Failure to Investigate Delayed ER Transfer After Physician Order and Resident Death
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to thoroughly investigate an unexpected resident death and to rule out neglect after a physician’s order for immediate transfer to the ER was not followed. A resident with systolic congestive heart failure, atrial fibrillation, and hypertension had a recent MDS showing a BIMS score of 11, indicating moderate cognitive impairment. On the morning in question, nursing documentation showed the resident had loose, foul-smelling dark stools and was encouraged to increase oral hydration, with SpO2 at 95% on 2 L O2 via nasal cannula. At 8:54 AM, the resident’s BP was documented at 73/47 mm Hg, well below normal. A physician progress note, entered later as a late entry, recorded that at 9:33 AM the physician gave a verbal order to nursing (to the ADON) to send the resident to the ER due to low BP. Subsequent nursing notes documented that during morning rounds the resident was awake, responsive but disoriented, with BP 71/47, HR 64, temp 97.7°F, RR 18, and SpO2 95% on 2 L O2. Nursing staff notified the ADON, who ordered STAT labs, X‑ray, and urinalysis and indicated she would contact the physician. A provider progress note by the ADON, entered as a late entry, stated that she was initially unable to reach the physician, that the DON was immediately notified, and that the physician gave an order to send the resident out at 9:59 AM, after which 911 was activated. However, the facility’s order audit report showed a telephone order at 9:20 AM to send the resident to the ER for emergency transfer due to change in condition, contradicting the ADON’s late entry note about the timing and sequence of events. The physician later stated she had instructed the ADON around 9:30 AM to call 911 and send the resident to the ER and that she assumed the resident had already left when she arrived for rounds at 10:00 AM. Interviews with staff revealed conflicting accounts and suggested a delay in carrying out the physician’s order to transfer the resident. The physician reported that at about 10:10 AM she was informed by an LPN that the resident was still in the facility with a BP of 64/34 mm Hg and that staff told her they were told to wait until she came in. The physician stated that the ADON told her they were waiting for labs to be drawn before calling 911, which the physician considered inappropriate for the resident’s condition. Nursing notes documented that when the physician arrived, the resident’s BP was 63/36, SpO2 could not be obtained, and the physician again ordered transfer to the ER, after which 911 was called and the resident was transported and later expired in the hospital that day. The DON stated she was not made aware of the situation until after the resident’s death, despite the ADON’s late entry note claiming the DON had been notified, and that the ADON resigned after writing the back‑dated note. The administrator provided an undated, untitled, one‑page “investigation” summary and conclusion with no resident name, incident date, or attached statements, which did not reflect the detailed events, conflicting timelines, or staff interviews described elsewhere in the record. This minimal document did not meet the facility’s own Abuse Investigation and Reporting and Reportable Events policies, which require prompt, thorough investigations, interviews, medical record review, and root cause analysis for serious events. The facility’s policies required that all reports of suspected neglect and serious reportable events be promptly identified, thoroughly investigated, and documented, including interviews of involved staff and witnesses, review of the medical record and care plans, evaluation of contributing factors, and root cause analysis for serious events. The DON reported that corporate was made aware and conducted an investigation but that she herself was not interviewed. The administrator acknowledged there appeared to have been a delay in sending the resident to the ER and attributed the situation in part to interpersonal conflict between two ADONs. The only investigation document produced consisted of a brief, generic summary and conclusion describing hypotension with stable heart rate and oxygen saturation, ongoing monitoring, physician communication, and eventual transfer to the ER, without specific identification of the resident, the date, the sequence of orders and actions, or any analysis of the delay or conflicting documentation. As a result, the surveyors determined that the facility failed to thoroughly investigate the unexpected death and the apparent failure to promptly follow a physician’s order for emergency transfer, and therefore failed to rule out neglect as required by facility policy and regulation.
Penalty
Resources
Below are regulatory guidelines relevant to this citation:
Failure to Investigate Allegation of Verbal Abuse: A volunteer reported that an activities staff member yelled at a resident during bingo and then yelled at the volunteer when she intervened. Interviews with the resident and volunteer confirmed the staff member spoke rudely and loudly to the resident, and the regional clinical director confirmed there was no evidence the verbal abuse allegation was reported or investigated.
Staff failed to remove alleged perpetrators from duty and fully investigate verbal abuse during two separate abuse allegations involving a resident and two CNAs. In the first event, a resident reported being intentionally pushed into a siderail during in-bed care, while multiple other residents described the same CNA as rough and having a bad attitude; despite this, the CNA completed the shift and worked additional days while the abuse investigation was open. In the second event, the same resident alleged that another CNA pushed his leg and made a profane, threatening statement, but the facility’s investigation did not address the verbal abuse allegation, and that CNA was also allowed to finish the shift and work subsequent days during the investigation. Timecard records and interviews with the administrator and DON confirmed that alleged perpetrators continued working with unrestricted access to residents while abuse allegations were under investigation, leading surveyors to identify immediate jeopardy and substandard quality of care.
The facility failed to investigate multiple major injuries and an allegation of sexual abuse involving three residents with severe cognitive impairment and significant medical conditions. One resident, dependent for transfers, was found on the floor after attempting to get out of bed and was later found to have bilateral femur fractures. Another resident with Parkinson’s disease was found on the floor after a wheelchair alarm sounded and was later diagnosed with a femur fracture following complaints of leg pain. A third resident, described as very independent, triggered a bed alarm and was found kneeling by a recliner, later requiring ORIF for fractures of the right 4th and 5th metacarpals. In each case, the ADM acknowledged awareness of the fractures, stated there was no belief of neglect or abuse, and confirmed that no investigation into the cause of the injuries or the alleged abuse was initiated or documented.
A resident with moderately impaired cognition and a preferred language other than English developed bilateral wrist discoloration and swelling during ADL care when a CNA reported the resident was resisting and bumped her wrists on a wheelchair. Documentation noted the injury, assessment, and treatment, but the care plan was not updated. A family member reported that the resident said staff grabbed her hand and tried to force care, and this was reported to nursing and administration. Despite this allegation, the facility did not conduct a full abuse investigation per its policy: the Social Service Director did not interview the resident or other cognitively intact residents or complete a trauma assessment, and the Administrator/DON confirmed that only the involved CNA and RN were interviewed before concluding no abuse occurred.
A resident with cognitive impairment and a history of cerebral infarction, identified as at risk for abuse, reported to an LPN that another resident punched them in the arm and showed a bruise, while other staff and the other resident described only a collision with a wheelchair and denied any hitting. The Administrator was unaware that an abuse allegation had been made, and the DON’s investigation focused on the bruise without obtaining statements from the reporting resident or the LPN, and without completing initial or final reports or determining the cause of the bruise or whether abuse occurred, in contrast to the facility’s abuse policy requiring prompt and thorough investigation of all abuse reports.
The facility failed to report the results of an abuse allegation investigation within the required five working days. An SBAR note documented that two residents in the lobby began cussing at each other while one was preparing to leave for dialysis, and that one resident punched the other on the body as she was on the gurney leaving. The Administrator confirmed that while the initial SOC 341 was sent on the date of the incident, the 5-day summary of the investigation was not sent to the state agency until several days later, exceeding the timeframe required by the facility’s abuse reporting policy.
Failure to Investigate Allegation of Verbal Abuse
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure an allegation of verbal abuse was thoroughly investigated for resident #55. A complaint/grievance form documented that a volunteer reported activities staff member #1 yelled at resident #55 during bingo after the resident called out bingo, and the volunteer stated the staff member continued yelling at the resident and then yelled at the volunteer when she intervened. The grievance also noted that two residents reported the activities staff member yelled at them all the time and spoke to them the same way during bingo. Interviews confirmed the incident involved rude and loud comments by the activities staff member toward resident #55 during bingo, including telling the resident to stop interrupting and making a smart-ass remark. Resident #55 stated the interaction upset him/her and that the staff member was later terminated. A volunteer corroborated hearing the staff member speak loudly and rudely to the resident and then yell at the volunteer. Review of the state survey agency incident database showed no evidence the allegation was reported, and the regional clinical director confirmed the facility had no evidence the verbal abuse allegation was investigated.
Failure to Remove Alleged Abusers and Investigate Verbal Abuse During Abuse Allegations
Penalty
Summary
Facility staff failed to protect residents during investigations of two separate abuse allegations made by one resident against two CNAs and failed to investigate an allegation of verbal abuse. In the first incident, the resident alleged that a CNA pushed him over "so the fuxx hard" while cleaning him on the evening shift that his head hit the siderail and that it was done on purpose. The resident contacted 911 the evening of the incident and police responded to the facility, indicating staff were aware of the allegation that same evening. The DON assessed the resident with no injury noted. Staff interviews documented that the resident became verbally and physically abusive during care, scratched staff, and that his head "tapped" the rail but not hard or on purpose. The resident, however, told another CNA that the aide had rolled him too hard, his eye hit the rail, and his legs came out of the bed, and he repeated similar details to the DON, stating the aide came in with an attitude and rolled him extra hard. As part of the facility’s internal investigation of the first incident, 12 residents were interviewed about the CNA’s care. Several residents reported that the CNA was rough, pulled them over hard, almost threw them on the floor when turning them in bed, had a bad attitude, and one resident did not want the CNA in her room. Despite these concerns and the resident’s allegation of being intentionally pushed, the CNA was allowed to complete her shift and to work subsequent scheduled shifts while the investigation was ongoing. Timecard records showed that the CNA worked the night of the incident and additional shifts on the following days and was paid for those hours. Although a suspension notice was later dated and an involuntary termination recorded, the contemporaneous documentation and time records demonstrated that the CNA remained in the building and had access to residents during the open abuse investigation. In the second incident, the same resident alleged that another CNA verbally and physically abused him during ADL care. The resident reported that the CNA pushed his leg down harder and stated, "I want to fuck with you now," and he called 911 to report that a staff member pushed his leg. Four staff members present in the room provided statements that no one harmed him, describing that his leg was lifted to remove a pillow and dirty sheets and then set down softly, after which he began yelling, accusing the CNA of cracking his leg and hip, cursing staff, and digging his fingernails into a staff member’s arm. Police interviewed staff and concluded that no harm was done to the resident. The facility’s investigation included resident safety interviews, one of which noted a resident did not feel safe on certain shifts due to staff. However, the verbal abuse allegation (the reported statement "I want to fuck with you now") was not addressed in the facility’s investigation, and the CNA involved was allowed to complete her shift and work additional scheduled days while the investigation was in progress. The administrator later acknowledged that she did not instruct the CNA to go home and that everyone "stayed kinda together" during the investigation. These actions and inactions resulted in surveyors identifying immediate jeopardy and substandard quality of care due to residents not being protected from alleged perpetrators during abuse investigations.
Failure to Investigate Major Injuries and Alleged Abuse
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to initiate and document investigations into multiple major injuries and an allegation of sexual abuse, as required for all alleged violations involving abuse and injuries of unknown source. For one resident with hemiplegia, hemiparesis, and severely impaired cognition (BIMS score of 6), nursing notes documented that his roommate activated the call bell after the resident fell while attempting to get out of bed by himself. He was found on the floor between his bed and the window, reported knee pain with a popping sensation, and was sent to the ER. On return from the hospital, he was noted to have bilateral femur fractures, immobilizing braces on both legs, and was placed on comfort care due to bones not being strong enough for surgery. The Administrator acknowledged awareness of the bilateral femur fractures, stated he did not believe neglect or abuse caused the injury, and confirmed he did not investigate the cause of this major injury. Another resident with Parkinson’s disease and a BIMS score of 0 (rarely/never understood) was documented in an incident note as sitting in a wheelchair in the dining room when his alarm sounded; he was found supine on the floor, denied hitting his head or injury, and was assisted back into the chair with no signs of injury noted. Several days later, nursing notes recorded that CNAs reported the resident complaining of left leg pain when getting him out of bed. On assessment, he had tenderness and wincing with movement of the left leg but was able to bear weight. The MD was notified, an x-ray was ordered, and the resident was transported for imaging, which revealed a femur fracture for which surgery was not pursued. The Administrator stated he was aware of the femur fracture, did not feel neglect or abuse caused the major injury, and did not investigate the cause of the injury. A third resident with COPD, scoliosis, and severely impaired cognition (BIMS score of 7) had an incident note documenting that her bed alarm sounded and staff found her in a kneeling position leaning into her recliner after she attempted to get up from bed to go to the bathroom, stating her walker “didn't go where she was going.” She complained of left knee, left elbow, and right pinky pain, with no visible injury except an abrasion on the right ring finger. A later nursing note documented that she underwent ORIF of fractures of the right fourth and fifth metacarpals at a hospital and returned from surgery the same day. The Administrator reported being aware of the fractures, described the resident as very independent and wanting to wander the facility, stated he did not feel neglect or abuse caused the major injury, and confirmed he did not investigate the cause of the injury. Across these three residents, the facility did not initiate or document investigations into the causes of the major injuries or the related allegation of sexual abuse, nor did it determine causation or responsible parties as required.
Failure to Investigate Allegation of Abuse After Resident Wrist Injury
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to investigate an allegation of potential abuse after a resident sustained bilateral wrist injuries during ADL care by a CNA. The resident, who had moderately impaired cognition with a BIMS score of 11 and whose preferred language was Korean, was admitted with altered mental status. On the date of the incident, an incident report documented that the CNA informed an RN that the resident developed discoloration and swelling of both wrists during clothing changes when the resident was resisting care and bumped her wrists against the wheelchair during transfer. A nurse’s note recorded similar information, stating that the resident developed bilateral wrist discoloration and swelling after an accident during clothing changes while the resident was resisting, and that ice was applied and an x-ray was ordered to rule out fracture. The resident’s care plan, which addressed discoloration, was not updated after the wrist injuries occurred. The facility did not conduct a comprehensive abuse investigation as required by its policy. The CEO acknowledged there was no investigation for the incident and only produced a grievance document. A family member reported that the resident told her staff grabbed her hand and tried to force her when she refused to be changed, and that this allegation was reported to a nurse and the prior Administrator. The Social Service Director stated that, in abuse investigations, she typically interviews the resident and five other cognitively intact residents and completes a trauma assessment, but she did not interview this resident, did not interview other residents, and did not complete a trauma assessment related to this incident. She reported that the facility held a meeting and determined abuse did not occur but was unsure how that conclusion was reached. The Administrator, who was the DON at the time, stated that after allegations of abuse they immediately start an investigation, but in this case they only interviewed the involved CNA and RN and relied on the CNA’s denial of abuse and explanation that the injury occurred during ADL care, without interviewing the resident, witnesses, or others as required by the facility’s abuse, neglect, and exploitation policy.
Failure to Thoroughly Investigate Resident’s Abuse Allegation and Unexplained Bruise
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to thoroughly investigate an allegation of abuse related to a resident with a history of cerebral infarction who was moderately cognitively impaired and used a wheelchair. The resident’s care plan identified them as being at risk for abuse and neglect. The resident reported to an LPN that another resident had punched them in the arm while they were going down the hall, and showed the LPN a light purple circular bruise on the back of the left arm, approximately two inches in diameter. The LPN notified the Administrator of the resident’s report. Other staff and the alleged perpetrator resident provided written and verbal statements describing an interaction in which the resident in question ran into the other resident’s wheelchair, and they denied seeing or performing any hitting. Despite the allegation of being hit and the presence of a bruise, the facility’s investigation did not include a statement from the resident who alleged the abuse or from the LPN who initially received the report. The Administrator stated she was not aware that the resident had made an abuse allegation and believed they were only investigating a bruise. The DON stated that she conducted interviews regarding the bruise but did not obtain a statement from the resident and acknowledged she probably should have. The investigation file lacked initial or final reports, did not determine the cause of the bruise, and did not reach a conclusion about whether the alleged abuse occurred, contrary to the facility’s abuse policy that requires immediate protection of residents and prompt, aggressive investigation of all reports and allegations of abuse.
Failure to Timely Report Abuse Investigation Results
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure the results of an abuse allegation investigation were reported to the state agency within the required five working days. Resident 1, who had diagnoses including a right shoulder fracture and end-stage renal failure, was involved in an altercation documented in an SBAR note dated 4/13/26, which stated that the resident and her roommate were in the lobby, began cussing at each other while the roommate was preparing to leave for dialysis, and that when Resident 1 was on the gurney leaving, the roommate punched Resident 1 on the body. The Administrator confirmed that the initial SOC 341 report was sent on 4/13/26, but the 5-day summary of the abuse allegation investigation was not sent to CDPH until 4/21/26. This reporting timeframe did not comply with the facility’s policy titled “Reporting Alleged Violations of Abuse, Neglect, Exploitation or Mistreatment,” which requires that results of all investigations of alleged violations be reported within five working days of the incident. The deficiency centers on the delay between the incident date and the submission of the 5-day investigation summary, as verified through interview with the Administrator and review of the email to CDPH, demonstrating that the facility did not adhere to its own policy and the expected reporting timeframe for abuse investigation results.
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.