Failure to Follow Wound Care Orders and Communicate Culture Results for Infected Stage 4 Sacral Ulcer
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to ensure wound care services met professional standards for a resident with a Stage 4 sacral pressure ulcer and known osteomyelitis. The resident was admitted with multiple serious conditions including multiple sclerosis, paraplegia, diabetes, and osteomyelitis of the vertebra, sacral, and sacrococcygeal regions, and had multiple pressure ulcers documented on the care plan. Facility policy required licensed nurses to perform admission, readmission, weekly, and as-needed skin assessments, notify the attending physician and IDT of wounds that worsened or did not respond to treatment, obtain and monitor labs and diagnostics as ordered, and document wound status and treatment effectiveness at least weekly. Despite these policies, the facility did not consistently follow physician orders, did not complete required weekly wound documentation, and did not ensure that diagnostic results and wound status were communicated to appropriate providers. On 01/13/26, the wound care provider assessed the resident’s Stage 4 sacral ulcer, documented poor healing potential, moderate exudate, signs of clinical infection, and recommended continuing current treatment. On 01/20/26, the provider reassessed the sacral wound, noting it had increased in size, had moderate serosanguinous exudate exacerbated by infection, and again documented one or more signs of clinical infection. The provider performed fluorescence imaging, recommended adding mupirocin 2% topical twice daily, and ordered a deep wound culture. However, review of physician orders, the MAR, and the TAR from 01/20/26 through 01/29/26 showed no order for mupirocin and no documentation that mupirocin was applied. Interviews later revealed conflicting accounts: the regional nurse stated a nurse practitioner had ordered mupirocin on 01/20/26, while the NP denied ever seeing the wounds or ordering mupirocin. The regional wound nurse indicated that if the order was written in the wound provider’s note, the facility wound nurse should have checked the report the next day and followed through, but this did not occur. A wound culture of the sacral tissue collected on 01/20/26 and reported on 01/23/26 identified multiple pathogens, listed first-line and alternative systemic antibiotic options, and included mupirocin 2% ointment as an additional option. A handwritten note on the report stated "will see during next rounds" with initials, but the culture results were not entered into the resident’s medical record between 01/21/26 and 01/30/26, and there was no documentation that the primary physician, hospice, or IDT were notified of the culture findings. The DON reported she could not find culture or biopsy results in the record, and the wound nurse stated she did not obtain the culture results until surveyors asked questions, at which point she found the wound provider’s notes in the electronic record. The hospice RN, who assumed wound care on 01/26/26 based on measurements and treatment orders provided by the facility LPN, was not informed that a culture or biopsy had been done and stated that, had the culture report been shared, hospice would have consulted their physician about starting antibiotics. During the period from 01/21/26 through 01/30/26, there was no further documentation of the sacral wound in the resident’s medical record, despite facility policy requiring at least weekly wound documentation and documentation of changes in skin condition. The wound care provider did not return the week of 01/26/26 due to weather, and the LPN did not notify the primary physician or responsible party of the canceled visit or any change in wound status. The biopsy of the sacrum collected on 01/20/26, later reported on 02/04/26, confirmed acute and chronic osteomyelitis, but this result was not present in the facility record during the relevant period and was not communicated to hospice. On 01/30/26, an order for mupirocin 2% to the sacrum with daily dressing changes was finally entered, but the TAR showed the resident was already in the hospital on those dates. Hospital lab results from 01/30/26 documented markedly elevated WBC and neutrophil counts and an elevated lactate level consistent with sepsis, and the family reported the resident required ICU admission, IV antibiotics, and multiple surgeries for the infected sacral ulcer. Facility leadership, including the administrator and medical director, stated they would have expected all lab results, cultures, biopsies, and wound care provider orders to be reviewed, communicated, and followed, but this did not occur in this case.
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.
A resident with an artificial knee joint and muscle weakness, receiving IV Ampicillin for cellulitis, did not receive IV antibiotic doses at the times ordered by the physician. Facility policy required medications to be administered according to the 5 rights, including correct timing, and the resident’s care plan called for IV therapy as ordered. Surveyors observed that a scheduled midday IV dose had not been given more than an hour after the scheduled time, and documentation showed that multiple midnight doses were also administered late. The DON acknowledged that nurses may delay or late-document medications due to competing care priorities, despite an expectation for timely administration.
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 Administer IV Antibiotic as Ordered and on Time
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure that medication services met professional standards of quality for a resident receiving IV antibiotic therapy. Facility policy on medication administration required medications to be given as prescribed and in accordance with the 5 rights of medication administration, including administration within the time frame specified by the physician’s order. The resident had diagnoses including a right artificial knee joint and muscle weakness and had a physician’s order for IV Ampicillin 2 grams every 6 hours for cellulitis, scheduled at 12:00 AM, 6:00 AM, 12:00 PM, and 6:00 PM daily. The resident’s care plan identified a risk of complications related to IV therapy for infection, with an intervention for IV therapy as ordered. On one surveyor observation and resident interview, the resident reported not having received the scheduled 12:00 PM IV dose, and the IV antibiotic had still not been administered by 1:13 PM. A nursing progress note later documented that the 12:00 PM dose on that date was given past the administration time at 1:20 PM and marked late on the MAR. Review of the MAR also showed two additional late administrations of the 12:00 AM IV Ampicillin dose on other dates, documented as given at 2:20 AM and 1:56 AM instead of at the scheduled time. The DON stated that nurses may start medication administration but be diverted by other priorities or emergent situations and then sign completion later, and that a progress note should be entered if a medication is administered late or signed late, while also stating the expectation that medications are administered timely and as ordered.
Plan Of Correction
1. Facility cannot correct late administration of IV medication administration for resident identifier #39 during survey. Dr. was notified with no new orders for resident #39. 2. Audit completed, no other residents currently ordered IV medication 3. Education to licensed staff on IV medication administration to include timely administration and proper documentation. 4. Audit of all residents ordered an IV medication will be audited 3 times a week on random administration times for 1 month and then 2 times a week on all residents ordered IV medications for 1 month and then move audit to 1X a week on all residents ordered IV medication for 1 month. Audits will be brought to QAPI for further recommendations for quality assurance and performance improvement.
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.