Apopka Health And Rehabilitation Center
Inspection history, citations, penalties and survey trends for this long-term care facility in Apopka, Florida.
- Location
- 2001 Alston Bay Blvd, Apopka, Florida 32703
- CMS Provider Number
- 106144
- Inspections on file
- 21
- Latest survey
- January 29, 2026
- Citations (last 12 mo.)
- 1
Citation history
Health deficiencies cited at Apopka Health And Rehabilitation Center during CMS and state inspections, most recent first.
A resident with dementia and a court determination of total incapacity had documented upper dentures and a court-appointed legal guardian whose contact information was on file. The resident’s record indicated use of dentures or partials, yet the resident was later observed in the dining room without dentures, and staff believed the dentures had been missing for several weeks. The legal guardian reported not being informed that the dentures were missing, and the ED acknowledged the guardian was not notified because dentures often go missing and later reappear, despite a facility policy requiring notification of the resident’s representative when an incapacitated resident experiences changes requiring decisions.
The facility failed to notify the Ombudsman of a resident's transfer/discharge to the hospital. The resident, with multiple complex medical conditions, was hospitalized and readmitted, but the required notice was not found in records or submitted to the Ombudsman. The SSD acknowledged the missing documentation, and the facility could not provide a transmission log for February discharges, affecting fifteen residents.
The facility failed to ensure accurate medical records and proper splint application for two residents. One resident's splint was not consistently applied as per physician's orders, and there was confusion among staff about the task. Another resident's EMR contained progress notes for a different resident, indicating a lack of systematic organization and oversight.
A facility failed to ensure an effective discharge planning process for a resident with multiple diagnoses, leading to a delay in necessary care and services post-discharge. The resident was discharged without required Home Health Care (HHC) services and medical equipment, forcing the resident's son to arrange for these services himself. Facility staff acknowledged the communication breakdown and lack of proper follow-up.
The facility failed to promote the right to self-administer medication for two residents. One resident with moderate cognitive impairment was using Biofreeze without a physician's order or assessment, while another cognitively intact resident was using eye drops without proper authorization. The facility did not follow its policy on assessing residents' ability to self-administer medications.
A resident with multiple health conditions had a care plan indicating a preference for showers on specific days and times, but the facility scheduled her showers on different days and times, leading to her refusal of care. Staff confirmed the discrepancy, and the facility's policy on resident rights was not followed.
A facility failed to honor a resident's DNRO due to a discrepancy in records and lack of communication between hospice and facility staff. The resident was incorrectly listed as a full code, risking unwanted CPR for six weeks.
A facility failed to complete a significant change in status assessment (SCSA) within the required 14-day timeframe for a resident receiving Hospice services. The oversight was due to a lack of communication between Social Services, MDS, and nursing staff, resulting in non-compliance with CMS guidelines.
A facility failed to develop a comprehensive person-centered care plan for a resident receiving Hospice services due to a lack of communication between Social Services, MDS, and nursing staff. The resident's medical record lacked a care plan for Hospice or end-of-life care despite having a Hospice Medicare Election form and certification of terminal illness.
The facility failed to provide adequate ADL assistance for two residents, resulting in poor personal hygiene and unkempt appearances. One resident had long, unkempt fingernails and greasy hair, while another had long facial hair and reported not receiving razors despite requests. The facility's policies and care plans were not consistently followed.
The facility failed to apply a right-hand resting splint per physician order for a resident with hemiplegia and hemiparesis following a stroke. Observations revealed the splint was not applied, and staff interviews indicated a lack of training and responsibility in applying the splint after the resident was discharged from therapy.
A resident with multiple diagnoses, including a non-healing wound, had a midline IV with a bloody gauze pad under the transparent dressing that was not changed for four days. LPNs responsible for the resident's care failed to inspect and change the dressing as required, posing an infection risk. The facility's policies for IV site care were not followed, contributing to the deficiency.
Failure to Notify Legal Guardian of Missing Dentures for Incapacitated Resident
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to notify a court-appointed legal guardian of a significant change involving missing dentures for a resident who had been determined totally incapacitated. The resident was admitted with dementia with behavioral disturbances, and a court determination dated 10/26/23 documented the resident’s total incapacity related to dementia and lack of awareness. On 8/8/24, a legal guardian of person and property was appointed, and the guardian’s name, phone number, and email address were documented in the admission record. The resident’s inventory list dated 7/29/24 showed that the resident had upper dentures, and a monthly summary progress note on 1/19/26 indicated the resident wore dentures or partials. On 1/27/25 at 12:24 PM, the resident was observed in the dining room for lunch without dentures in place. During a phone interview on 1/28/26 at 3:40 PM, the legal guardian reported being unaware that the dentures were missing and stated the facility had never notified her of this issue. On 1/29/26 at 10:05 AM, the Executive Director stated that staff believed the dentures had been missing for approximately three weeks and acknowledged that the guardian had not been notified because dentures often go missing for a few weeks before turning up again. Review of the facility’s “Notification of Changes” policy showed that when a resident is deemed incapacitated, the resident’s representative is to be notified so that they can make necessary decisions, which did not occur in this case.
Failure to Notify Ombudsman of Resident Transfer/Discharge
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure a copy of the notice for transfer/discharge to the hospital was sent to a representative of the Office of the State Long-Term Care Ombudsman for one resident. The resident, who had multiple complex medical conditions including metabolic encephalopathy, hemiplegia/hemiparesis following a stroke, and acute and chronic respiratory failure, was hospitalized and readmitted to the facility. However, the required Nursing Home Transfer and Discharge Notice for the resident could not be found in the clinical records or the Social Services Director's (SSD) binder, and there was no evidence that the notice was submitted to the Ombudsman as required. The SSD, who was recently hired, acknowledged the missing documentation and explained that she was informed all documents would be scanned into the facility's electronic medical record. Despite providing a Nursing Home Transfer and Discharge Notice dated for the resident, there was no documentation to indicate it was submitted to the Ombudsman's office. Additionally, the facility could not provide a transmission log for February discharges, and a review revealed that fifteen residents were discharged to the hospital during that period without proper notification to the Ombudsman. The facility also failed to provide a corresponding policy or procedure regarding the notification of discharges.
Deficiencies in Medical Record Accuracy and Splint Application
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure medical records were accurate regarding the application of a splint for a resident with hemiplegia and hemiparesis following a stroke. The physician's order required the splint to be applied to the resident's right wrist following morning care and removed before bedtime, with monitoring of skin integrity. However, observations revealed the splint was not applied on multiple occasions, and there was ambiguity in the Treatment Administration Record (TAR) about whether the task being signed off was the application of the splint or the monitoring of skin integrity. Interviews with staff indicated confusion and lack of training regarding the application of the splint, leading to inconsistent care and documentation for the resident. The facility also failed to maintain accurate and systematically organized medical records for another resident. The resident's Electronic Medical Record (EMR) contained twenty progress notes that belonged to a different resident. This error was acknowledged by the Regional Director of Clinical Services and the Executive Director, who noted that the Health Information Coordinator was on leave and that the discrepancy had been reported to the facility's Corporate office. The Executive Director admitted to not knowing who was responsible for reviewing the residents' EMRs to ensure accuracy. These deficiencies highlight significant lapses in the facility's adherence to professional standards for maintaining accurate medical records and ensuring proper care for residents. The issues with the splint application and the misfiled progress notes indicate a need for better training, clearer documentation practices, and more rigorous oversight of medical records to prevent such errors from occurring in the future.
Failure in Discharge Planning Process
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure an effective discharge planning process for a resident, leading to a delay in necessary care and services post-discharge. The resident, who had multiple diagnoses including a left hip fracture, stroke, and brain cancer, was discharged home without the required Home Health Care (HHC) services. Despite having a care plan that included arranging community resources and medical equipment, the resident was discharged without a walker and necessary wound care supplies. The resident's son had to arrange for HHC services and purchase a walker himself after discovering that the initially referred HHC agency was not in-network with their insurance. The medical record indicated that the resident required assistance with activities of daily living and had a wound that needed daily dressing changes. The facility's Social Services Director (SSD) failed to ensure that the HHC services and medical equipment were arranged before discharge. The SSD relied on an outside HHC agency to make arrangements, but there was no follow-up to confirm that these services were in place. The resident's son reported the issues to the facility, but the necessary services were not provided until three days after the discharge. Interviews with facility staff confirmed that the discharge planning process was not adequately managed. The Business Office Manager and the Administrator acknowledged the communication breakdown and the lack of proper documentation and follow-up by the SSD. The facility's policy required the Social Services staff to oversee discharge arrangements and ensure a safe transition, which was not adhered to in this case. The failure to provide the necessary care and services as ordered by the physician led to a significant lapse in the resident's post-discharge care.
Failure to Promote Right to Self-Administer Medication
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to promote the right to self-administer medication for two residents. Resident #87, who had moderate cognitive impairment and was using Biofreeze for pain relief, was found to have the medication at his bedside without a physician's order or an assessment for safe self-administration. The Unit Manager and the assigned nurse were unaware of the medication's presence and confirmed that no proper documentation or assessment had been completed for the resident to self-administer the medication safely. Similarly, Resident #161, who was cognitively intact and managing her own eye drops since admission, was found with both prescription and non-prescription eye drops at her bedside. The resident had been using these medications without a physician's order or an assessment to verify her capability to self-administer them safely. The Unit Manager confirmed that the facility's policy and procedures for self-administration of medications were not followed, as there was no documentation or assessment for the resident's ability to self-administer the medications. The facility's policy on self-administration of medications requires an assessment of the resident's mental and physical abilities, comprehension of medication labels, and understanding of the purpose, dosage, and administration times. However, in both cases, the facility did not implement these procedures, resulting in residents having medications at their bedside without proper authorization or assessment, thereby failing to ensure the safe self-administration of medications.
Failure to Honor Resident's Preferred Shower Schedule
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to honor a resident's right to choose their preferred shower days and times. Resident #21, who has diagnoses including hemiplegia, morbid obesity, heart failure, and type 2 diabetes, was admitted to the facility and had a care plan indicating a preference for showers on Monday, Wednesday, and Friday during the day shift. Despite this, the resident's bathing task report showed she was scheduled for showers on Tuesday and Friday during the 3-11 PM shift. The resident expressed her preference to staff, but her requests were not accommodated, leading to her refusal of showers on several occasions. Interviews with the resident, CNAs, and the Licensed Practical Nurse Unit Manager confirmed the discrepancy between the resident's care plan and the actual shower schedule. The Assistant Director of Nursing also verified that the resident's scheduled shower days did not align with her preferences. The facility's Resident Rights policy emphasizes the importance of honoring resident choices, but in this case, the facility did not adhere to the resident's preferred shower schedule, thus failing to support her self-determination and choice.
Failure to Honor Resident's DNRO
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to honor a resident's Do Not Resuscitate Order (DNRO) for a resident who was under hospice care. The resident, who had multiple serious health conditions including cerebral infarction, acute kidney failure, and idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis, had a DNRO signed by both herself and the hospice physician. However, the facility's records and care plan incorrectly listed her as a full code, meaning that in the event of cardiac or respiratory arrest, CPR would be initiated. This discrepancy was not identified until a surveyor brought it to the facility's attention, despite the DNRO being present in the hospice notebook at the nurses' station. The issue was compounded by a lack of communication between the hospice staff and the facility staff. The hospice nurse who admitted the resident did not document any communication with the facility staff regarding the change in code status. As a result, the facility staff, including the usual day nurse for the resident, were unaware of the DNRO and would have initiated CPR based on the incorrect full code status in the facility's records. This failure persisted for six weeks, during which the resident's wishes for a DNRO were not honored, posing a significant risk to her autonomy and end-of-life care preferences.
Failure to Complete Significant Change in Status Assessment for Hospice Resident
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to complete a significant change in status assessment (SCSA) within the required timeframe of 14 days for a resident who was receiving Hospice services. The resident, who had multiple diagnoses including cerebral infarction, acute kidney failure, idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis, acute respiratory failure, repeated falls, weakness, anxiety, depression, and dysphagia, was admitted and readmitted to the facility. Despite the resident signing the Medicare Election Statement for Hospice services and having a physician order for Hospice services, the facility did not complete the SCSA within the required 14-day period. The most recent Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment was conducted on 1/23/24, and no SCSA was found in the resident's medical record after the Hospice election date of 2/15/24. The Registered Nurse MDS Coordinator confirmed that the SCSA had not been initiated due to a lack of communication between Social Services, MDS, and nursing staff. The usual process of updating care plans, Advanced Directives, and initiating the SCSA during morning or clinical meetings was not followed. The MDS Coordinator acknowledged that the SCSA was out of compliance and was only brought to their attention by the surveyor. According to the CMS Resident Assessment Instrument Manual, an SCSA is required when a terminally ill resident enrolls in a hospice program, and it must be performed within 14 days to ensure a coordinated plan of care between the hospice and the nursing home.
Failure to Develop Comprehensive End-of-Life Care Plan
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to develop a comprehensive person-centered care plan for end-of-life care for a resident who was receiving Hospice services. The resident, who had multiple diagnoses including idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis, stroke, and acute kidney failure, was admitted and readmitted to the facility. Despite having an intact cognitive status and requiring partial to moderate assistance with activities of daily living, the resident's medical record lacked a care plan for Hospice or end-of-life care, even though a Hospice Medicare Election form and certification of terminal illness were present. The deficiency was acknowledged by the Registered Nurse MDS Coordinator, who cited a lack of communication between Social Services, MDS, and nursing staff as the reason for the oversight. The usual process of updating care plans and advanced directives during morning or clinical meetings was not followed, resulting in the failure to initiate a significant change in status assessment and a comprehensive care plan for the resident when she began receiving Hospice services.
Failure to Provide Adequate ADL Assistance
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to provide adequate assistance with activities of daily living (ADLs) for two residents, specifically in the areas of bathing, skin care, and shaving. Resident #134, who has Parkinson's disease and is cognitively intact, was observed with long, unkempt fingernails, greasy hair, and unshaven facial hair. The resident reported receiving infrequent bed baths and showers, and the Unit Manager confirmed that the resident's fingernails were excessively long and that his feet showed signs of inadequate hygiene. The resident's care plan indicated he should receive three bed baths or showers weekly, but records showed inconsistencies in this care being provided. Resident #87, who has moderate cognitive impairment and multiple diagnoses including congestive heart failure and type 2 diabetes, was observed with an unkempt appearance and long facial hair. The resident reported asking for razors for three days without receiving any and stated that staff had not offered to shave him recently. The Unit Manager confirmed the resident's need for shaving and noted that the resident's care plan required substantial assistance with bathing and personal hygiene tasks. The shower schedule indicated the resident should have showers twice weekly, but there was no documentation of refusal of ADL care. The facility's policy and procedure for ADL care and assistance, as well as the CNA job description, require staff to assist residents with bathing, grooming, and maintaining personal hygiene according to their care plans. However, the observations and interviews revealed that the facility did not consistently provide the necessary care, leading to deficiencies in the residents' personal hygiene and overall well-being.
Failure to Apply Right-Hand Resting Splint Per Physician Order
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure that a right-hand resting splint was applied per physician order and the resident's plan of care for a resident with hemiplegia and hemiparesis following a stroke. The resident, who had functional limitations in range of motion to one side of his upper and lower extremities, had a physician's order to apply the splint following morning care and remove it before bedtime. However, observations on multiple occasions revealed that the splint was not applied, and the resident confirmed that no one had applied it. The splint was consistently found on the resident's bedside table instead of being worn by the resident. Interviews with staff, including an LPN and a CNA, revealed that the splint had not been applied for several days, and the CNA admitted he was not trained to don/doff the splint. The Rehabilitation Director stated that once the resident was discharged from therapy, nursing staff were responsible for applying the splint. However, the Director of Nursing and Assistant DON acknowledged that the expectation was for nurses to follow physician orders and sign off on the Treatment Administration Record (TAR) to indicate the splint was applied and skin integrity monitored. Despite this, there were inconsistencies in the application and monitoring of the splint, as evidenced by the LPN's admission that she signed off on the TAR without applying the splint.
Failure to Properly Monitor and Change IV Dressing
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to provide care and services for an intravenous (IV) access site according to professional standards of practice to prevent infection for a resident. Resident #18, who had multiple diagnoses including ischemic cardiomyopathy, type 2 diabetes, and dementia, was receiving Ertapenem via a midline IV for a non-healing right heel wound with osteomyelitis. The resident's care plan included instructions for IV therapy, which required nurses to change the IV dressing and monitor the catheter insertion site every shift for signs of infection and other complications. However, observations revealed that the resident had a bloody, folded gauze pad under the transparent dressing, which had not been changed for four days, posing an infection risk. Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) M and LPN N, who were responsible for the resident's care, failed to inspect and change the dressing as required. LPN M admitted she had not assessed the IV site during her shift, and LPN N confirmed she had not checked the dressing since the start of her shift, planning to do so only when administering the IV medication. The dressing was dated 3/30/24, and there were no initials to indicate which nurse performed the IV site care. The gauze under the dressing was saturated with blood and yellow-colored fluid, indicating a lack of proper monitoring and timely intervention. The facility's Unit Manager and Regional Director of Clinical Operations acknowledged the issue, noting that the dressing should have been changed more frequently due to the bleeding. The facility's policy and procedure for IV site care required transparent dressings to be changed weekly and gauze dressings to be changed every two days. The failure to adhere to these protocols and the lack of documentation regarding the bleeding and use of gauze contributed to the deficiency, placing the resident at risk for infection.
Latest citations in Florida
Surveyors found that the facility failed to comply with 42 CFR 483.73(a) by not conducting the required annual review and update of its Emergency Preparedness (EP) plan. During record review, no documentation showed that the EP plan had been reviewed or updated within the past year, and the Administrator confirmed that the Emergency Management Plan had not been reviewed or revised as required.
Surveyors found that smoke/fire-rated enclosures were not properly maintained, with penetrations in smoke barriers in several general storage rooms across multiple smoke compartments. The Maintenance Director stated that insulation and fiberglass were used to pack and cover these holes but could not confirm that the materials were approved for fire-rated construction. Inspectors observed penetrations covered with fiberglass and noted a hole in one fiberglass panel in a storage room, resulting in a deficiency under NFPA 101 requirements for smoke barrier construction.
Surveyors found that fixed patient-care electrical equipment was not properly maintained or inspected in accordance with NFPA 99. In one room, a bedside remote had mismatched insulation and exposed wiring, and in another room, a call button receptacle had exposed low-voltage conductors. The Maintenance Director acknowledged both issues and reported that new bed remotes had been received but not yet installed.
Surveyors found that the facility failed to maintain a safe, clean, and homelike environment, with strong, persistent urine and feces odors noted throughout multiple halls and confirmed by staff. On two nursing units, hallways and resident rooms contained torn flooring, food debris, broken blinds, dirty and leaking toilets and sinks, rusted and corroded fixtures, missing outlet covers with oxygen concentrators plugged in, exposed light sockets, unmade and visibly soiled beds, and black, mold-like substances on walls and around toilet bases. Bathrooms had missing ceiling tiles, cracked door facings with brown stains, used briefs and torn toilet paper on floors, and toilets with brown or rust-like buildup. Outside, the patio and fencing area had broken and rotted railings, exposed rusted nails, fallen palm fronds, and overgrown vegetation, and the Administrator acknowledged the area was not safe for residents. Housekeeping and maintenance staff described daily cleaning and a work-order process, but the Maintenance Director reported being unaware of many of the observed issues, and the DON confirmed there was no specific environmental cleaning policy despite job descriptions and a general policy requiring a safe, sanitary, and comfortable environment.
A resident exited the building through a bedroom window, walked off the property, and was observed and redirected by staff with assistance from law enforcement, who encountered the resident down the road and helped escort the resident back. The facility’s internal documentation lacked staff or witness statements and characterized the event as the resident remaining on facility grounds without injury. Despite the resident’s account, a police report, and a maintenance staff report confirming that the resident left the premises and that law enforcement responded, the DON did not report the incident to required state and federal agencies, even though the DON acknowledged that any incident involving law enforcement response must be reported.
A resident with moderate cognitive impairment and a history of stroke was repeatedly observed over several days in visibly soiled clothing and bedding, with a strong urine odor, despite stating multiple times that he had requested assistance with changing and hygiene. Documentation indicated he was independent with toileting and personal hygiene and only occasionally incontinent, but his care plan lacked detail on the level of assistance needed, while an LPN reported he actually required staff help with bathing, grooming, toileting, and care. Laundry practices involved leaving clean, labeled clothing bagged in the linen room for nursing staff to distribute rather than returning it directly to rooms, and the DON reported that staff were expected to round every two hours and as needed to keep residents clean and dry, although there were no written ADL or resident care policies in place.
Surveyors observed four full O2 cylinders on one nursing unit stored unsecured directly on the floor under a sign labeled "FULL CYLINDERS" instead of in a secured storage rack. The ADON confirmed the cylinders were full and should not be on the ground. Reference to NFPA 99 showed that freestanding cylinders must be protected from damage and properly chained or supported in a stand or cart. The DON and Maintenance Director both acknowledged that O2 cylinders are required to be stored in a secure rack, should never be on the floor, and that unsecured cylinders on the floor present a safety risk.
A resident with multiple cardiopulmonary conditions and a documented full code status was found unresponsive without pulse or respirations during the night shift. A CNA notified the RN, who either instructed CNAs to clean and cover the resident or, per her and an LPN’s account, called a code blue and performed CPR with the LPN for about 20 minutes before stopping, without calling 911. The RN believed the resident was on hospice and did not verify code status, then notified the DON, provider, and family instead of EMS. Several hours later, after the DON called the facility and asked whether 911 had been contacted, the RN called 911 and briefly reinitiated CPR shortly before EMS arrived and pronounced the resident deceased, documenting postmortem changes. The facility’s investigation and root cause analysis found that staff failed to follow policy requiring immediate EMS activation and continuous CPR for full code residents until EMS arrival, leading to an Immediate Jeopardy finding.
A resident with full code status was found unresponsive without respirations or pulse during the night shift. An RN and an LPN initiated CPR but did not activate EMS, and they discontinued CPR after about 20 minutes. The RN, who lacked documented orientation and competency assessment and had obtained BLS certification through a fully online, non–instructor-led course, pronounced the resident deceased without authority and later stated she believed the resident was on hospice and did not verify code status. The LPN’s BLS certification was expired, and a CNA with an expired BLS certification performed several chest compressions despite facility policy that CNAs were not to perform CPR. The RN had not participated in documented code blue drills, and leadership confirmed that required clinical orientation and skills competencies had not been completed for her, leading surveyors to determine that staff were not adequately trained or competent to respond to a cardiopulmonary arrest for a full code resident, resulting in an Immediate Jeopardy finding.
Surveyors found multiple instances of improper use of relocatable power taps (RPTs) and extension cords during a facility tour with the Maintenance Director. In the social services office, an RPT was plugged into another RPT connected to a wall outlet, with the cord running across a walkway and taped to the floor. In the multipurpose room, a television was plugged into an extension cord, and in the MDS office, an RPT was plugged into another RPT with an outlet adapter in use. These conditions did not comply with NFPA 101, NFPA 99, and NFPA 70 standards governing electrical equipment, power strips, and extension cords.
Failure to Annually Review and Update Emergency Preparedness Plan
Penalty
Summary
Surveyors identified a deficiency related to the facility’s Emergency Preparedness (EP) Program under 42 CFR 483.73(a). During record review at 4:00 PM, surveyors examined the facility’s EP documentation and found no evidence that the emergency preparedness plan had been reviewed or updated on an annual basis as required. The regulation mandates that LTC facilities develop and maintain an emergency preparedness plan that is reviewed and updated at least annually to comply with applicable Federal, State, and local emergency preparedness requirements. In an interview, the Administrator acknowledged that the facility’s Emergency Management Plan had not been reviewed or updated. No documentation was provided to show that the required annual review and update of the EP plan had occurred. The deficiency is based solely on the lack of documented annual review and update of the emergency preparedness plan by facility administration; no specific resident cases or clinical events were described in the report.
Plan Of Correction
Preparation and/or execution of the Plan of Correction does not constitute admission or agreement of the provider of the truth of the facts alleged or conclusions set forth in the statement of deficiencies. The Plan of Correction is prepared and/or executed solely because it is required by the provision of Federal and State law. Facility EP was reviewed and signed off on by the DON, Maintenance Director and Administrator. The facility has determined that all residents have the potential to be affected. An in-service education program will be conducted by the administrator. The administrator will conduct monthly random checks to verify completed documentation.
Improper Repair of Smoke Barrier Penetrations in Multiple Smoke Compartments
Penalty
Summary
Surveyors identified a deficiency in the facility’s maintenance of smoke/fire-rated enclosures, specifically related to penetrations in smoke barriers in multiple smoke compartments. During an interview, the Maintenance Director reported that insulation was used to pack holes and then covered with fiberglass in general storage rooms in smoke compartments 1, 2, and 3, but was unable to confirm whether these materials were approved for use in fire-rated walls. Subsequent observation showed that the penetrations were indeed covered with fiberglass, and one general storage room in smoke compartment 2 had a hole in one of the fiberglass panels. The report states that this failure to properly maintain penetrations through smoke/fire-rated construction could allow smoke and flammable gases to spread to other areas and cause the smoke/fire-rated construction to fail to perform as designed.
Failure to Maintain and Inspect Patient-Care Electrical Equipment
Penalty
Summary
Surveyors identified a deficiency in the facility’s compliance with NFPA 99 requirements for testing and maintaining fixed patient-care electrical equipment. During an observation in one resident room, the bedside remote was found to have two different types of insulation and exposed wiring. In another resident room, the call button receptacle was observed with exposed low-voltage conductors. These conditions were noted during a survey of two of six smoke compartments. During an interview conducted at the time of the observations, the Maintenance Director stated that the facility had just received a new shipment of bed remotes and had not yet replaced the existing ones. The Maintenance Director also acknowledged the issue with the exposed conductors at the call button receptacle. The surveyors cited this as a failure to properly inspect and maintain fixed patient care electrical equipment in accordance with NFPA 99 (2012 Edition), sections 10.3 and 10.5.2.1.
Widespread Odors and Environmental Disrepair in Resident Care Areas
Penalty
Summary
Surveyors identified that the facility failed to provide a safe, clean, comfortable, and homelike environment as required by 42 CFR 483.10(i). Upon entrance to the building on multiple days, surveyors noted a strong, pungent odor of urine and feces throughout the facility, with the odor particularly strong on the 200, 300, and 400 halls. Staff interviews confirmed that the building "usually smells like" urine, and staff attributed the odor to residents defecating and urinating on the floor, an old building structure, and cleaning products that sanitize but do not deodorize. Housekeeping staff reported that they clean resident rooms daily but that nursing staff must first clean fecal and urine waste before housekeeping can sanitize, and delays by nursing staff in doing so postponed housekeeping’s ability to address the odors. On the 300 unit, surveyors observed multiple environmental and sanitation issues in resident rooms and bathrooms. The hallway had torn flooring, food particles, and a butter knife on the floor. Individual rooms had food debris, a straw on the floor, and broken blinds. Bathrooms contained dark brown stains on walls, rusted ceiling tile trim, toilets with brownish substances inside, and wet floors around toilets. Trim was missing around toilet bases, exposing a black, mold-like substance. Corroded and rusted sink faucet handles, leaking faucets, rusted pipes under sinks with buildup of corrosion, and rusted sprinklers were observed. Some toilets and three-in-one commodes had duct tape on them, and bathroom walls had black, mold-like substances. Doors and door facings showed rust, scrape marks, chipped and peeling paint, and exposed wood. In some rooms, electrical outlets had no covers while oxygen concentrators were plugged into them, boards covered windows, light fixtures over beds lacked covers with sockets exposed, and one fixture had only one bulb. A resident bed appeared dirty with a black substance on it, and dresser drawers were broken with drawer fronts on the floor. On the 400 unit, surveyors again noted a strong odor of urine upon entry and found additional environmental deficiencies. Bathrooms had missing ceiling tiles, broken emergency light covers with no pull strings, and toilet tank covers that did not fit properly, exposing the inside of the tank. In one bathroom, torn toilet paper and used briefs were lying in the corner of the floor, and toilets had brown, rust-like substances inside the bowls. Door facings appeared cracked with brown substances along the sides, and toilets had brownish-black buildup around the bases with broken, peeling trim. Light bases on walls had rust-like appearances, multiple rooms had broken or missing blinds, and some outlets lacked covers while oxygen concentrators were plugged into them. Some rooms had unmade beds, exposed wires at outlets, toilets with dark brown-black rings around the base and flooring, uncovered light fixtures, leaking sinks with rusted pipes, loose flooring, loose toilet seats, and dry red substances on door frames. Surveyors also observed deficiencies in the outdoor patio area adjacent to the locked unit. The gate code was broken, and a resident lock was placed on the gate. The patio and surrounding fencing had fallen palm fronds on the grass, broken and rotted wooden fence railings, unsteady railings, and multiple exposed rusted nails protruding from the railings where boards were broken or detached. Overgrown trees and bushes from the perimeter extended through the fence railings. When asked, the Administrator acknowledged that the area was not safe for residents and stated that they planned to have it redone in the future. The Maintenance Director reported that he and one other maintenance person relied on work orders and verbal reports to identify needed repairs and stated he was not aware of the specific room and equipment issues on the 300 and 400 units. Housekeeping staff stated they would report broken items via a work order book or text to maintenance, but one housekeeper, who cleaned the 400 unit daily, denied noticing stains or biohazard-like materials on walls and door frames despite the surveyors’ observations. Review of facility documents showed that the housekeeper job description required staff to maintain assigned work areas in a clean, safe, comfortable, and attractive manner and to report maintenance problems noted during cleaning. A facility policy titled "Policies and Practices - Control" stated that the facility must maintain a safe, sanitary, and comfortable environment for personnel, residents, visitors, and the public. The DON stated that blinds had been changed out and new cabinets and door handles purchased, and that staff were directed to use standard precautions when cleaning rooms, but also stated there was no policy specific to cleaning the environment. These observations and interviews demonstrated that the facility did not maintain sanitary, orderly, and comfortable interior conditions, did not adequately control offensive odors, and did not ensure that the physical environment, including resident rooms, bathrooms, and outdoor areas, was maintained in a safe, clean, and homelike condition as required by regulation.
Failure to Report Elopement Incident Involving Law Enforcement
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to report an elopement incident to required state and federal agencies as mandated by 42 CFR 483.12(c). On the referenced date, Resident #5 exited the building through his bedroom window around 12:15 PM and walked across the facility property toward the perimeter fence. A CNA observed the resident outside and called for assistance, after which staff redirected and escorted the resident back into the building and placed him on one-to-one supervision. The facility’s internal incident documentation noted the window exit and subsequent maintenance inspection of the window seals but did not include any staff or witness statements. The DON later stated that the resident never left facility grounds and was returned without injury, and therefore the incident was not considered reportable. However, interviews and external records showed that the resident did leave the facility premises and that law enforcement was involved. Resident #5 recalled being outside the facility, being brought back by staff and a “police man,” and being told by the officer not to leave again. A police report from the local police department confirmed an encounter with the resident outside the facility and that an officer assisted staff in escorting him back. Maintenance staff (Staff G) also reported that the resident climbed out the window, left the facility property, and was stopped “down the road,” then redirected back with law enforcement assistance. In interviews, the DON initially denied that law enforcement had been notified or involved, then later acknowledged that law enforcement had responded but asserted they did not come into the facility. The DON also confirmed awareness that any incident in which law enforcement investigates or responds is required to be reported, yet the elopement and law enforcement involvement were not reported to the State Survey Agency or other required officials within the required time frames.
Failure to Provide Timely ADL and Hygiene Care to a Dependent Resident
Penalty
Summary
Surveyors found that the facility failed to provide necessary ADL care, including grooming and hygiene, to a dependent resident over multiple days. The resident was repeatedly observed in visibly soiled clothing with a strong odor of urine, first standing in his doorway holding onto a wheelchair with wet navy pants saturated down to his calves, stating he had been waiting for staff to change his clothes. More than an hour later the same day, he remained in the same soiled pants and shirt while seated in a wheelchair near the nurses’ station. The following day, he was again observed wearing the same soiled clothes, smelling of urine, with his shirt stained with food and a dark liquid. His room had a strong urine odor, his bed was soiled with urine, and only two pairs of pants were seen on a chair with no other clothing available in the room. On a subsequent observation, he was seated on the edge of his bed wearing different pants and no shirt, with yellow-stained sheets beneath him and his previously soiled clothes on the floor; he reported that he had requested assistance but no staff had come, so he changed himself. Record review showed the resident had a history of stroke and repeated unspecified conditions, with a recent Quarterly MDS indicating moderate cognitive impairment (BIMS score of 10). The MDS documented him as independent for toileting, showering, personal hygiene, and related ADLs, and only occasionally incontinent, but his care plan did not specify the level of assistance he required for incontinence care and other ADLs. In contrast, an LPN familiar with the resident stated he required staff assistance with bathing, grooming, toileting, and care, and that he did not refuse such assistance and appropriately requested help. The LPN also explained that personal clothing was laundered at the facility and left bagged in the linen room for nursing staff to distribute, rather than being returned directly to resident rooms. The DON stated that staff were expected to follow best practices, including rounding every two hours and as needed to keep residents clean and dry, and acknowledged that all residents required some level of assistance with ADLs. The DON further stated the facility had no written ADL, resident care, or quality of care policies, despite these expectations.
Unsecured Storage of Full Oxygen Cylinders on Nursing Unit
Penalty
Summary
Surveyors found that the facility failed to ensure safe storage of oxygen cylinders on the West 1 unit. At 9:03 a.m., four full oxygen cylinders were observed stored unsecured directly on the ground rather than in the designated secured cylinder storage rack, under a sign labeled "FULL CYLINDERS." Photographic evidence was obtained of this condition. At 9:18 a.m., the ADON confirmed that the four cylinders were full and acknowledged they should not be stored on the ground. Review of NFPA 99 (2021) 11.6.2.3(11) indicated that cylinders must be protected from damage and that freestanding cylinders must be properly chained or supported in a proper stand or cart. Later that day, the DON stated that oxygen cylinders should be stored in a secure rack and never directly on the ground, and acknowledged that unsecured cylinders on the floor were a safety risk. The Maintenance Director also confirmed that oxygen cylinders should be in a secure rack and never stored directly on the ground, stating that cylinders stored on the floor can tip over and cause damage. These observations and interviews demonstrated noncompliance with regulatory and NFPA standards for safe storage of oxygen cylinders.
Plan Of Correction
This plan of correction constitutes a written allegation of compliance for the deficiency cited. Submission of this plan of correction is not an admission that the deficiency exists or that one was cited correctly. This plan of correction is submitted to meet the requirements established by the State and Federal law. The four unsecured [R] cylinders on the West 1 unit were secured. The Nursing Department completed a baseline audit of [R] cylinder storage within the facility to ensure all [R] cylinders were secured and stored properly. Ongoing education will be completed with current facility staff regarding the facility's [R] storage policy and procedure; and will be completed during new hire and agency orientation to the facility by ADON/designee. Audits will be completed by the Director of Nursing/designee regarding adherence to the facility's [R] storage policy and procedure twice weekly x 4 weeks, then weekly x 4 weeks, then monthly x 4 months, or until continued substantial compliance has been met. Results of audits will be reported to the QAPI Committee on a monthly basis by the Director of Nursing/designee.
Failure to Provide Required CPR and Activate EMS for Full Code Resident
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to provide immediate and appropriate basic life support, including CPR, to a resident with a documented full code status when the resident was found unresponsive. The resident had diagnoses including a slow-progressing circulatory condition involving narrowing or blockage of vessels, a condition that restricts airflow and makes breathing difficult, and other listed conditions. The physician’s order specified “Full Code,” and the care plan documented that the resident was under court-ordered guardianship with wishes honored as full code. The facility’s policy required that in the event of cardiac or respiratory arrest, staff immediately call for assistance, overhead page a code, begin CPR in the absence of a valid DNR, and continue CPR until EMS assumes responsibility or the resident responds. On the night of the incident at approximately 2:00–2:07 a.m., a CNA found the resident unresponsive in bed and notified the RN on duty. One CNA’s written statement indicated that the RN said she already knew the resident was going to die and instructed the CNA to clean and cover the resident. Another CNA’s account stated that the RN came to the room, took vital signs, and then instructed her to clean the resident. The RN’s own written statement and interview indicated that she called a code blue, that an LPN brought the crash cart, and that they performed CPR for approximately 20 minutes. The LPN’s statement corroborated that a code blue was called, that he brought the crash cart, and that CPR was performed for about 20 minutes before the RN stopped and stated that the resident was gone or words to that effect. The RN acknowledged that the resident had no vital signs but was warm and not responding, and she stated that she believed the resident was on hospice and therefore did not call 911. After CPR was discontinued, the RN did not activate EMS and instead notified the DON, the provider, and the resident’s family. The DON documented receiving a message from the RN that the resident had no pulse and no blood pressure and that the assigned nurse had initiated CPR but was unable to revive the resident. The DON later received a text from the RN that the resident had expired. The DON stated that at approximately 6:00 a.m. she called the facility and asked if 911 had been called, and upon learning it had not, she instructed the RN to call 911. The RN then reinitiated CPR at around 6:00 a.m., approximately four hours after the resident was first found without pulse or respirations, and stated that they tried to do something until EMS arrived because EMS had to see them doing CPR. EMS records showed activation at 6:18 a.m., arrival at 6:27 a.m., and pronouncement of death at 6:31 a.m., with documentation that CPR was not attempted by EMS because it was considered futile and that the resident exhibited postmortem changes. The Medical Director confirmed that the resident was full code and stated that staff should have started CPR and called 911 and that CPR should not be done four hours after a resident is pronounced dead. The facility’s investigation and a root cause analysis concluded that the RN and LPN did not follow the facility’s established policy and procedure to call 911 and administer CPR to a full code resident until EMS arrival. The root cause was identified as the nurse’s belief that the resident was on hospice and her failure to check the resident’s code status as outlined in facility policy. The surveyors determined that the failure to immediately activate EMS and to continue CPR until EMS arrival for this full code resident constituted noncompliance with the requirement to provide basic life support and resulted in an Immediate Jeopardy determination.
Plan Of Correction
This plan of correction is submitted as required under Federal and State regulations and statutes applicable to long term care providers. This plan of correction does not constitute an admission of liability on the part of the facility, and such liability is hereby specifically denied. The submission of this plan does not constitute agreement by the facility that the surveyors' findings or conclusions are accurate, that the findings constitute a deficiency, or that the scope or severity regarding any of these deficiencies cited are correctly applied. Resident #1 no longer resides in the facility as of 4.7.26. This has the potential to affect all residents in the facility. All codes to 1.1.26 were reviewed to ensure protocol was followed. No outliers were noted. All licensed nurses received education from the Director of Nursing and/or nursing management on [R] policy and procedure and Florida [R] policy. This includes where to find the code status. Education addressed what to do for full code hospice residents. Education completed with CNA's that protocol is that they do not assist with [R] or breaths during a [R] event. All education will be added to new hire orientation. Code drills will occur 3 x weekly x 4 weeks, followed by 2 x weekly x 4 weeks, followed by 1 x weekly x 4 weeks. Results will be brought to QAPI to determine need for ongoing auditing.
Removal Plan
- Educated licensed nurses on CPR policy and procedure and Florida Do Not Resuscitate (DNRO) policy, including where to find code status and what to do for full code hospice residents; emphasized initiating emergency services immediately when resident is full code, continuing CPR until EMS arrives, and that nurses cannot pronounce death or stop CPR on a full code resident unless instructed by EMS.
- Implemented emergency response “Code Blue” drills on all three shifts, including full code and full code hospice scenarios, with emphasis on calling 911 immediately.
- Educated licensed nurses and CNAs on the facility abuse and neglect policy, including resident rights.
- Required licensed nurses to complete a CPR post-test; restricted staff who have not completed education/testing from working until completion.
- Educated licensed nurses regarding change in condition.
- Placed laminated instructions on how to overhead page during a code at all nursing station phones and other designated phones.
- Held a Quality Improvement Performance Committee meeting to review root cause analysis findings and approve recommendations.
- Held a Quality Improvement Performance Committee meeting to review progress of the plan and approve recommendations.
- Completed a “like resident” audit of all expired residents and rehospitalizations for a defined period to determine whether involved staff were the same as the code event and whether proper procedure was followed.
Failure to Provide Competent CPR Response and Verify Code Status for Full Code Resident
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to ensure that nursing staff possessed and demonstrated the competencies required to respond appropriately to a cardiopulmonary emergency for a resident with full code status. Resident #1, who was designated as full code, was found unresponsive and without respirations or pulse at approximately 2:07 a.m. Clinical staff, consisting of an RN (Staff A) and an LPN (Staff B), initiated CPR but did not activate Emergency Medical Services (EMS) as required by facility policy for a full code resident. After approximately 20 minutes of CPR, the RN and LPN stopped resuscitation efforts without EMS involvement. The RN, without authority to do so, pronounced the resident deceased based on the absence of vital signs and did not verify the resident’s code status before discontinuing CPR. The RN later stated she believed the resident was on hospice and therefore did not call 911, and that she was confused about which residents were hospice and which were full code. The LPN reported that he assumed the RN had called 911 and continued CPR for about 20 minutes until the RN “called the code” and left, and he acknowledged that he knew CPR should continue until EMS arrival but did not speak up. Four hours after CPR was stopped, at approximately 6:00 a.m., the RN restarted CPR and activated EMS after receiving instructions from the DON. The investigation further identified that the RN had no documented orientation, onboarding education, or skills competency assessments since hire, despite being promoted to weekend supervisor. Her BLS certification had been obtained through a fully online course without an instructor or live feedback. The LPN’s BLS certification was expired, and a CNA who performed several chest compressions also had an expired BLS certification, even though facility policy did not permit CNAs to perform CPR. Facility records showed that monthly code blue drills had been conducted, but there was no documentation that the RN had ever participated in these drills. Leadership interviews confirmed that required clinical orientation and competency evaluations had not been completed for the RN, and that she had failed tests for a clinical manager position but was nonetheless functioning in a supervisory role. These actions and omissions led surveyors to determine that staff were not adequately trained or competent to respond to cardiopulmonary arrest for residents with full code status, resulting in an Immediate Jeopardy determination. The facility’s own root cause analysis, as reflected in meeting minutes, identified that the nurse did not check the resident’s code status and lacked knowledge about when CPR could be discontinued and when 911 should be called. The analysis documented that the nurse believed the resident was hospice and therefore did not start or continue CPR appropriately or call EMS when the resident was found without respirations and pulse. The facility assessment tool and policies referenced the need for staff training and competencies in identifying changes in condition, end-of-life care, advance care planning, and adherence to the CPR policy, but the documented events showed that these expectations were not met in practice for the staff involved in this incident. Surveyors concluded that the failure to ensure nursing staff were trained and competent to respond appropriately to cardiopulmonary arrest for a full code resident, including immediate initiation and continuation of CPR and activation of EMS, constituted noncompliance with requirements for sufficient and competent nursing staff. The failure affected Resident #1 and placed other full code residents at risk, leading to an Immediate Jeopardy finding that was later reduced in scope and severity after verification of an acceptable Immediate Jeopardy removal plan.
Plan Of Correction
This plan of correction is submitted as required under Federal and State regulations and statutes applicable to long term care providers. This plan of correction does not constitute an admission of liability on the part of the facility, and such liability is hereby specifically denied. The submission of this plan does not constitute agreement by the facility that the surveyors' findings or conclusions are accurate, that the findings constitute a deficiency, or that the scope or severity regarding any of these deficiencies cited are correctly applied Resident # 1 no longer resides in the facility as of 4.7.26. This has the potential to affect all residents in the facility. All licensed nurses were audited to ensure current [R] certification. Facility will ensure [R] certification through a [R] provider whose training includes a [R] on session either in a physical or virtual instructor-led setting in accordance with accepted national standards. Human resources, or designee, will audit monthly to ensure all licensed nurses have a current [R] certification.Education was completed with licensed nurses on initiating [R] services immediately when a resident is full code. Education included that [R] is to continue on a full code resident until [R] arrives and that the nurse cannot pronounce [R] on the full code resident and/or stop [R] until instructed by [R].Education will be added to new hire orientation.7 random licensed nurses will complete a knowledge quiz related to code events. Per week x 4 weeks, followed by 5 nurses x 4 weeks, then 3 nurses x 4 weeks. Results will be brought to QAPI to determine need for ongoing auditing.
Removal Plan
- Regional Director of Clinical Services educated the Administrator and Director of Nursing regarding the CPR policy and the need to immediately contact emergency medical services (911) in the event of a full code; Administrator and DON signed the education
- Regional Director of Clinical Services provided documented education to the Administrator and Director of Nursing regarding the CPR policy and the need to immediately contact emergency medical services (911) in the event of a full code
- Director of Nursing and/or nursing management educated all licensed nurses on the CPR policy and procedure, including where to find code status and what to do for full code hospice residents
- Reinforced through education that CPR must be initiated immediately for full code residents, continued until EMS arrives, and that nurses cannot pronounce death or stop CPR on a full code resident unless instructed by EMS
- Conducted an Ad Hoc Quality Improvement Performance Committee meeting to review root cause analysis recommendations related to the incident; recommendations approved
- Conducted a follow-up Ad Hoc Quality Improvement Performance Committee meeting to review progress on the plan; recommendations approved
Improper Use of Power Strips and Extension Cords in Multiple Facility Areas
Penalty
Summary
Surveyors identified deficiencies related to the use and maintenance of relocatable power taps (RPTs) and extension cords that did not comply with NFPA 101, NFPA 99, and NFPA 70 requirements. During a facility tour conducted between 11:00 a.m. and 3:30 p.m. with the Maintenance Director, surveyors observed in the social services office an RPT plugged into another RPT, which was then plugged into a wall outlet, with the cord running across a walkway and taped to the floor. In the multipurpose room, a television was found plugged into an extension cord, contrary to standards that prohibit using extension cords as a substitute for fixed wiring and require temporary extensions to be removed immediately after use. Further observations included the MDS office, where an RPT was plugged into another RPT and an outlet adapter was in use. These configurations did not meet the NFPA 99 provisions governing the proper use of power strips and extension cords, including requirements that power strips be appropriately rated and used only as intended, and that extension cords not be used as permanent wiring. During concurrent interviews, the Maintenance Director acknowledged these findings as they were observed by the surveyors.
Plan Of Correction
The RPT observed plugged into an RPT plugged into an outlet in the Social Services Office was removed. The extension cord used to plug in the television in the multipurpose room was removed. The RPT plugged into an RPT and outlet adapter in the MDS office was removed. Additional offices and resident care areas will be reviewed for the improper use of plug adapters, power strips and extension. The Executive Director/designee will educate the Maintenance Director on the importance of NFPA 101 Electrical Equipment- Power and Extension specific to the improper use of plug adapters, power strips, and extension and will continue to monitor in accordance with NFPA standards. Any findings will be reported to the monthly QAPI Committee for further review. The RPT observed plugged into an RPT plugged into an outlet in the Social Services Office was removed. The extension cord used to plug in the television in the multipurpose room was removed. The RPT plugged into an RPT and outlet adapter in the MDS office was removed. Additional offices and resident care areas will be reviewed for the improper use of plug adapters, power strips and extension. The Executive Director/designee will educate the Maintenance Director on the importance of NFPA 101 Electrical Equipment - Power and Extension specific to the improper use of plug adapters, power strips, and extension and will continue to monitor in accordance with NFPA standards. Any findings will be reported to the monthly QAPI Committee for further review.
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.



