Antibiotic stewardship program failed to monitor use and document rationale for treatment
Summary
The facility failed to implement an antibiotic stewardship program that monitored antibiotic use, including prophylactic use, and failed to document the rationale for antibiotic treatment when infections did not meet criteria. Review of the facility’s policies showed that antibiotic use was to be monitored, that clinical criteria and culture susceptibility were to support treatment, and that all clinical infections treated with antibiotics were to be reviewed and tracked on an antibiotic surveillance form. However, interviews with the UM and IP showed that McGeer assessments were often completed by nursing staff without accuracy checks, the line list was not reviewed for accuracy, prophylactic antibiotics were not tracked, and documentation was often missing when infections did not meet criteria. Resident #56 had multiple episodes in which antibiotics were started despite no documented signs or symptoms of UTI in the record. In November 2025, the resident reported dysuria and was later started on Bactrim, but the urine culture was not provided to the surveyor and the record did not document the infection criteria used to justify treatment. Later that month, the resident was again started on Rocephin IM for five days while no UTI symptoms were documented and the culture was still pending. In December 2025 and January 2026, the resident was treated for UTI after hospitalization and again had no documented UTI signs or symptoms in the facility record, and the McGeer assessments and line list entries did not match the documentation. Resident #2 also received antibiotics without documented clinical criteria supporting UTI treatment. The resident had no documented UTI signs or symptoms when a UA C&S later grew Klebsiella pneumoniae and Enterococcus faecalis, yet Ertapenem IM was started even though neither organism was susceptible to that antibiotic. In February 2026, another urine study was obtained without documentation explaining why it was ordered, and the resident was later hospitalized with a UTI. Resident #35 had no documented UTI symptoms when a urine culture grew E. coli, yet Vantin was started even though susceptibility was not shown on the report, and the resident was already receiving Methenamine Hippurate prophylaxis. Later, when another urine culture grew ESBL E. coli, the resident remained without documented UTI symptoms while antibiotics were changed and continued despite resistance to the ordered agents. Resident #21, who had a Foley catheter and palliative care, was treated for suspected UTI based on hematuria noted in the catheter bag and a hospice recommendation for Keflex, but the record did not show a urine was ordered or a documented rationale that the infection met criteria. When hospice later recommended a repeat culture if clinically indicated after a positive urine culture, the notes did not show that the provider was informed of that recommendation. Resident #16 had no documented UTI signs or symptoms when Cipro was started while the urine culture was still pending, and when the culture later resulted with less than 10,000 mixed gram positive and negative organisms, the record did not show that the result was reported to the NP/MD. Across these cases, the facility’s documentation, culture review, susceptibility review, and tracking of antibiotic use were incomplete or inaccurate.
Penalty
Resources
Below are regulatory guidelines relevant to this citation:
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.



