Failure to Review Critical Glucose Result Before Ordering Dextrose-Containing IV Fluids
Summary
The deficiency involves the failure of the attending provider to review and act upon critical laboratory results before ordering and continuing IV fluids containing dextrose. A resident with psychotic disorder with delusions, delirium, Alzheimer's disease, stroke, and mood disorder was noted by a CNA as "wasn't herself" on the morning of 12/8/25. Nurse B contacted the on-call PA, who ordered STAT labs including a CBC and CMP. Labs drawn that morning and reported at 12:37 PM showed a critically high blood glucose level of 732 (normal 70–99). Nurse B later documented at 3:24 PM that they reviewed the lab results with the PA while the PA was in the building, and that new orders were received for D5% 0.45% NS at 125 ml/hr for 3 liters, with an IV started but then pulled out by the resident. The PA’s progress note for 12/8/25 documented an assessment of acute kidney injury and a plan to give 2 liters of IV fluid continuous, but did not document review of the STAT labs or specify the type of IV fluid. Subsequent nursing notes show that on the afternoon of 12/8/25 the PA called back with new orders for hypodermoclysis, which was initiated. On 12/9/25, Nurse G documented placement of a new PIV and that the resident was hooked up to IV fluids as ordered, specifically D5% 0.45% NS per the PA’s prior order. Nurse H documented an order clarification for D5% 0.45% NS infusing at 125 cc/hr times 2 liters, and Nurse I documented that the resident had a peripheral IV in the right forearm with D5% 0.45% NS infusing at 125 cc, bag 2 of 2. In the early hours of 12/10/25, Nurse C documented that the resident was resting in bed with D5% 0.45% NS infusing via right arm PIV, and that the resident was hard to arouse. A blood sugar check at that time read "Hi" on the glucometer, and the on-call NP was contacted. New orders were received to give 12 units of Lispro insulin, recheck in 2 hours, and repeat 12 units if the blood sugar still read "Hi," with instructions to call back if it remained "Hi" after the second dose. Subsequent notes by Nurse C documented repeated "Hi" blood sugar readings, administration of Lispro insulin, the resident being lethargic and difficult to arouse, and that an ambulance was called for transfer to the hospital. Hospital records indicated the chief complaint was high blood sugar and altered mental status, and EMS reported the patient was receiving D5 fluid hydration on their arrival. In an interview, the PA stated they were not aware of the glucose level of 732 prior to ordering D5% 0.45% NS, acknowledged they did not document lab review, and stated they would not have ordered IV fluid with dextrose if they had known. The DON indicated that the PA’s order for D5% 0.45% NS could have been questioned by the nurse who received the critical glucose result and implemented the order. The facility’s policy requires providers to review laboratory tests during visits and analyze abnormal results with documented rationale and interventions.
Penalty
Resources
Below are regulatory guidelines relevant to this citation:
A physician’s post-hospitalization progress note for a resident who had recently been treated for severe sepsis, severe hypernatremia, constipation, and had a PEG tube placed failed to document the hospitalization, the reasons for admission, the hospital diagnoses, or the new PEG and tube-feeding status. Instead, the note contained a general review of systems and physical exam with an assessment of CVA and constipation, without reflecting the recent acute conditions or significant change in nutritional route.
A resident with a history of stroke-related pain had an order entered by nursing for Tramadol 50 mg PO BID for moderate pain, but the medication was not administered for four consecutive days because the physician did not sign the controlled-substance order until several days after it was written. During this time, the resident reported ongoing, typical post-stroke pain and requested to resume Tramadol, which had previously been effective. The DON and NP confirmed that controlled medications require a physician’s signature before pharmacy dispensing, and the facility’s own medication administration policy called for safe, timely administration and appropriate handling of missed or delayed medications, which did not occur in this case.
The facility failed to ensure physician orders were reviewed and signed at least every 60 days for three residents, including individuals with dementia, severe protein calorie malnutrition, chronic pulmonary disease, and a history of TIA who required assistance with ADLs and transfers per MD orders. All three were on a 60‑day review schedule, yet the last signed orders for two residents dated back several months, and the facility could not determine when the third resident’s orders were last signed. The DNS and a corporate RN acknowledged that orders should be signed every 60 days, noted that the MD was new to electronic signatures and had not signed the affected orders, and were unable to identify a facility process or provide a policy to ensure timely physician signatures.
The facility failed to ensure that a physician consistently documented required visit notes, including review of the total program of care, for four residents under one physician’s care. Over extended periods, the EHR contained only sporadic or no physician progress notes for these residents, despite the physician reporting that he visited them every other month and was in the building weekly. During the same time, multiple visits by an NP and a PA were documented. In interviews, the DON confirmed the physician’s regular presence but could not explain the missing notes, and the physician acknowledged that his notes were not in the records and stated he must not have entered them. The Administrator reported there was no policy addressing clinical record accuracy or ensuring that physicians documented a note after each visit.
The facility failed to ensure the attending physician documented required monthly visits with signed and dated progress notes for four residents. Records for residents with diagnoses including dementia, bipolar disorder, functional quadriplegia, conversion disorder, GERD, anxiety, and HTN showed extended gaps with no physician progress notes, and the NHA confirmed the missing documentation during interview.
A resident's clinical record lacked evidence of the last time the physician reviewed, signed, and dated the resident's orders. The DON confirmed the missing physician signature documentation and stated that orders should be reviewed and signed at required physician visits, including on admission and at set intervals thereafter. The resident had diagnoses including GI hemorrhage, HTN, and TIA/cerebral infraction.
Incomplete Post-Hospitalization Physician Documentation After Sepsis and PEG Placement
Penalty
Summary
A physician failed to complete a thorough post-hospitalization examination and progress note for a resident following readmission from the hospital. The resident, an elderly female long-term resident with a history of stroke with right-sided paralysis, aphasia, oropharyngeal dysphagia, behavioral disturbance, seizures, urinary and bowel incontinence, and severe cognitive impairment (BIMS 99), had been hospitalized for altered mental status and returned to the facility after treatment. The hospital discharge summary documented severe sepsis due to complicated UTI, severe hypernatremia likely due to poor oral intake and dehydration, combative behavior, severe constipation, an incidental pelvic mass requiring further outpatient MRI evaluation, and placement of a PEG tube for nutrition. On the post-hospitalization visit dated 02/17/26, the attending physician’s progress note documented a general review of systems and physical exam, including stable vital signs, normal HEENT, cardiovascular, respiratory, abdominal, and extremity findings, and an assessment and plan listing CVA with supportive care and constipation managed on the current regimen. However, the note did not indicate that the resident had been recently hospitalized, did not state the reasons for hospitalization, hospital course, or diagnoses, and did not mention that a PEG tube had been surgically inserted and that the resident would now be receiving tube feedings for nutrition. The surveyors determined that the physician’s documentation did not reflect the resident’s current health status on return to the facility, as required.
Failure to Provide Ordered Narcotic Pain Medication Due to Unsigned Physician Order
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to ensure a resident received physician-ordered narcotic pain medication as prescribed. A resident admitted with diagnoses including muscle weakness had a physician order for Tramadol 50 mg by mouth twice daily for moderate pain, with an order date of 4/3/26 at 3:15 p.m. The Medication Administration Record for 4/1/26 through 4/30/26 showed that Tramadol was not documented as administered from the evening of 4/3/26 through 4/7/26. The facility’s Medication Administration Policy required safe, accurate, and timely medication administration, including assessment and documentation of missed or delayed medications and adherence to physician orders, but the ordered Tramadol was not provided during this period. Record review showed that the Tramadol order was entered by nursing on 4/3/26, and the resident later reported to the nurse practitioner on 4/7/26 that they were having pain all over due to a prior stroke, that this pain was typical, and that they had taken Tramadol in the past with good effect and wanted to resume it. The nurse practitioner documented a trial of Tramadol 50 mg twice daily if approved by the physician. The DON stated there was an order for Tramadol on 4/3/26 that was not signed by the physician until 4/7/26, and that the medication could not be sent from the pharmacy until after the physician signed the order. The nurse practitioner confirmed that prescriptions for controlled medications such as Tramadol must be signed by the physician and that the medication could not be dispensed until the physician’s signature was obtained. As a result, the resident did not receive the ordered Tramadol for four consecutive days.
Failure to Obtain Timely Physician Signatures on 60‑Day Order Reviews
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to ensure that physician or designee orders were reviewed and renewed at least every 60 days for three residents. For one resident with dementia and delusional disorders, a quarterly MDS showed moderate cognitive impairment and a need for assistance with ADLs, while the care plan identified an alteration in ADL function with interventions to assist as needed. This resident was on a 60‑day schedule for review and renewal of physician orders, but the last signed orders were dated September 2025, and there were no signed physician orders from October 2025 through February 2026, either on paper or electronically. A second resident with severe protein calorie malnutrition, chronic pulmonary disease, and a history of transient ischemic attack had a quarterly MDS indicating no cognitive impairment but a need for assistance with ADLs, and a care plan directing assistance with ADLs and transfers per MD orders. This resident was also on a 60‑day schedule, yet the last signed orders were dated September 2025, with no signed orders from October 2025 through February 2026. A third resident with dementia, severe cognitive impairment, and dependence in ADLs had a care plan noting altered ADLs and interventions to assist as needed and transfer per MD orders; this resident was likewise on a 60‑day schedule, but the facility could not identify when the orders were last signed, and they were not signed in September 2025. Interviews with the DNS and a corporate RN confirmed that orders should be signed at least every 60 days, that the physician was new to electronic signatures and had not signed the orders for these residents, and that there was no identified facility process to ensure timely signing of orders. The facility did not provide a policy related to physician orders or electronic signatures when requested.
Failure to Ensure Physician Visit Documentation in Clinical Records
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure that a physician reviewed residents’ total programs of care and documented visit notes, including progress notes and orders, at each required visit for four of five sampled residents under the care of one physician. For one resident with hypertension encephalopathy, stroke, anxiety disorder, and other conditions, the electronic record showed only two visit notes from the primary physician over an approximately ten‑month period, despite the physician reporting that he saw the resident every other month. During that same timeframe, multiple visit notes were documented by NPs and a PA, but there were no additional physician notes between early June 2025 and late April 2026. For a second resident with pneumonia, dysphagia, anemia, atrial fibrillation, hypertension, diabetes, and severely impaired cognition, record review from mid‑January to late April 2026 revealed no physician visit notes from the primary physician, although numerous visit notes were entered by a PA. A third resident with lymphedema, hypertension, hyperlipidemia, COPD, cellulitis, and moderately impaired cognition had no physician visit notes from admission through late April 2026, while NPs and a PA documented several visits during that period. A fourth resident with anxiety disorder, hyperlipidemia, bipolar disorder, neuromuscular bladder dysfunction, and fibromyalgia likewise had no physician visit notes from admission through late April 2026, despite multiple NP and PA visit notes. In interviews, the DON stated that the physician was in the facility weekly to see his residents and could not explain the absence of physician progress notes for the affected residents. The physician confirmed he was in the facility weekly, that he alternated visits with his NP and PA, and that he believed he had seen all four residents numerous times, including in February 2026, but acknowledged that his notes were not present in the electronic records and stated he “must not have put a note” in the records. The Administrator reported that she checked the electronic records after physician visits but noted that providers often delayed entering notes and also stated there was no facility policy on accuracy of clinical records or ensuring that physicians wrote a note after each visit. The report states that this deficient practice could place residents at risk for physician‑identified concerns, inadequate monitoring of medical conditions, and miscommunication with other health care providers.
Missing Physician Progress Notes for Required Visits
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure that the attending physician documented required monthly visits by writing, signing, and dating a progress note for each visit for four of 14 residents reviewed. Facility policy stated that attending physicians were to visit residents once monthly and document a progress note related to the visit. Review of clinical records showed that Resident R1, who had diagnoses including dementia, Wernicke encephalopathy, and high blood pressure, had physician progress notes dated and signed on several dates, but the record lacked evidence of any physician progress notes between 10/23/24 and 7/16/25, a nine-month period. Resident R2, with diagnoses including bipolar disorder, obstructive and reflux uropathy, and functional quadriplegia, had a last physician progress note dated and signed on 9/28/25, with no evidence of any physician progress notes between that date and 4/23/26. Resident R6, diagnosed with conversion disorder, GERD, and high blood pressure, also had no physician progress notes between 9/18/25 and 4/23/26. Resident R30, with diagnoses including dementia, anxiety, and high blood pressure, had no physician progress notes between 6/17/25 and 4/23/26. During interview, the Nursing Home Administrator confirmed that the records for these residents lacked the required physician progress notes at the time of review.
Physician Orders Not Signed and Dated
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure that the physician signed and dated all orders during visits for one resident, R94. Facility policy stated that the attending physician would visit residents in a timely fashion consistent with applicable state and federal requirements, and that physician orders and progress notes would be maintained in accordance with OBRA regulations and facility policy. R94 was admitted on 2/17/26 with diagnoses including gastrointestinal hemorrhage, hypertension, and transient ischemic attack/cerebral infraction. Review of R94's clinical record found no evidence of the last time the physician reviewed, signed, and dated the resident's physician orders. During interview, the DON confirmed that the physician orders for R94 lacked evidence of physician review and signature, and stated that physician orders should be reviewed and signed with every physician visit on admission, then every 30 days for the first 90 days, then every 60 days.
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.
