. The November Medication Administration Record (MAR) showed both the discontinued 10 mg/325 mg order (effective until mid-month) and the new 5 mg/325 mg order starting mid-month. There was no documentation that the 10 mg/325 mg dose was administered during the first part of the month. After the dose change, documentation discrepancies showed that nursing staff removed the discontinued 10 mg/325 mg tablets from the controlled substance declining count while documenting administration of the 5 mg/325 mg dose on the MAR. On several occasions, nurses documented giving 5 mg/325 mg on the MAR while the declining count sheets showed removal of 10 mg/325 mg tablets, and on two occasions 10 mg/325 mg tablets were removed from the narcotic count with no corresponding MAR entry. Attempts to interview the involved nurses were unsuccessful. The Nurse Practitioner confirmed that during the relevant period the resident’s order was for 5 mg/325 mg and that the nurses removed 10 mg/325 mg tablets instead, resulting in the resident receiving the wrong dose. The DON stated that the discontinued 10 mg/325 mg declining count sheet and blister pack should have been removed from the medication cart when the order was discontinued.
Medication Administration and Ordering Did Not Meet Professional Standards
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves failures in medication administration and disposal that did not meet professional standards of quality. For one resident with multiple fractures, COPD, and hypertension, an LPN measured the resident’s blood pressure at 108/70 and then incorrectly held the ordered losartan, despite the physician’s order specifying to hold the medication only if the systolic blood pressure was less than 100. The same LPN was observed disposing of an unadministered tablet by dumping it from a medication cup directly into the resident’s room trash can and then discarding the cup in the same trash, contrary to her own statement that unused medications should be placed in a pharmacy-provided return box or a Drug Buster container. In addition, when administering a Breyna (budesonide-formoterol) inhaler to this resident, the LPN assisted with two puffs as ordered but did not instruct the resident to rinse their mouth afterward, nor did she provide education about the need to rinse, despite the physician’s order specifying to rinse the mouth after use. For another resident with emphysema, muscle weakness, a need for assistance with personal care, and a colostomy, the record contained physician orders for Dulcolax (bisacodyl) suppositories and Fleet enemas to be inserted rectally as needed for bowel care. A registered nurse stated that this resident had a colostomy and could not use any medications rectally, indicating that the ordered route for both the suppository and enema was incorrect for this resident’s condition. These findings were identified through observation, record review, and staff interviews, and demonstrate that medication administration and ordering did not consistently follow the five rights of medication administration and proper medication disposal practices.
Failure to Complete Neuro Checks, Alert Charting, and Skin Assessments After Falls and Abuse Allegation
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to follow professional standards of practice and facility policies for post-fall and post-incident monitoring and documentation for multiple residents. Resident 4, admitted with multiple rib fractures, traumatic subdural hemorrhage, repeated falls, and later assessed as high fall risk, experienced several falls during his stay. Facility records, including SBAR forms, care plans, and IDT post-event notes, show that after these falls, staff were expected to complete neurological checks on a defined schedule (q15 minutes, q30 minutes, q1 hour, q4 hours, then q8 hours up to 72 hours), perform and document skin assessments, and complete alert charting every shift for 72 hours. However, the neurological check forms for multiple dates (1/10, 2/05, 3/12, 3/16, and 4/06) show missing assessments and vital signs at required intervals, and the 3/09 neurological checks were discontinued after the first hour despite the resident being within the 72‑hour monitoring window. Alert charting progress notes were also not completed every shift for the required 72 hours following several of his falls. In addition, Resident 4 had abnormal neurological findings that were not reported to a physician as required by policy and nursing standards. On 3/12 and again on 3/16, neurological check evaluations documented unequal pupils bilaterally, with specific measurements showing the right and left pupils of different sizes over multiple consecutive assessments. Despite these abnormal findings, there is no evidence in the eMAR or progress notes that the physician was notified of changes in the resident’s neurological status. The facility’s policies on Neurological Assessment and Resident Examination and Assessment require that changes in neurological status be reported to the physician, and interviews with licensed nurses and the administrator confirmed that unequal pupils should have triggered immediate physician notification and documentation, which did not occur. The facility also failed to complete required alert charting after a resident‑to‑resident abuse allegation involving Residents 1 and 2. Resident 1, cognitively intact and with COPD and major depressive disorder, was the victim of an altercation in which she was kicked in the left knee by another resident. Resident 2, also cognitively intact and with hemiplegia/hemiparesis and heart failure, was identified as the aggressor who kicked another resident’s knee. For both residents, IDT post-event notes and care plans documented that alert charting every shift for 72 hours was to be initiated following the incident. However, review of progress notes for both residents shows that alert charting entries were not completed every shift for the full 72‑hour period after the allegation. The Social Services Director and ADON confirmed that extra documentation and alert charting every shift for 72 hours were expected after any abuse allegation, and record review confirmed that this monitoring and documentation were not consistently performed. The record review further shows that for Resident 4, changes in skin condition following falls were not assessed, documented, or monitored as required. Despite documentation from an ED physician and a hospital critical care consult describing a scratch to the left temple and a left cheek abrasion, and an internal EMAR note referencing a bruise on the face from a prior fall, there is no evidence in the facility’s eMAR or progress notes of skin assessments or monitoring of these changes. The administrator and a licensed nurse acknowledged that the knot on the resident’s head after a fall and subsequent facial discoloration should have been documented as skin assessments or progress notes and monitored, but the facility was unable to provide such documentation. These omissions occurred despite facility policies on Charting and Documentation, Resident Examination and Assessment, Falls – Clinical Protocol, Safety, and Abuse, Neglect, and Exploitation, which require documentation of changes in condition, monitoring after falls, and increased supervision and monitoring after abuse allegations.
Prolonged Administration of Incorrect Divalproex Dose Due to Pharmacy and Nursing Verification Failures
Penalty
Summary
Facility staff failed to ensure medications were administered according to professional standards of nursing practice for one resident. The resident had a physician’s order for Divalproex DR 250 mg, to be given as two tablets in the morning and three tablets at bedtime. Review of the MAR for May and June 2025 showed that this ordered regimen was documented as being administered daily. However, the resident’s clinical record and subsequent review revealed that the resident was actually receiving Divalproex DR 500 mg tablets instead of the ordered 250 mg tablets, resulting in administration of an incorrect dose over an extended period. On 6/20/25, the resident experienced a change in condition characterized by altered mental status, and the resident’s mother reported that the resident’s mental status and demeanor were off and requested transfer to the ER for evaluation. A nurse practitioner’s progress note dated 6/23/25, following the resident’s hospitalization, documented that the resident had been receiving the incorrect dose of Divalproex DR, specifically 500 mg daily instead of the 250 mg dose prescribed by the physician. There was no physician order in the medical record authorizing a change to Divalproex DR 500 mg. Interviews and documentation showed that the contracted pharmacy dispensed Divalproex DR 500 mg tablets on 5/18/25 instead of the ordered 250 mg strength, and that nursing staff continued to administer and sign off the medication on the MAR without identifying the discrepancy between the medication card and the physician’s order. The facility’s own medication administration policy and staff interviews indicated that nurses were expected to compare the medication label to the MAR and physician’s order, verify the right dose, and correct any mismatch, but this did not occur in this case. As a result, the resident received the wrong dose of Divalproex DR for a prolonged period before the error was identified.
Failure to Follow Ordered Urology Consultation
Penalty
Summary
The nursing facility failed to follow a physician-ordered urology consultation for a resident with urinary retention and a Foley catheter. The resident had been hospitalized for a left femur fracture, and hospital records showed the Foley catheter was removed and later reinserted after a failed trial without catheter. After discharge to the skilled nursing facility, the physician was faxed about discontinuing the Foley catheter and responded to start Alfuzosin for 4 days and then attempt a trial without the catheter. When that trial failed, the physician ordered the Foley restarted and follow-up with urology. Subsequent physician progress notes in February, March, and April documented referral to urology for further evaluation and care, and the resident’s catheter care plan addressed Foley care but did not include a plan for removing the catheter. During interviews, an LPN stated she knew the resident was expected to be seen by a urologist but it had not yet occurred and she was not sure why. The DON and ADON/IP stated the physician was expected to call the urologist to make the referral and that the urology office would then confirm the appointment time. The ADON/IP recalled discussing the urology consultation with the physician during January rounds, but confirmed she did not discuss the status of the consultation during February, March, or April rounds and had no other discussions with the physician about it. The DON acknowledged the failure to follow the January physician-ordered urology consultation was 100% on the facility.
Trusted data from CMS and state health departments
Every citation, penalty and Plan of Correction is sourced from public CMS records (latest release June 24, 2026) and official state health department websites — never guesswork.
Trusted by long-term care providers and associations.
