Failure to Ensure Physician Review of Total Care for Ventilator‑Dependent Residents
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to ensure that the attending physician reviewed each ventilator‑dependent resident’s total program of care, including medications, treatments, wound care, and abnormal laboratory results, at required visits. For one ventilator‑dependent resident with chronic respiratory failure, cerebral infarction, and multiple pressure ulcers (including one facility‑acquired), the face sheet identified a pulmonologist as the attending physician. A wound note dated 03/27/2026 ordered daily and PRN treatments to multiple ulcers, while physician orders signed by the pulmonologist on the same date specified different treatment frequencies (twice daily for some wounds and three times daily for others). The treatment administration record showed staff followed the pulmonologist’s orders, but there was no documented evidence that the pulmonologist, as attending physician of record, reviewed or reconciled the discrepancies between the wound specialist’s recommendations and the physician’s own treatment orders. Interviews and wound documentation for this resident showed ongoing wound problems that were not addressed by the attending physician. The wound care nurse reported that the resident had multiple wounds, including a right buttock wound with purulent discharge and signs of infection, and that the wound care specialist verbally recommended treatment orders during weekly wound rounds, which the nurse transcribed into physician orders and used to update the care plan. The nurse also stated that, due to excessive drainage, wound treatments had been increased from twice daily to three times daily for at least a week. However, the wound physician assistant stated they had not recommended treatments more than once daily and indicated they would have recommended hospitalization if they had known the resident required wound care more than once daily for excessive drainage. Subsequent medical notes contained no evaluation or discussion by the attending physician of these wound care changes or the wound team’s recommendations. For a second ventilator‑dependent resident with chronic respiratory failure, hypoxic ischemic encephalopathy, and multiple unhealed, facility‑acquired stage 2 and 3 pressure ulcers, the face sheet also listed the pulmonologist as the attending physician. This resident had stagnant, unhealing sacral and buttock ulcers with ongoing serosanguinous drainage documented in multiple wound notes. Laboratory results over time showed progressively abnormal values, including elevated WBC counts and low hemoglobin and hematocrit. Nurse practitioner notes documented an infected right buttock ulcer, initiation of IV Zosyn, and subsequent discontinuation of the antibiotic before completion, as well as additional wound treatment orders (Santyl and Silvadene). Despite these findings and repeated wound notes describing stagnant, draining ulcers, there was no documented evidence that the pulmonologist, as attending physician of record, reviewed or addressed the increasingly abnormal lab values or the ongoing reports of stagnant, draining, unhealing pressure ulcers. The pulmonologist’s monthly progress note referenced the presence of pressure ulcers but did not address their unhealing status or recent lab results. Interviews with facility leadership and clinicians revealed confusion and inconsistency regarding who was actually serving as attending physician for ventilator‑dependent residents. The DON stated that nursing staff were responsible for documenting wound characteristics daily and referring any changes to the medical doctor. A nurse practitioner reported that three NPs sometimes covered episodic concerns on the ventilator unit and that wound care specialists were responsible for evaluating wounds, addressing stagnant unhealing wounds, and ordering treatments. The medical director stated that the pulmonologist was assigned as attending physician for ventilator‑dependent residents and that facility clinicians, including the medical director and pulmonologist, were responsible for ensuring wound care specialists addressed the care plan and that orders were carried out. In contrast, the pulmonologist stated they were only responsible for respiratory care, were not the attending physician for any residents, and were not responsible for non‑respiratory treatments. The administrator similarly stated the pulmonologist was not the attending physician for ventilator‑dependent residents and was unaware of why the pulmonologist was listed as attending on the residents’ face sheets. This lack of clarity and failure to ensure that an attending physician reviewed and coordinated the residents’ total care programs led to the cited deficiency under 10 NYCRR 415.15(b)(2)(iii).
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.
