Highland Pines Rehabilitation Center
Inspection history, citations, penalties and survey trends for this long-term care facility in Clearwater, Florida.
- Location
- 1111 S Highland Ave, Clearwater, Florida 33756
- CMS Provider Number
- 105690
- Inspections on file
- 29
- Latest survey
- March 4, 2026
- Citations (last 12 mo.)
- 3
Citation history
Health deficiencies cited at Highland Pines Rehabilitation Center during CMS and state inspections, most recent first.
A resident with multiple comorbidities, including bilateral BKA and diabetes, developed a skin tear and infection of the right fifth finger after it became caught in a wheelchair. Nursing staff documented the open area and later described the finger as swollen, discolored, with drainage, necrosis, and signs of infection, and notified the UM and wound care team, but no treatment orders were implemented at that time. The PCP later confirmed having seen the resident in person and giving orders for an x-ray, oral Doxycycline, and topical Bacitracin for the injured finger on the same day the wound was first documented, yet these orders were not entered into the system until two days later. During this delay, the resident continued to experience pain and went without ordered infection treatment, and subsequent imaging showed findings consistent with osteomyelitis, leading to transfer and surgical amputation of the affected finger.
Two residents did not receive urinary catheter care consistent with professional standards. For one resident with chronic kidney disease and obstructive uropathy, surveyors observed the catheter drainage bag repeatedly resting on the floor with cloudy urine, despite documentation of catheter care and a care plan requiring the bag to be kept off the floor. Staff, including a CNA, an LPN, and the DON, acknowledged that catheter bags should not be on the floor. For another resident with multiple comorbidities and a care plan identifying catheter-related infection risk, daily notes initially documented clear urine and normal abdominal findings, but the resident later became lethargic and was sent to the hospital, where severe sepsis due to UTI and a malpositioned catheter balloon in the urethra with marked bladder distention and hydroureteronephrosis were identified. No assessment of catheter patency was documented, and interviewed staff could not recall the resident’s catheter status, despite describing general routines of rounding and catheter bag monitoring.
Two residents with documented moderate to severe pain and intact cognition did not consistently receive or have documented pain management as ordered. One resident, with a knee contusion and muscle weakness, had scheduled Hydrocodone-Acetaminophen every 8 hours but missed documented doses and reported that when pain meds were not given as scheduled, pain persisted all day. Another resident, with osteoporosis and abdominal pain, had orders for pain monitoring every shift and multiple scheduled opioid regimens (oxycodone and Hydrocodone-Acetaminophen via G-tube), yet the MAR showed missed doses, missing pain scores, and unclear entries without supporting progress notes, while the resident reported episodes of severe pain when medications were not administered. The facility’s own policy required medications to be given per prescriber orders, within 60 minutes of scheduled time, with immediate MAR documentation.
A facility failed to protect residents from neglect in medication management and lab follow-up, affecting eleven residents. One resident experienced serious harm due to unmonitored medication levels and lack of consultation. The facility's inadequate processes for managing lab orders and notifying physicians of abnormal results contributed to the neglect.
The facility failed to provide competent physician services and proper monitoring of medication levels for residents, leading to serious harm for a resident who required transfer to a higher level of care. Systemic issues in lab processes, including missed lab draws and delayed communication of critical results, were identified. Interviews with staff revealed a lack of oversight and follow-up on lab results, contributing to inadequate medical supervision.
The facility failed to ensure nursing staff competency in lab monitoring and communication, leading to a resident's serious medical event due to unmonitored medication levels. Systemic issues included missed lab orders, delayed communication of critical results, and unclear responsibilities among staff, resulting in Immediate Jeopardy.
The facility failed to manage lab orders and results, affecting eleven residents. One resident experienced serious harm due to unmonitored medication levels, leading to a worsened condition and transfer to a higher level of care. The DON acknowledged a systemic failure in the lab process, with no assigned responsibility for ensuring labs were drawn and results communicated to providers.
A facility failed to monitor medication levels and adverse events effectively, leading to a resident experiencing a severe medical episode. The resident's medication levels were not adequately checked or communicated to the physician, resulting in a transfer to a higher level of care. Systemic failures in lab processes and medication management were identified, with multiple residents affected by inadequate monitoring and reporting of lab results.
A long-term care facility failed to ensure competent nursing staff in managing lab monitoring, order follow-through, and physician communication, leading to serious harm for a resident. The facility's broken lab process resulted in missed lab draws, unreported critical results, and inadequate follow-up on consultations. Staff interviews revealed systemic issues, including lack of access to lab portals and unclear responsibilities, contributing to significant lapses in care for multiple residents.
The facility failed to protect residents from neglect in medication management and lab follow-up, affecting eleven residents. A resident experienced serious harm due to unmonitored medication levels and lack of provider consultation. The facility's lab process was described as broken, with no clear responsibility for overseeing lab orders and results, leading to missed or delayed lab draws and inadequate care.
The facility failed to update PASRRs for residents with mental disorders and intellectual disabilities, affecting five residents. A resident's PASRR was incomplete, missing updates for dementia and schizophrenia diagnoses. Other residents' PASRRs lacked necessary checks and updates, and one resident's PASRR was missing entirely. Staff interviews revealed a lack of access to the PASRR submission program, contributing to the deficiency.
The facility failed to maintain a clean and sanitary environment in resident rooms across three halls, with issues such as strong urine odors, stained floors and walls, and broken furniture. Staff shortages and inadequate cleaning practices contributed to the ongoing problems, as confirmed by staff interviews and observations. The facility's maintenance director acknowledged ventilation issues and the need for repairs, while the housekeeping manager admitted to the lack of cleanliness and accountability.
A facility failed to maintain a medication error rate below 5%, resulting in an 18.75% error rate. A registered nurse administered medications late to two residents, as confirmed by eMAR records. Interviews revealed that medications should be given within one hour of the scheduled time, but the nurse admitted to administering them late. The facility's policy requires adherence to scheduled times, yet no orders were documented to allow late administration.
The facility failed to maintain effective infection control practices, as staff frequently entered rooms of residents on isolation without proper PPE. Observations showed CNAs and housekeeping staff disregarding PPE protocols, despite clear signage indicating the need for gloves, gowns, and masks. Interviews revealed confusion and lack of awareness among staff regarding isolation procedures, contributing to non-compliance with infection prevention measures.
The facility failed to maintain an ongoing antibiotic stewardship program for July and August 2024, with no documentation of infection surveillance or antibiotic orders. Confusion over infection control responsibilities and lack of engagement in surveillance or audits by new staff contributed to the deficiency. The facility's policy required tracking of antibiotic use, which was not implemented, and staff were unaware of the Department of Health contact for outbreaks.
A resident was repeatedly exposed to inappropriate sexual behavior by a roommate, with staff failing to provide adequate privacy or intervention. Additionally, two residents had their urinary catheter bags left uncovered and visible from the hallway, violating their privacy. Staff acknowledged these issues but did not take effective action, highlighting a gap between the facility's policies and actual practices.
The facility failed to ensure call lights were within reach for residents in eight rooms across two halls. Observations showed call lights on the floor, and staff interviews revealed a lack of consistent practice in ensuring accessibility. The DON confirmed the absence of a formal policy for call light placement, despite staff education on its importance.
A resident with severe cognitive impairment was repeatedly observed performing sexual acts in his room without the privacy curtain being drawn, exposing him to others. Despite known behavioral issues, the care plan did not address privacy concerns, and staff efforts to ensure privacy were inconsistent. Interviews with staff and the resident's guardian highlighted the need for privacy, which was not adequately provided, violating the facility's policy on resident rights.
The facility failed to provide adequate language assistance for two residents with limited English proficiency. One resident used a personal translation app due to the lack of interpreting services, while another relied on inconsistent Spanish-speaking staff despite severe cognitive impairment. The facility's policy promised free language assistance, but staff interviews revealed a lack of access to such services.
A resident with severe cognitive impairment experienced increased sedation and lethargy after a significant increase in psychotropic medication dosages. The facility failed to document concerns or communicate with the PA about the resident's condition, leading to inadequate monitoring of medication side effects. The DON acknowledged the need for better documentation and communication regarding changes in condition.
A resident with a detached retina experienced significant delays in receiving necessary vision services due to the facility's failure to arrange timely ophthalmology consultations and transportation. Despite multiple orders and documented attempts to secure appointments, the resident missed several scheduled visits, and efforts to send the resident to the ER were unsuccessful.
The facility failed to monitor medication-related side effects and behaviors for two residents, leading to a deficiency in ensuring drug regimens were free from unnecessary drugs. One resident, with multiple diagnoses, had no documented behaviors in August 2024 despite a care plan requiring it. Another resident, with dementia and anxiety, lacked behavior monitoring orders and documentation. The DON noted the need for medication review due to lethargy. Facility policy required behavior monitoring for psychoactive medications, which was not followed.
A resident with moderate cognitive impairment was found with eye drops in their nightstand, which they should not have had access to. Additionally, two medication rooms contained improperly stored medications, including those belonging to expired and discharged residents. Staff were unaware of the contents and reasons for storage, violating the facility's medication storage policy.
Two residents in the facility did not receive adequate dental care. One resident had broken and missing teeth and was supposed to get dentures, but there was no documentation of dentures being provided. The resident missed three appointments with the oral surgeon due to various reasons. Another resident had broken and discolored teeth but lacked a care plan for dental needs. Despite claims of regular dental visits, there was no documentation to support this.
A facility failed to coordinate hospice care and code status for a resident with conflicting resuscitation orders. The resident's records showed hospice care for a terminal diagnosis, but also had a full resuscitation order. Staff interviews revealed missing hospice documentation, and the facility's policy on advance directives was not followed.
A resident dependent on a wheelchair for mobility was left without it overnight due to cleaning, causing significant distress. Staff confirmed the wheelchair was removed for cleaning, and no alternate was provided, despite the resident's repeated requests and dependency on the wheelchair for ambulation.
Failure to Timely Enter and Implement Wound Care and Antibiotic Orders for Infected Finger Injury
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to implement and enter physician orders for wound care and infection treatment in a timely manner for a resident with a right fifth finger injury. The resident had multiple significant medical diagnoses, including bilateral below-knee amputations, chronic congestive heart failure, Type 2 diabetes mellitus with diabetic chronic kidney disease, muscle wasting and atrophy, altered mental status, and delusional disorder. A skin evaluation dated 10/20/2025 documented bruising and an open area on the right hand pinky, identified as a new in-house skin tear. Progress notes from that date showed the nurse observed an open area on the right pinky finger, notified the unit manager and wound care team, and documented that the resident reported his finger had become tangled in the wheelchair wheel. However, no treatment orders were documented or implemented at that time for the finger wound. Staff interviews revealed that on 10/20/2025, an LPN observed the resident’s right pinky finger as swollen, necrotic, with pus and a blister, and stated she could tell the finger was infected and that it appeared to have been developing for a few days. She acknowledged that no treatment was provided until 10/22/2025 and that she should have immediately notified the provider but did not. On 10/21/2025, the wound care nurse and unit manager saw the resident for other wound care and noted the right pinky as swollen, discolored, with drainage and a blister, but the skin issue entry for the finger remained “not evaluated,” and there was no documentation of treatment orders being obtained or initiated that day. The DON and regional nurse consultant both stated that facility expectations were that any open area should prompt immediate provider notification, with documentation of that notification and prompt entry of any resulting orders. Record review showed that the resident’s primary care provider saw the resident in person on 10/20/2025 and, according to an untitled document later signed by the provider, gave orders for an x-ray of the right hand, Doxycycline, and topical Bacitracin for the right fifth digit on that date. However, these orders were not entered into the facility’s system until 10/22/2025 and 10/23/2025, when an x-ray order dated 10/22/2025 and medication orders dated 10/23/2025 appeared in the physician orders. A late entry progress note dated 10/22/2025 documented a call placed to the physician regarding the infected, swollen, and bruised right pinky finger and indicated the physician would examine the resident while rounding. The regional nurse consultant and DON confirmed that orders should be added as soon as they are given and that the facility’s policy requires noting, dating, signing, and confirming the accuracy of physician orders, with daily review to identify errors of omission. The failure to promptly enter and implement the provider’s wound care and antibiotic orders resulted in the resident going without ordered infection treatment for two days before further diagnostic testing and transfer occurred. Radiology records showed that an x-ray of the right hand, performed on 10/22/2025 and reported on 10/23/2025, demonstrated subtle bone loss at the fifth DIP joint with swelling, with a conclusion suggesting osteomyelitis and recommending an MRI. The DON stated that the primary care provider suspected osteomyelitis related to the right pinky finger and that the x-ray results revealed osteomyelitis. Hospital records documented that the resident presented for evaluation of the right small finger injury, with initial hand x-rays demonstrating signs of cellulitis and osteomyelitis, and that IV antibiotics were initiated. The resident subsequently underwent resection (amputation) of the right small finger. Throughout this sequence, the survey findings focused on the gap between the provider’s in-person assessment and orders on 10/20/2025 and the facility’s failure to timely enter and implement those orders, despite multiple staff observations and documentation of the injured, infected right pinky finger.
Failure to Maintain Proper Urinary Catheter Care and Assessment
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to provide urinary catheter care and services in accordance with professional standards for two residents. For one resident with chronic kidney disease (Stage 4) and obstructive uropathy, surveyors repeatedly observed the urinary catheter drainage bag detached from the bed and resting directly on the floor, with urine that appeared slightly cloudy. These observations occurred multiple times on the same day, despite the treatment administration record indicating catheter care was provided and a care plan directing staff to keep the drainage bag below bladder level and off the floor. During interviews, a CNA and an LPN both stated that catheter bags should be kept off the floor to prevent infection and that they routinely check catheter tubing, drainage bag placement, and urine characteristics, yet the resident’s catheter bag remained on the floor during the LPN’s visit to the room. The DON also confirmed that CNAs are responsible for catheter care and that catheter bags should not be on the floor. For another resident with obstructive uropathy, renal disease, communicating hydrocephalus, altered mental status, dementia, and acidosis, the care plan identified use of a urinary catheter with risk for infection and complications and directed staff to change the drainage bag routinely and as needed and to provide daily catheter care. Daily skilled nursing notes documented clear, yellow urine and normal abdominal findings on several days. However, the resident was later found lethargic and not responding to verbal stimuli, and was sent to the hospital, where records showed admission for severe sepsis secondary to UTI, life-threatening hypernatremia, and acute kidney injury. A CT scan revealed the catheter balloon was inflated in the urethra rather than the bladder, causing a significantly distended bladder and bilateral hydroureteronephrosis. Despite this change in condition, there was no documented assessment of urinary catheter patency, and interviewed staff, including an LPN and CNAs, had no recollection of the resident’s catheter status, though they described general practices of frequent rounding, monitoring, and emptying catheter bags.
Failure to Administer and Document Scheduled Pain Management as Ordered
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to provide and document pain management as ordered for two cognitively intact residents with documented pain. One resident, admitted with conditions including a right knee contusion, muscle weakness, and need for assistance with personal care, had an MDS showing a BIMS score of 15 and an average pain intensity of 7/10 over the prior five days. This resident had a physician’s order for Hydrocodone-Acetaminophen 5-325 mg, one tablet by mouth every 8 hours for chronic pain, but the MAR for January showed missed scheduled doses on two occasions. In interview, the resident reported not receiving pain medication as scheduled and stated that when this occurred, she experienced pain for the rest of the day. The Activities Director recalled that this resident had filed a grievance a few months earlier about not receiving medications, but did not know the outcome. The second resident, admitted with diagnoses including generalized anxiety disorder, age-related osteoporosis, and unspecified abdominal pain, had an MDS showing a BIMS score of 13 and an average pain intensity of 7/10 over the prior five days. This resident had a physician’s order to monitor and record pain every shift on a 0–10 scale, but the MAR showed a missing pain assessment on one night shift and documented severe pain (10/10) and moderate pain (5/10) on other shifts. The resident also had multiple scheduled pain medication orders, including oxycodone 5 mg every 8 hours and Hydrocodone-Acetaminophen 5-325 mg and 7.5-325 mg via G-tube every 6 hours, with the MAR showing missed doses on several dates and unclear entries such as “NA” and “9 (see progress notes)” without corresponding progress note documentation. In interview, this resident reported sometimes not receiving scheduled pain medication, resulting in severe pain. The Regional Nurse Consultant acknowledged that both residents should have received medications as ordered and that any omitted doses should have been accompanied by appropriate documentation, consistent with the facility’s medication administration policy requiring administration per prescriber orders, timely administration within 60 minutes of scheduled time, and immediate documentation on the MAR.
Neglect in Medication Management and Lab Follow-Up
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to protect residents' rights to be free from neglect, specifically in the area of medication management and follow-up laboratory orders for medication therapeutic levels. Eleven residents were affected, with serious harm occurring to one resident whose medication levels were not monitored, and consultation was not obtained as requested by the provider. This resident experienced a significant medical event and had to be transferred to a higher level of care due to the facility's failure to monitor and manage medication levels appropriately. The report details multiple instances where residents' medication levels were not checked as ordered, and abnormal lab results were not communicated to the appropriate medical providers. For example, one resident had low medication levels that were not reported to the physician, leading to a severe medical event. The facility's process for managing lab orders and results was inadequate, with orders not being transcribed correctly, and lab results not being reviewed or acted upon in a timely manner. Interviews with staff, including the DON and medical providers, revealed systemic failures in the facility's processes for lab management and physician notification. The DON admitted to not having a primary person assigned to oversee labs and review results, leading to missed lab draws and unreported critical lab values. The facility's lack of a structured process for ensuring lab orders were executed and results communicated contributed to the neglect of residents' medical needs.
Plan Of Correction
Free from & Neglect/N204 1. What corrective action(s) will be accomplished for those residents found to have been affected by the deficient practices? Residents #5 and #10 no longer reside in the facility. Laboratory orders for medication management were received for residents #1, #2, #3, #4, #6, #7, #8, #9, and #11. Results of labs were reported to resident physicians, documented in the clinical record, and new orders were transcribed as indicated. Consult was for resident #1 as requested by physician. 2. How you will identify other residents who have the potential to be affected by the same deficient practice and what corrective actions will be taken. A facility-wide audit of current residents on medications was conducted by Director of Nursing/designee to ensure that residents on medications had appropriate lab monitoring orders in place and that consultation orders for were completed as indicated. Any residents identified without lab monitoring orders or fully executed consults were reported to physician and new orders transcribed as indicated. 3. What measures will be put in place or what systematic changes you will make to ensure that the deficient practice does not recur. Director of Nursing/Designee will educate licensed nursing staff on the lab monitoring process to include ensuring that residents on medication receive proper lab monitoring, physician notification of abnormal lab values or refused labs, documentation of physician notification and new orders is recorded in the resident clinical record, and consultation orders for are properly executed. 4. How the corrective action(s) will be monitored to ensure the deficient practice will not recur. What quality assurance program will be put into place. Director of Nursing/Designee will randomly audit residents on medications to ensure that appropriate lab orders for monitoring medication levels are in place weekly for four weeks and then monthly for two months. Results of the audits will be submitted by the Director of Nursing/designee to the Quality Assessment, Assurance, and Compliance Committee monthly for three months for further recommendations and guidance.
Removal Plan
- The Regional Nurse Consultant educated the Administrator and Director of Nursing on neglect, and as they relate to ensuring proper follow-through with consultation orders, laboratory monitoring of therapeutic levels for medications, physician notification of abnormal labs, and follow-up procedures and resident condition change related to laboratory results. Education is 100% complete.
- The Consultant Physician provided education to facility Medical Director and physician extender on neglect, and as they relate to ensuring proper follow-through with consultation orders, laboratory monitoring of therapeutic levels for medications, and follow-up procedures related to laboratory results.
- The Director of Nursing or designee educated 100% of staff on neglect, and as they relate to ensuring proper follow-through with consultation orders, laboratory monitoring of therapeutic levels for medications, physician notification of abnormal lab values, and follow-up procedures related to laboratory results.
- Process Change: Director of Nursing is responsible for reviewing consultation log(s) and making sure that consultation orders were executed, monitoring the laboratory monitoring processes for medications that require lab levels, reviewing progress notes to ensure physician notification has taken place, and ensuring complete follow-through with relation to laboratory results.
- All education and in-service sign-in sheets were reviewed and validated 53 out of 93 employees had received neglect, and training as they relate to ensuring proper follow-through with consultation orders, laboratory monitoring of therapeutic levels for medications, physician notification of abnormal labs, and follow-up procedures and resident condition change related to laboratory results.
- Interviews were conducted with 53 staff members across various shifts, the Nursing Home Administrator, the Assistant Director of Nursing, the DON, and the Medical Director. The staff members were able to verbalize they had been trained and were knowledgeable about the new policies.
Deficient Physician Services and Lab Monitoring in LTC Facility
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to provide competent physician services for the treatment and monitoring of diagnoses for eleven residents. This deficiency was evidenced by the lack of monitoring and consultation for medication levels, which led to serious harm for one resident. The resident's medication levels were not monitored, and consultation was not obtained as requested by the provider, resulting in the resident experiencing a severe medical event and requiring transfer to a higher level of care. The report details multiple instances where residents' lab results were not properly monitored or communicated to the appropriate medical personnel. For example, one resident had low medication levels that were not reported to the physician, and another resident's critical lab results were not communicated in a timely manner. Additionally, there were failures in ensuring that lab orders were entered into the lab portal, leading to missed or delayed lab draws. Interviews with facility staff, including the Director of Nursing (DON), revealed systemic issues in the lab process, such as the lack of a designated person to oversee lab results and ensure follow-up. The DON acknowledged that the facility's process for managing lab orders and results was broken, contributing to the failure to provide adequate medical supervision and care for the residents.
Plan Of Correction
Residents Care Supervised by a Physician. 1. What corrective action(s) will be accomplished for those residents found to have been affected by the deficient practice. Resident #5 and #10 no longer reside in facility. Laboratory orders for medication management were received for residents #1, #2, #3, #4, #6, #7, #8, #9, and #11. Results of labs were reported to resident physicians, documented in the clinical record, and new orders were transcribed as indicated. Consult was for resident #1 as requested by physician. 2. How you will identify other residents having potential to be affected by the same deficient practice and what corrective action will be taken. Facility-wide audit of current residents on medications was conducted by Director of Nursing/designee to ensure that residents on medications had appropriate lab monitoring orders in place and consults have been completed as indicated. Any residents identified without lab monitoring orders were reported to physician and new orders transcribed as indicated. Any prior consultation orders not properly executed were scheduled. 3. What measures will be put into place or what systematic changes you will make to ensure that the deficient practice does not recur. Director of Nursing/Designee will educate licensed nursing staff on ensuring appropriate physician oversight of resident care related to the lab monitoring process, ensuring that residents on medication receive proper lab monitoring, physicians are notified of abnormal lab values or refused labs, outside providers are consulted as indicated, and documentation of physician notification and new orders is recorded in the resident clinical record. 4. How the corrective action(s) will be monitored to ensure the deficient practice will not recur i.e. what quality assurance program will be put into place. Director of Nursing/Designee will randomly audit residents on medications to ensure that the results of lab orders for monitoring medication levels have been reported to the physician, new orders are transcribed as indicated, and consultation orders for outside providers are completed as indicated. Audits will be performed weekly for four weeks and then monthly for two months. Results of the audits will be submitted by the Director of Nursing/designee to the Quality Assessment, Assurance, and Compliance Committee monthly for three months for further recommendations and guidance.
Removal Plan
- The Regional Nurse Consultant educated the Administrator and Director of Nursing on ensuring a competent physician process is in place for residents with diagnoses.
- A consulting was credentialed with Point Click Care access and on site.
- The Consultant Physician provided education to facility Medical Director and physician extender on the process for monitoring therapeutic lab levels for residents with diagnoses and the medication prescribing standards for such.
- The Director of Nursing or designee educated 100% of licensed nursing staff on the process for ensuring that consultation orders are completed, lab work is ordered for residents on medications, abnormal lab results are reported to physicians, and new orders are transcribed appropriately.
- Process Change: The Director of Nursing is responsible for making sure that a competent physician process is in place for residents with diagnoses.
- Education and in-service sign-in sheets were reviewed and validated with 12 out of 18 licensed nursing staff on the process for ensuring that consultation orders are completed, lab work is ordered for residents on medications, abnormal lab results are reported to physicians, and new orders are transcribed appropriately.
- Interviews were conducted with 10 licensed nurses across various shifts, the Assistant Director of Nursing, the DON, and the Medical Director. The staff members were able to verbalize they had been trained and were knowledgeable about the new policies.
Deficient Nursing Staff Competency and Lab Monitoring
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure that nursing staff were competent in caring for residents, particularly in the areas of laboratory monitoring, following through with orders, processing consultations, and communicating with physicians. This deficiency was evident in the case of a resident whose medication levels were not adequately monitored, leading to a serious medical event. The resident's medication levels were found to be low, and despite orders for consultation and lab tests, there was no evidence that these were completed or that the physician was notified of the results. The report highlights multiple instances where lab results were not communicated to the appropriate medical personnel, and orders were not followed through. For example, several residents had lab orders that were either not entered into the lab portal or not completed, resulting in missed or delayed lab tests. In some cases, critical lab results were not reported to the physician in a timely manner, if at all. This lack of communication and follow-through contributed to the deterioration of residents' conditions. Interviews with staff revealed systemic issues in the facility's lab process, including a lack of access to the lab portal for some nurses, insufficient training on lab procedures, and unclear responsibilities for ensuring lab orders were completed. The Director of Nursing acknowledged these failures, noting that there was no assigned person to oversee lab processes and that the system for managing lab orders and results was broken. This systemic failure in managing lab processes and communication with physicians led to the determination of Immediate Jeopardy.
Plan Of Correction
Competent Nurse staffing 1. What corrective action(s) will be accomplished for those residents found to have been affected by the deficient practices? Residents #5 and #10 no longer reside in the facility. Laboratory orders for medication management were received for residents #1, #2, #3, #4, #6, #7, #8, #9, and #11. Results of labs were reported to resident physicians, documented in the clinical record, and new orders were transcribed as indicated. Consult was for resident #1 as requested by physician. 2. How will you identify other residents having potential to be affected by the same practice and what corrective actions will be taken? A facility-wide audit of current residents on medications was conducted by Director of Nursing/designee to ensure that medications residents on had appropriate lab monitoring orders in place and that any consults that were previously ordered were scheduled. Any residents identified without lab monitoring orders or fully executed consults were reported to physician and new orders transcribed as indicated. 3. What measures will be put into place or what systematic changes will you make to ensure that the practice does not recur? Director of Nursing/Designee will educate licensed nursing staff on the care of residents with a diagnosis to include ensuring that lab orders are in place to monitor medication levels, physicians are notified of abnormal lab values or refused labs, documentation of physician notification of lab levels and new orders is recorded in the resident clinical record, and that consultation orders for or other outside providers are executed appropriately. 4. How the corrective action(s) will monitor to ensure the practice will not recur, i.e., what quality assurance program will be put in place(s); will be accomplished for those residents: Director of Nursing/Designee will randomly audit residents on medications to ensure that appropriate lab orders for monitoring medication levels are in place and consultation orders for outside providers are completed weekly for four weeks and then monthly for two months. Results of the audits will be submitted by the Director of Nursing/designee to the Quality Assessment, Assurance, and Compliance Committee monthly for three months for further recommendations and guidance.
Removal Plan
- Regional Nurse Consultant educated the Administrator and Director of Nursing on ensuring proper follow-through with consultation orders, laboratory monitoring of therapeutic levels for medications, physician notification of abnormal lab values, and follow-up procedures and resident condition change related to laboratory results.
- Current resident audit conducted by Director of Nursing/designee for review of residents taking medications with no concerns identified.
- Consultant Physician provided education to facility Medical Director and physician extender regarding standards of practice for monitoring and treating residents with related diagnoses.
- Director of Nursing or designee educated 100% of licensed nursing staff on ensuring proper follow-through with consultation orders, laboratory monitoring of therapeutic levels for medications, physician notification of abnormal lab values, and follow-up procedures related to laboratory results.
- Process Change: Director of Nursing is responsible for ensuring proper follow-through with consultation orders, laboratory monitoring of therapeutic levels for medications, physician notification, and follow-up procedures related to laboratory results.
- All education and in-service sign-in sheets were reviewed and validated 10 out of 18 licensed nursing staff on ensuring proper follow-through with consultation orders, laboratory monitoring of therapeutic levels for medications, physician notification of abnormal lab values, and follow-up procedures related to laboratory results.
- Interviews were conducted with 10 licensed nurses across various shifts, the Assistant Director of Nursing, the DON, and the Medical Director. The staff members were able to verbalize they had been trained and were knowledgeable about the new policies.
Failure to Manage Lab Orders and Results
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure that laboratory orders were properly entered into the electronic medical record and laboratory portal, resulting in incomplete lab tests and delayed notification of abnormal results to providers. This deficiency affected eleven residents, all of whom were sampled in the survey. For instance, one resident experienced serious harm due to unmonitored medication levels and lack of timely consultation, leading to a worsened condition and transfer to a higher level of care. The resident's medication levels were consistently low, and there was no evidence that the physician was notified of these critical results. The facility's Director of Nursing (DON) acknowledged a systemic failure in the lab process, including the lack of a primary person to oversee lab orders and results. Interviews with staff revealed that lab results were often not communicated to providers unless they were critical, and even then, the process was inconsistent. The DON admitted that the facility's process for managing lab orders and results was broken, with no assigned responsibility for ensuring that labs were drawn and results were reviewed and communicated to the appropriate providers. Multiple residents had lab orders that were not completed or documented, and there was no evidence of provider notification for abnormal results. The facility's failure to manage lab orders and results led to residents not receiving necessary medical interventions in a timely manner. The DON and other staff members confirmed that the facility did not have a policy for laboratory processes or for managing changes in residents' conditions, contributing to the deficiencies identified in the survey.
Plan Of Correction
F773 lab services 1. What corrective action(s) will be accomplished for those residents found to have been affected by the deficient practices? Resident #5 and #10 no longer reside in facility. Laboratory orders for medication management were received for residents #1, #2, #3, #4, #6, #7, #8, #9, and #11. Results of labs were reported to resident physicians, documented in the clinical record, and new orders were transcribed as indicated. Consult was for resident #1 as requested by physician. 2. How you will identify other residents having potential to be affected by the same deficient practice and what corrective action will be taken. Facility-wide audit of current residents on medications was conducted by Director of Nursing/designee to ensure that residents on medications had appropriate lab monitoring orders in place and that any consults that were previously ordered were scheduled. Any residents identified without lab monitoring orders or fully executed consults were reported to physician and new orders transcribed as indicated. 3. What measures will be put into place or what systematic changes you will make to ensure that the deficient practice does not recur. Director of Nursing/Designee will educate licensed nursing staff on the lab process to include ensuring that lab orders are in place to monitor medication levels, physicians are notified of abnormal lab values or refused labs, and documentation of physician notification of lab levels and new orders is recorded in the resident clinical record. 4. How the corrective action(s) will be monitored to ensure the deficient practice will not recur i.e. what quality assurance program will be put into place. Director of Nursing/Designee will randomly audit residents on medications to ensure that appropriate lab orders for monitoring medication levels are in place weekly for four weeks and then monthly for two months. Results of the audits will be submitted by the Director of Nursing/designee to the Quality Assessment, Assurance, and Compliance Committee monthly for three months for further recommendations and guidance.
Removal Plan
- On the Regional Nurse Consultant educate the Administrator and Director of Nursing on ensuring proper follow-through with consultation orders, laboratory monitoring of therapeutic levels for medications, lab process with morning meeting process review compared to lab binder by clinical leadership, physician notification of abnormal labs, and follow-up procedures related to laboratory results.
- On the Consultant Physician provide education to facility Medical Director and physician extender on ensuring proper and timely monitoring and treating of residents with -related diagnoses.
- On the Director of Nursing or designee educated 100% of licensed nursing staff on making sure that consultation orders are properly executed, labs are in place to monitor therapeutic levels for medications, physicians are notified of abnormal lab results, and lab monitoring guidelines are followed related to laboratory results.
- Process Change: Effective the Director of Nursing is responsible for making sure that consultation orders are properly executed, labs are in place to monitor therapeutic levels for medications, physicians are notified of abnormal lab results, and lab monitoring guidelines are followed related to laboratory results.
- On all education and in-service sign-in sheets were reviewed and validated with licensed nursing staff on making sure that consultation orders are properly executed, labs are in place to monitor therapeutic levels for medications, physicians are notified of abnormal lab results, and lab monitoring guidelines are followed related to laboratory results.
- On interviews were conducted with licensed nurses across various shifts, the Assistant Director of Nursing, the DON, and the Medical Director. The staff members were able to verbalize they had been trained and were knowledgeable about the new policies.
Failure in Medication Monitoring and Lab Management
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to effectively monitor adverse events, specifically in the management of medication levels for multiple residents. This deficiency was highlighted by the case of a resident whose medication levels were not adequately monitored, leading to a significant medical event. The resident was admitted with various medical diagnoses and had specific medication orders that were not consistently followed. Laboratory results indicating low medication levels were not communicated to the physician, and necessary consultations were not obtained, resulting in the resident experiencing a severe medical episode that required transfer to a higher level of care. The report details multiple instances where the facility did not maintain effective systems for monitoring and reporting adverse events. Several residents had medication levels that were either not checked or not reported to the appropriate medical personnel, leading to suboptimal management of their conditions. The facility's process for handling lab orders and results was inadequate, with orders not being entered into the lab portal, results not being communicated to providers, and critical lab values not being addressed in a timely manner. Interviews with facility staff, including the Director of Nursing and other medical personnel, revealed systemic failures in the lab process and medication management. There was a lack of accountability and oversight in ensuring that lab results were reviewed and acted upon. The facility's Quality Assurance and Performance Improvement (QAPI) plan did not adequately address these issues, leading to a breakdown in the monitoring and management of residents' health care needs.
Plan Of Correction
QAPI/N 901 QA Program 1. What corrective action(s) will be accomplished for those residents found to have been affected by the deficient practices? Residents #5 and #10 no longer reside in the facility. Laboratory orders for medication management were received for residents #1, #2, #3, #4, #6, #7, #8, #9, and #11. Results of labs were reported to resident physicians, documented in the clinical record, and new orders were transcribed as indicated. Consult was for resident #1 as requested by physician. 2. How will you identify other residents having potential to be affected by the same practice and what corrective actions will be taken? A facility-wide audit of current residents on medications was conducted by the Director of Nursing/designee to ensure that residents on medications had appropriate lab monitoring orders in place and that any consults that were previously ordered were scheduled. Any residents identified without lab monitoring orders or fully executed consults were reported to physician and new orders transcribed as indicated. 3. What measures will be put into place or what systematic changes will you make to ensure that the practice does not recur? The Regional Nurse Consultant educated the Nursing Home Administrator and Director of Nursing on ensuring that an effective Quality Assurance program is in place as it pertains to the care of residents with a diagnosis, ensuring that lab orders are in place to monitor medication levels, physicians are notified of abnormal lab values or refused labs, documentation of physician notification of lab levels and new orders is recorded in the resident clinical record, and that consultation orders for or other outside providers are executed appropriately. 4. How the corrective action(s) will monitor to ensure the practice will not recur, i.e., what quality assurance program will be put in place(s); will be accomplished for those residents: Director of Nursing/Designee will randomly audit residents on medications to ensure that appropriate lab orders for monitoring medication levels are in place and consultation orders for outside providers are completed weekly for four weeks and then monthly for two months. Results of the audits will be submitted by the Director of Nursing/designee to the Quality Assessment, Assurance, and Compliance Committee monthly for three months for further recommendations and guidance.
Removal Plan
- Regional Nurse Consultant educated the Administrator and Director of Nursing on ensuring that an effective Quality Assurance and Performance Improvement Plan is in place to ensure the safety of all residents.
- Administrator educated 100% of the members of the Quality Assurance and Assessment Committee on ensuring that an effective Quality Assurance and Performance Improvement Plan is in place to ensure the safety of all residents.
- Adhoc meeting held with interdisciplinary team and Medical director related to lab process monitoring and MD notification. Another Adhoc meeting was held on lab process/lab monitoring, following physician orders, clinical morning meeting process with review of lab binder, lab access availability audit.
- Daily audits were conducted on lab process with no new findings.
- Process Change: Administrator is responsible for ensuring that an effective Quality Assurance and Performance Improvement Plan is in place to ensure the safety of all residents.
- All education and in-service sign in sheets were reviewed and validated for 13 out of 13 members of the Quality Assurance and Assessment Committee on ensuring that an effective Quality Assurance and Performance Improvement Plan is in place to ensure the safety of all residents.
- Interviews were conducted with the Nursing Home Administrator, members of the interdisciplinary team, the Assistant Director of Nursing, and the DON. The staff members were able to verbalize they had been trained and were knowledgeable about the new policies.
Inadequate Lab Monitoring and Communication in LTC Facility
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure that nursing staff were competent in managing the care of residents, particularly in the areas of laboratory monitoring, following through with orders, processing consultations, and communicating with physicians. This deficiency was evident in the case of a resident who experienced serious harm due to inadequate monitoring of medication levels and failure to obtain a necessary consultation as requested by the provider. The resident was admitted with multiple medical diagnoses, including generalized idiopathic conditions, and required specific medication management. However, the facility did not monitor the resident's medication levels appropriately, leading to a significant medical event that necessitated transfer to a higher level of care. The report highlights multiple instances where the facility's processes for managing laboratory orders and results were inadequate. For several residents, including the one who suffered serious harm, there were repeated failures to notify physicians of critical lab results, to follow up on lab orders, and to ensure that consultations were scheduled and completed. Interviews with staff, including the Director of Nursing (DON), revealed systemic issues in the facility's lab process, such as the lack of a designated person to oversee lab results and ensure follow-up actions were taken. The DON acknowledged that the facility's process for managing labs was broken, leading to missed lab draws and unreported critical results. The deficiency was further compounded by communication breakdowns among staff and between the facility and external providers. Staff interviews indicated confusion and inconsistency in the lab process, with some staff lacking access to the lab portal and others unclear about their responsibilities in managing lab orders and results. The facility's failure to maintain a reliable system for lab management and communication resulted in significant lapses in care for multiple residents, as evidenced by the lack of documentation and follow-up on critical lab results and physician notifications.
Plan Of Correction
F 726 Competent Nurse staffing 1. What corrective action(s) will be accomplished for those residents found to have been affected by the deficient practices? Residents #5 and #10 no longer reside in the facility. Laboratory orders for medication management were received for residents #1, #2, #3, #4, #6, #7, #8, #9, and #11. Results of labs were reported to resident physicians, documented in the clinical record, and new orders were transcribed as indicated. Consult was for resident #1 as requested by physician. 2. How will you identify other residents having potential to be affected by the same practice and what corrective actions will be taken? Facility-wide audit of current residents on medications was conducted by Director of Nursing/designee to ensure that residents on medications had appropriate lab monitoring orders in place and that any consults that were previously ordered were scheduled. Any residents identified without lab monitoring orders or fully executed consults were reported to physician and new orders transcribed as indicated. 3. What measures will be put into place or what systematic changes will you make to ensure that the practice does not recur? Director of Nursing/Designee will educate licensed nursing staff on the care of residents with a diagnosis to include ensuring that lab orders are in place to monitor medication levels, physicians are notified of abnormal lab values or refused labs, documentation of physician notification of lab levels and new orders is recorded in the resident clinical record, and that consultation orders for or other outside providers are executed appropriately. 4. How the corrective action(s) will monitor to ensure the practice will not recur, i.e., what quality assurance program will be put in place(s); will be accomplished for those residents: Director of Nursing/Designee will randomly audit residents on medications to ensure that appropriate lab orders for monitoring medication levels are in place and consultation orders for outside providers are completed weekly for four weeks and then monthly for two months. Results of the audits will be submitted by the Director of Nursing/designee to the Quality Assessment, Assurance, and Compliance Committee monthly for three months for further recommendations and guidance.
Neglect in Medication Management and Lab Follow-Up
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to protect the residents' right to be free from neglect, particularly in the area of medication management and follow-up laboratory orders for medication therapeutic levels. Eleven residents were affected, with serious harm occurring to one resident whose medication levels were not monitored, and consultation was not obtained as requested by the provider. This resident experienced a significant medical event and had to be transferred to a higher level of care. The report details multiple instances where residents' medication levels were not properly monitored, and laboratory results were not communicated to the appropriate medical personnel. For example, one resident's medication levels were consistently low, yet there was no evidence that the physician was notified of these results. Additionally, there were lapses in ensuring that lab orders were entered into the lab portal, leading to missed or delayed lab draws. The Director of Nursing acknowledged a system failure in the facility's lab process, which contributed to these deficiencies. Interviews with staff revealed a lack of clear responsibility for overseeing lab orders and results. The facility's process for managing lab work was described as broken, with no designated person to ensure that lab results were reviewed and communicated to providers. This systemic issue resulted in residents not receiving the necessary medical oversight, leading to potential harm and inadequate care.
Plan Of Correction
1. What corrective action(s) will be accomplished for those residents found to have been affected by the deficient practices? Residents #5 and #10 no longer reside in the facility. Laboratory orders for medication management were received for residents #1, #2, #3, #4, #6, #7, #8, #9, and #11. Results of labs were reported to resident physicians, documented in the clinical record, and new orders were transcribed as indicated. Consult was for resident #1 as requested by physician. 2. How you will identify other residents who have the potential to be affected by the same deficient practice and what corrective actions will be taken. A facility-wide audit of current residents on medications was conducted by Director of Nursing/designee to ensure that residents on medications had appropriate lab monitoring orders in place and that consultation orders were completed as indicated. Any residents identified without lab monitoring orders or fully executed consults were reported to physician and new orders transcribed as indicated. 3. What measures will be put in place or what systematic changes you will make to ensure that the deficient practice does not recur. Director of Nursing/Designee will educate licensed nursing staff on the lab monitoring process to include ensuring that residents' medication receive proper lab monitoring, physician notification of abnormal lab values or refused labs, documentation of physician notification and new orders is recorded in the resident clinical record, and consultation orders for are properly executed. 4. How the corrective action(s) will be monitored to ensure the deficient practice will not recur. Director of Nursing/Designee will randomly audit residents on medications to ensure that appropriate lab orders for monitoring medication levels are in place weekly for four weeks and then monthly for two months. Results of the audits will be submitted by the Director of Nursing/designee to the Quality Assessment, Assurance, and Compliance Committee monthly for three months for further recommendations and guidance.
Deficiency in PASRR Updates for Residents with Mental Disorders
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure that the Preadmission Screening and Resident Reviews (PASRRs) for residents with mental disorders and intellectual disabilities were updated appropriately. This deficiency was identified for five residents who had qualifying mental health diagnoses. For instance, Resident #9 was admitted with a primary diagnosis of dementia and other diagnoses including schizophrenia and major depressive disorder. However, the PASRR documentation was incomplete, missing page 2, and did not reflect the updated primary diagnosis of dementia or consider the diagnosis of schizophrenia. The deficiency was further highlighted in the cases of other residents. Resident #7's PASRR did not have the qualifying diagnoses checked, and the need for a level II PASRR was not identified. Similarly, Resident #22's PASRR did not reflect the diagnosis of dementia, and Resident #39's PASRR also failed to identify the need for a level II PASRR. Additionally, Resident #23's medical record lacked a level I PASRR entirely, and the facility was unable to locate it. Interviews with facility staff revealed systemic issues in the PASRR process. The Director of Nursing (DON) and the Social Services Director (SSD) both indicated they lacked access to the PASRR web-based submission program, which hindered their ability to update PASRRs. The facility's policy required PASRR screenings to be conducted prior to admission, but the process was not effectively managed, leading to the oversight of necessary updates and reviews for residents with serious mental illnesses or intellectual disabilities.
Facility Fails to Maintain Clean and Sanitary Environment
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to maintain a clean and sanitary environment in resident rooms across three halls, as observed during a four-day survey. A strong urine odor was noted in the secured unit of hall 300, confirmed by staff interviews. Rooms were found with various cleanliness issues, including stained floors, walls, and curtains, grime on baseboards, and broken furniture. Interviews with staff revealed that the foul odor and unclean conditions were ongoing issues, exacerbated by residents urinating on the floors and a lack of accountability in housekeeping duties. Housekeeping staff from sister facilities were brought in to assist, indicating a shortage of regular staff due to illness. The facility's housekeeping manager admitted to the lack of cleanliness and the need for more frequent cleaning, especially in the mornings. Observations also noted missing door handles, moldy and musty smells, and a smoking area with safety hazards such as a fallen fence and insect infestations. The facility's maintenance director acknowledged the ventilation issues and the need for room repairs, including painting and furniture replacement. The facility's policy and procedure review highlighted the expectation of a safe, clean, and homelike environment for residents. However, the observed conditions and staff interviews indicated a failure to adhere to these standards. The maintenance director and nursing home administrator confirmed the presence of ongoing maintenance issues, prioritizing leaks over other concerns. The housekeeping manager outlined the daily cleaning procedures, but the observed deficiencies suggested these were not effectively implemented.
Medication Administration Errors Exceeding 5% Rate
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to maintain a medication error rate below 5%, as evidenced by observations of medication administration for two residents, resulting in an 18.75% error rate. During the observation, a registered nurse administered insulin and Cyanocobalamin to one resident and several medications, including Amlodipine and Naloxegol Oxalate, to another resident. In both cases, the medications were administered late, as indicated by the electronic medication administration records (eMAR) highlighted in red. The scheduled times for these medications were not adhered to, leading to the errors being identified. Interviews with the registered nurse and the Director of Nursing (DON) revealed that medications should be administered within one hour before or after the scheduled time. However, the nurse admitted to consistently administering medications after 10:00 a.m. The facility's policy on medication administration specifies that medications should be given according to the prescriber's written orders and within 60 minutes of the scheduled time. Despite notifying the physicians about the late administration, there were no documented orders to administer the medications late for the residents involved.
Inadequate Infection Control Practices
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to maintain an effective infection prevention and control program, as evidenced by multiple instances of staff not adhering to proper PPE protocols when entering rooms of residents under transmission-based precautions. Observations revealed that staff members, including CNAs and housekeeping managers, entered rooms with contact isolation signage without donning the required PPE such as gloves, gowns, and masks. Interviews with staff indicated a lack of awareness and understanding of the isolation status of residents and the necessary precautions to be taken. Specific incidents included staff entering rooms of residents who were on isolation for COVID-19 without the appropriate PPE. For instance, a housekeeping manager entered and exited a resident's room multiple times without donning or doffing PPE, despite the presence of a contact isolation sign. Additionally, staff members were observed assisting residents without using PPE, and some staff were unsure of the isolation requirements or the reasons for the posted signage. This lack of compliance was further highlighted by the presence of outdated isolation orders and inconsistent signage. The facility's infection prevention and control policies were not effectively implemented, as evidenced by the discrepancies between the expected PPE protocols and the actions of the staff. The Infection Control Preventionist confirmed that there was a lack of oversight regarding PPE supply and signage, contributing to the confusion and non-compliance observed. The facility's failure to ensure adherence to infection control protocols posed a risk of transmission of infections among residents and staff.
Failure in Antibiotic Stewardship Program
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to maintain an ongoing antibiotic stewardship program for two out of three months reviewed, specifically for July and August 2024. The infection prevention documentation lacked any records related to the surveillance of resident infections and antibiotic orders during these months. Interviews revealed confusion regarding the responsibility for infection control, with the Nursing Home Administrator initially stating that the Infection Control Preventionist was the Registered Nurse Unit Manager. However, the RN Unit Manager clarified that she was not responsible for infection control, indicating a lack of clarity in role assignments. Further interviews with the Director of Nursing and the Infection Control Preventionist, who was also the Unit Manager, revealed that both were new to the facility and not engaged in any surveillance or audits related to infection control practices. They were unable to provide monthly antibiotic stewardship program reports for July and August 2024. The facility's policy required ongoing tracking of antibiotic prescribing and use, but this was not being implemented. Additionally, neither the DON nor the ICP knew the contact for the Department of Health in case of an outbreak, highlighting a gap in communication and preparedness.
Failure to Ensure Resident Dignity and Privacy
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure a dignified living environment for several residents, notably Resident #56, who was exposed to inappropriate sexual behavior by his roommate. Despite having a care plan that emphasized promoting dignity and ensuring privacy, there were no specific interventions to address the roommate's behavior. Staff members, including CNAs and LPNs, acknowledged the ongoing issue but did not take effective measures to protect Resident #56 from exposure. Observations showed Resident #56 attempting to shield himself from his roommate's actions, indicating distress and discomfort, yet staff responses were inadequate and delayed. Additionally, the facility did not maintain the dignity of Residents #264 and #266, as their urinary catheter bags were left uncovered and visible from the hallway on multiple occasions. This lack of privacy was observed over two days, with staff acknowledging the absence of covers but failing to provide an explanation or remedy the situation. The facility's policy on resident rights emphasizes dignity and privacy, yet these were not upheld in practice. Interviews with various staff members, including CNAs, LPNs, and the Nursing Home Administrator, revealed a lack of awareness and action regarding the residents' rights to privacy and dignity. The Social Services Director and the Psychiatric Physician Assistant also expressed concerns but had not been informed of the issues. The facility's failure to address these deficiencies highlights a significant gap between policy and practice, impacting the residents' quality of life.
Call Light Accessibility Deficiency
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure that call lights were within reach for residents in eight rooms across two halls, specifically halls 200 and 300. During multiple facility tours, surveyors observed call lights on the floor in several rooms, indicating that residents did not have immediate access to them. Interviews with staff, including CNAs and LPNs, revealed that while they acknowledged the importance of having call lights within reach, they did not consistently ensure this was the case. Staff members admitted to not noticing the call lights on the floor and expressed intentions to rectify the situation when it was brought to their attention. The Director of Nursing (DON) confirmed that the facility lacked a formal policy and procedure for call light placement, although it was understood that call lights should be accessible to residents. Despite staff education on the importance of call light accessibility, the deficiency persisted, as evidenced by the repeated observations of call lights on the floor. This oversight suggests a gap in the implementation of practices to ensure resident safety and prompt access to assistance.
Failure to Ensure Resident Privacy During Inappropriate Behavior
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure privacy for a resident with severe cognitive impairment, who was observed performing sexual acts on himself in his room without the privacy curtain being drawn. This resident, who had a history of dementia, schizophrenia, major depressive disorder, and age-related cognitive decline, was exposed to other residents, visitors, and staff due to the lack of privacy measures. The care plan for this resident did not adequately address the dignity and privacy concerns for him and his roommate, despite the resident's known behavioral issues, including public disrobing and inappropriate sexual behavior. During multiple observations, the resident was seen engaging in sexual acts with the privacy curtain open, exposing him to the public and his roommate. Staff interviews revealed that the resident's behavior was a known issue, and while staff attempted to redirect him and pull the curtain, these measures were inconsistently applied. The roommate was observed trying to pull the curtain for privacy, and other residents were seen reacting to the behavior, indicating a lack of consistent privacy measures. Interviews with staff, including CNAs, LPNs, and the Social Services Director, highlighted a recognition of the need for privacy but also revealed lapses in ensuring it was provided. The facility's policy on resident rights emphasized the importance of dignity and privacy, yet the implementation was lacking, as evidenced by the repeated exposure of the resident during inappropriate behavior. The resident's guardian and psychiatric physician assistant also acknowledged the need for privacy and monitoring of the resident's behavior, underscoring the deficiency in maintaining the resident's dignity and privacy.
Failure to Provide Language Assistance for Residents with Limited English Proficiency
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to provide adequate communication accommodations for two residents with limited English proficiency. Resident #61, who is Vietnamese-speaking with intact cognition, was observed using a personal cell phone translation app to communicate with staff. Despite having a care plan that acknowledged the resident's primary language as Vietnamese, the facility did not provide access to interpreting services, relying instead on the resident's personal resources. Interviews with staff revealed that while a communication board was available, it was not utilized, and staff anticipated the resident's needs without formal language support. Resident #25, who is Spanish-speaking with severe cognitive impairment and visual disturbance, had a care plan that included utilizing Spanish-speaking staff for communication. However, it was unclear if Spanish-speaking staff were consistently available. A CNA mentioned using written notes to communicate, despite the resident's visual impairment. The facility's policy stated that language assistance should be provided without cost, but interviews indicated that staff did not have access to interpreting services, contradicting the facility's policy on communication with persons with limited English proficiency.
Failure to Address Change in Condition and Monitor Medication Side Effects
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to address a change in condition for a resident with severe cognitive impairment, who was on multiple psychotropic medications. The resident was observed to be lethargic and unresponsive, with staff noting increased sleepiness and difficulty in arousing him. Despite these observations, there was a lack of timely communication with the physician or PA regarding the resident's condition and potential medication side effects. The resident had recently experienced a significant increase in the dosage of Seroquel and Ativan, which may have contributed to his altered mental status and increased sedation. Staff failed to document any concerns related to sedation or drowsiness in the resident's electronic medical record, and there was no evidence that the PA was notified of these changes. The facility's monitoring of the resident's medication side effects was inadequate, as indicated by the lack of detailed documentation and communication with the healthcare provider. The Director of Nursing acknowledged the need for a review of the resident's medication dosages and response, noting that the monitoring should include specific documentation of behaviors or side effects. The facility did not have a clear policy for documenting changes in condition, and the Regional Nurse Consultant confirmed the absence of a CIC policy. This lack of documentation and communication contributed to the deficiency in addressing the resident's change in condition effectively.
Failure to Provide Timely Vision Services
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to provide necessary vision services for a resident with a detached retina, resulting in a significant delay in receiving medical attention. The resident, who was admitted to the facility with intact cognition, reported waiting since June for transportation to an eye doctor. Despite multiple orders and notes indicating the need for an ophthalmology consultation as soon as possible, the resident did not receive timely care. The resident's care plan, initiated in July, acknowledged impaired visual function related to a detached retina, with interventions including a vision consult as needed. However, progress notes revealed repeated failures to schedule and secure transportation for the resident's ophthalmology appointments. Attempts to send the resident to the emergency room for evaluation were unsuccessful, as the resident was returned to the facility without treatment. Throughout June and July, there were numerous documented attempts to arrange appointments and transportation, but these efforts were consistently unsuccessful. The resident missed several scheduled appointments due to transportation issues, and despite being aware of the need for urgent medical attention, the facility did not ensure the resident received the necessary care in a timely manner.
Failure to Monitor Medication Side Effects and Behaviors
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to adequately monitor medication-related side effects and behaviors for two residents, leading to a deficiency in ensuring each resident's drug regimen was free from unnecessary drugs. Resident #10, who was admitted with multiple diagnoses including epilepsy, mood disturbance, and schizoaffective disorder, was prescribed several medications such as Levetiracetam, Escitalopram Oxalate, and Olanzapine. Despite having a care plan that required documentation of behaviors and responses to interventions, there was no documentation of Resident #10's behaviors in the medication and treatment administration records for August 2024. A Licensed Practical Nurse indicated that behaviors were documented by exception in the progress notes, which was insufficient for monitoring purposes. Similarly, Resident #73, admitted with dementia and anxiety disorder, was prescribed Donepezil, Trazodone, and initially Risperdal, which was discontinued shortly after admission. The facility's records showed no orders for behavior monitoring, and the August 2024 Medication Administration Record lacked documentation of behavior monitoring. The Director of Nursing acknowledged that the resident should be reviewed for appropriate medication dosage and response, noting that the resident appeared lethargic. The facility's policy required behavior monitoring for residents on psychoactive medications, but this was not followed, as evidenced by the lack of documented behavior monitoring and side effects in the electronic medical record.
Improper Medication Storage and Security
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to appropriately store and secure medications, as observed in the case of a resident and in two medication rooms. Resident #20, who was readmitted to the facility with diagnoses including mood disorder and neutropenia, was found to have two bottles of eye drops in the drawer of his nightstand. The resident, who had a BIMS score indicating moderate cognitive impairment, stated that the eye drops were his and that he received them from a local hospital. A registered nurse confirmed that the resident should not have had medications accessible to him, as he was not assessed to administer them independently. In the Birch Unit medication room, a grey plastic shopping bag containing medication bottles was found stored in a cabinet. Staff members present during the observation were unaware of the contents of the bag or the reason for its storage in the medication room. Additionally, a container with a broken seal containing resident-specific medications and over-the-counter eye medications was found. Staff acknowledged that the resident-specific medications should have been disposed of. In the 200-hall medication room, a plastic bag with medication bottles labeled for expired and discharged residents was found, along with loose pills. Staff confirmed that these medications should have been disposed of properly. The facility's policy on medication storage requires that medications be stored properly and only accessible to authorized personnel. Medications belonging to expired or discharged residents should be destroyed or sent to the pharmacy. The Director of Nursing confirmed that medications should not be stored in residents' nightstands or inappropriately in medication rooms. The policy also mandates that medication storage areas be clean, organized, and free of clutter, which was not adhered to in this instance.
Inadequate Dental Care for Two Residents
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to provide adequate dental care and services for two residents. Resident #78, who was admitted with diagnoses including Major Depressive Disorder and Kyphosis, had broken and missing teeth, and the remaining teeth were brown in color. Despite having a care plan indicating the need for dentures, there was no documentation of dentures or partials being provided. The Social Service Director (SSD) acknowledged that the resident wanted dentures, but the in-house dental vendor did not accept his insurance. Additionally, the resident missed three appointments with the oral surgeon due to various reasons, including a canceled appointment, transportation issues, and a missing medical clearance form. Resident #84, admitted with Major Depressive Disorder and Generalized Anxiety, also had broken and discolored teeth but lacked a care plan addressing dental needs. The resident reported never having his teeth cleaned, and there was no documentation of dental cleaning from April to August 2024. The SSD mentioned that the resident often refused services and then complained about not receiving them. Although the SSD stated that the resident was seen by the hygienist every six months, there was no documentation to support this claim.
Failure to Coordinate Hospice Care and Code Status
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to effectively collaborate and coordinate care with hospice services regarding the code status of a resident receiving hospice care. The resident, who was admitted with diagnoses including cerebral infarction, emphysema, unspecified dementia, and major depressive disorder, had conflicting orders regarding resuscitation status. The resident's physician orders indicated hospice care for a terminal diagnosis of cerebrovascular disease, with a full resuscitation order dated later. Additionally, the hospice plan of care in the resident's chart showed an advanced directive of full code, while the facility's order listing report indicated a DNR order that was later discontinued. Interviews with facility staff, including a Licensed Practical Nurse/Unit Manager and the Social Services Director, revealed a lack of hospice documentation at the facility, except for the initial visit. The staff were unable to locate a current hospice care plan or communication sheets for the resident. The Nursing Home Administrator later provided hospice notes, which confirmed the advanced directive of full code during several hospice visits. The facility's policy on advance medical directives required that current directives be placed in the medical record and the care plan updated, which was not adhered to in this case.
Resident Denied Access to Wheelchair
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure that a resident had access to his wheelchair during the survey. On the day of the survey, the resident was heard yelling for his wheelchair, which he needed to ambulate and go outside for a cigarette. The resident, who had an acquired absence of the left leg below the knee and other mobility impairments, was dependent on his wheelchair for mobility. Despite his repeated requests, the resident did not have access to his wheelchair all night, which caused him significant distress. Interviews with staff revealed that the wheelchair had been removed for cleaning the previous night and was not returned promptly. The CNA and LPN confirmed the resident's dependency on the wheelchair, and the LPN admitted to not hearing the resident's calls due to the noise. The DON and DOR acknowledged that an alternate wheelchair should have been provided and that the housekeeping staff should have communicated with therapy to ensure a safe replacement. The NHA confirmed that wheelchair cleaning was scheduled at night and that residents should not be left without their wheelchairs for extended periods. The facility's policy on resident rights emphasized the importance of ensuring residents' access to necessary services and mobility aids.
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.



