Surrey Place Healthcare And Rehabilitation
Inspection history, citations, penalties and survey trends for this long-term care facility in Bradenton, Florida.
- Location
- 5525 21st Ave W, Bradenton, Florida 34209
- CMS Provider Number
- 105629
- Inspections on file
- 15
- Latest survey
- March 13, 2025
- Citations (last 12 mo.)
- 0
Citation history
Health deficiencies cited at Surrey Place Healthcare And Rehabilitation during CMS and state inspections, most recent first.
The facility failed to meet state-mandated staffing requirements, with CNA hours falling below the 2.0 minimum on two occasions and weekly averages below 3.6 for eight weeks. Errors in staffing records and reliance on a non-compliant corporate form contributed to the deficiency. Interviews revealed a lack of formal training for the staffing coordinator and inconsistencies in recording staffing hours.
The facility failed to ensure proper hygiene in the kitchen, with staff not washing hands or changing gloves between handling soiled and clean dishes. Additionally, a resident was found with rotten fruit on her bedside table, which staff did not remove despite facility policies requiring the disposal of perishable foods. The Dietary Manager and Director of Nursing acknowledged these issues but did not take corrective action during the observations.
The facility failed to provide bed-hold notices during transfers for three residents. A resident was sent to the ER without a documented bed-hold notice, despite the policy being in the admission agreement. Another resident transferred for a procedure also lacked a documented notice, with the Social Services Director admitting to verbal notifications without documentation. A third resident transferred due to a condition change had no bed-hold notice recorded, with the Nursing Home Administrator acknowledging the need to review the notification process.
A resident was not provided with her physician-ordered hearing aids, leading to difficulty hearing. Staff interviews revealed that a CNA did not put in the hearing aids, and an RN failed to verify their use before signing off on the treatment record. The DON emphasized the expectation for nurses to ensure orders are completed.
Two residents in an LTC facility were observed with their catheter bags and tubing improperly positioned, dragging on the floor, which posed potential risks for accidents and infections. Despite care plans and facility policies requiring proper positioning, staff failed to consistently address the issue, leading to a deficiency in providing adequate care.
The facility failed to provide timely and complete Nursing Home Transfer and Discharge Notices for residents transferred to acute care facilities. In emergencies, notices were often completed after the resident's return, lacking necessary explanations and representative information. The Social Service Director admitted to delays and incomplete documentation, contrary to facility policy requiring written notice of transfer reasons.
The facility failed to provide timely transfer notices for two residents transferred to acute care facilities. One resident was transferred due to a change in condition, and the other for a medical procedure. Notices were completed post-transfer, lacking required information and timely delivery, indicating non-compliance with federal regulations.
The facility failed to ensure accurate Level I PASRR screenings for two residents prior to admission. One resident was admitted with mental health diagnoses not reflected in the initial PASRR screen, while another resident's PASRR screen did not indicate the presence of serious mental illness, leading to a missed Level II evaluation. Interviews revealed that PASRR screenings were often inaccurate from hospitals, and the facility lacked a PASRR policy.
Two residents in an LTC facility were observed with urinary catheter bags and tubing touching the floor, creating potential safety hazards. Despite having care plans and orders for catheter use due to urinary retention, the facility failed to ensure proper positioning of the equipment. Staff, including RNs and CNAs, confirmed awareness of the issue but did not consistently address it, contrary to the facility's policy.
A facility failed to accurately document a resident's clinical record when the resident was not present. Despite being transferred to an acute care facility, a Daily Medicare Nursing Note was recorded, detailing a physical assessment. Interviews with staff revealed inconsistencies, with an LPN acknowledging a potential mistake and the ADON confirming the resident's discharge. The facility's documentation policy emphasizes accuracy, which was not met in this instance.
During a facility tour, it was observed that an exit door in the therapy gym was not latching properly, failing to meet NFPA 101 (2012 Edition) standards. This was confirmed by facility maintenance staff.
Failure to Maintain Minimum Staffing Requirements
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to maintain the minimum staffing requirements as mandated by state regulations. Specifically, the facility did not meet the required 2.0 direct care hours by certified nursing assistants (CNAs) on two occasions out of ninety-two days. Additionally, the facility failed to maintain a weekly average of 3.6 direct care hours per resident for eight out of fourteen weeks during the survey period. The discrepancies were identified through a review of the facility's staffing records, which showed incorrect calculations and inconsistencies in the reported staffing hours. The Director of Nursing (DON) and the Nursing Home Administrator (NHA) provided multiple copies of staffing records, which contained errors and corrections. The initial records did not include weekly averages, and subsequent records showed incorrect calculations of CNA and nursing hours. Interviews with the staffing coordinator revealed that the facility did not use the state form for recording staffing hours but relied on a corporate Key Factor form, which did not accurately reflect the weekly averages required by state regulations. The staffing coordinator admitted to learning the role without formal training and acknowledged issues with call-offs affecting staffing levels. Further interviews with the Assistant Business Office Manager (ABOM) and the staffing coordinator highlighted a lack of clarity and consistency in recording and reporting staffing hours. The ABOM, new to payroll, relied on instructions from the NHA and the staffing coordinator to adjust hours to meet state requirements. The facility's assessment indicated a reliance on a formula to determine staffing needs, but the actual staffing levels fluctuated and occasionally fell below the state minimum requirements. The facility's failure to maintain accurate and compliant staffing records contributed to the deficiency identified during the survey.
Plan Of Correction
The Certified Nursing Assistant's (CNA) Per Patient Day for the specific dates were reviewed. No actions warranted due to the time has passed. The weekly direct care staffing hours for the specific weeks of /24, /24, /24 and for the quarter of through for meeting the weekly direct care average of 3.6 per patient day staffing requirement were reviewed. No actions are warranted due to the time has passed. An audit was conducted on the other 6 weeks which are /24, and for the Quarter through for meeting the minimum staffing requirements of 2.0 per patient day daily for Certified Nursing Assistants and the weekly average of direct care staffing of 3.60 per patient day. The results of the audit found that there were no other days during that specific quarter that the daily Certified Nursing Assistant staffing or the weekly average of direct care staffing did not meet the minimum staffing requirement of 2.0 per patient day and 3.6 per patient day respectively. On the Administrator initiated education for the Director of Nursing, Staffing Coordinator, Business Office Manager, Assistant Business Office Manager/Payroll, Rehab Director and the Activity Director related to meeting the daily minimum staffing for Certified Nursing Assistants of 2.0 per patient day and the definition of direct care staffing and meeting the required minimum weekly average of the 3.6 per patient day for direct care staff. Education was completed by The Director of Nursing/designee will audit the Certified Nursing Assistant staffing and direct care staffing 5 times per week for 12 weeks to ensure that the facility is meeting the Certified Nursing Assistant and direct care staffing requirements. The Director of Nursing/designee will review the audits with the monthly Quality Assurance Performance Improvement (QAPI) Committee for three months. The Quality Assurance Performance Improvement Committee will evaluate the outcome of the audits and if necessary, amend the improvement plan and continue to monitor until substantial compliance has been determined by the committee.
Deficiencies in Kitchen Hygiene and Food Storage Practices
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure proper hygiene practices were followed by staff working in the kitchen, specifically in the dishwashing area. Observations revealed that staff members handling soiled dishes did not wash their hands or change gloves before handling clean and sanitized dishes. This was observed on multiple occasions over several days, with staff members moving directly from handling soiled items to clean items without appropriate hand hygiene. The Dietary Manager was present during some of these observations but did not intervene to correct the staff's actions. Additionally, the facility did not adhere to proper food safety and storage procedures for a resident. The resident was observed with rotten fruit on her bedside table for two days, which she intended to eat later. The Director of Nursing acknowledged that the resident was difficult and did not allow staff to remove the food, but stated that the staff should have reported the situation to a nurse or to her. The facility's policy requires nursing staff to discard perishable foods within three days or before the expiration date, and to discard any food showing signs of potential foodborne danger. The facility's policies on dishwashing and handwashing were not followed, as evidenced by the lack of handwashing between handling soiled and clean dishes. The Dietary Manager provided policies that outlined the need for maintaining dishwashing machines in a clean condition and for staff to practice good handwashing to minimize the risk of foodborne illness. However, these policies were not adhered to during the observed incidents, contributing to the deficiencies noted in the report.
Plan Of Correction
On the Certified Dietary Manager (CDM) provided education to the identified dietary staff on proper hygiene when working in the dish room with dirty/soiled and clean dishes. This included proper glove use and washing before putting gloves on or after taking gloves off. The Certified Dietary Manager (CDM) initiated education on hygiene and proper glove use with the other dietary staff. In addition, dietary staff were provided information about the dish machine that included the facility has a low temperature, chemical sanitizing dish machine. The education was completed by The Registered Dietician reviewed and provided input for updates related to the facility policy for Handwashing for Dietary Staff. The Certified Dietary Manager/designee is doing a minimum of 3 observations per week for 12 weeks related to dietary staff hygiene compliance when they are working with dirty/soiled dishes and clean dishes while in the dish room. The Certified Dietary Manager/designee will review the observations with the monthly Quality Assurance Performance Improvement (QAPI) Committee for three months. The Quality Assurance Performance Improvement committee will evaluate the outcome of the audits and if necessary, amend the improvement plan and continue to monitor until substantial compliance has been determined by the committee. On , Resident #14 was assessed for any potentially hazardous food at bedside. No adverse effects noted. On , all resident rooms were assessed to ensure that there was no potentially hazardous food at bedside. No additional areas of concern identified. On , the current policy related to Storage of Foods Brought to Residents by Family/visitors was reviewed and updated. The Director of Nursing (DON)/designee initiated education for Department Heads, nursing, and housekeeping staff related to food storage at bedside/in the resident room. The education was completed by The Director of Nursing/designee will complete 10 observations each week for 12 weeks to ensure that there is no potentially hazardous food being stored at bedside in a resident's room. The Director of Nursing/designee will review the audits with the monthly Quality Assurance Performance Improvement (QAPI) Committee for three months. The Quality Assurance Performance Improvement committee will evaluate the outcome of the audits and if necessary, amend the improvement plan and continue to monitor until substantial compliance has been determined by the committee.
Failure to Provide Bed-Hold Notices During Resident Transfers
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to provide a bed-hold notice at the time of transfer for three residents who were hospitalized. For Resident #55, the nursing notes indicated a transfer to the Emergency Room for evaluation following an incident, but there was no documentation of a bed-hold notice being provided to the resident or their representative. Although the facility's Admission and Financial Agreement, signed by the resident's family member, described the bed-hold policy, there was no evidence of notification at the time of transfer. Similarly, Resident #60 was transferred to an acute care facility for a medical procedure, but the facility's records did not include a bed-hold notice given to the resident's representative. The Social Services Director admitted to making phone calls to families regarding bed-hold options but did not document these notifications. For Resident #11, who was transferred to a hospital due to a change in condition, there was also no record of a bed-hold notice. The Nursing Home Administrator acknowledged that residents receive the bed-hold policy upon admission and stated that they would review the process with the Social Services Director to ensure proper documentation.
Plan Of Correction
The facility is unable to provide residents #55, #60 and #11 the bed hold notice at the time of their transfer to the hospital since the date of their discharge has passed. Residents #55, #60 and #11 were re-admitted and/or returned to the facility after their emergency discharge to the hospital. Other residents discharged after with a need for an unplanned/emergent transfer/discharge will receive a bed hold form as noted in the facility Bed Hold policy. The facility policy for Bed Hold has been reviewed. On [date], the Director of Nursing/designee initiated education for the nurses, Assistant Director of Nursing, Social Service Director, and Medical Records related to the Bed Hold policy. This education was completed by [date]. The Social Service Director/designee will do a weekly audit for 12 weeks on a minimum of 3 unplanned/emergent transferred residents and/or residents on a therapeutic leave each week. Otherwise, if the facility doesn't have at least 3 unplanned/emergent transferred residents and/or residents on a therapeutic leave for that week, the Social Service Director/designee will complete the weekly audit on the number of transferred/on leave residents that the facility has for that week. This weekly audit will be done to ensure that the facility provided transferred residents written notice on the facility Bed Hold policy for residents who were transferred for hospitalization or those on a therapeutic leave. The Social Services Director/designee will review the audits with the monthly Quality Assurance Performance Improvement Committee for three months. The Quality Assurance Performance Improvement Committee will evaluate the outcome of the audits and, if necessary, amend the improvement plan and continue to monitor until substantial compliance has been determined by the committee.
Failure to Follow Physician Orders for Hearing Aids
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to follow physician orders for a resident who required an assistive hearing device. Observations and interviews revealed that the resident was not provided with her hearing aids when she was assisted out of bed, despite having a physician's order to wear them during the day. The resident expressed difficulty hearing because the staff did not put in her hearing aids as required. Interviews with staff members, including a CNA and an RN, indicated a lack of adherence to the physician's order. The CNA admitted to not putting in the resident's hearing aids, while the RN assumed the CNA had done so without verifying. The Director of Nurses stated that nurses are expected to ensure orders are completed before signing off on treatment records, which was not done in this case.
Plan Of Correction
On the were provided to resident #16 and placed in her. On for resident #16, the Director of Nursing (DON) completed a Medication error Reporting Form. On, all other resident records were checked; there were no other residents with a physician ordered assistive device for hearing. On the Director of Nursing/designee provided education to the direct care nurse for resident #16 on adherence and documentation related to physician ordered assistive devices for hearing. On, the Director of Nursing/designee provided education to the other nurses on adherence and documentation related to physician ordered assistive devices for hearing. The education was completed by. The Director of Nursing/designee will complete 3 audits each week for 12 weeks to ensure physician ordered assistive devices for hearing are placed in the resident's prior to the nurse signing the administration record. The Director of Nursing/designee will review the audits with the monthly Quality Assurance Performance Improvement (QAPI) Committee for three months. The Quality Assurance Performance Improvement committee will evaluate the outcome of the audits and if necessary, amend the improvement plan and continue to monitor until substantial compliance has been determined by the committee.
Improper Positioning of Catheter Bags and Tubing
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to provide adequate care and services to prevent injuries for two residents who were observed with their catheter bags and tubing improperly positioned. Resident #123 was seen with her catheter bag and tubing dragging on the floor while she was seated in her wheelchair, posing a potential risk for accidents and infection. The resident's medical records indicated she had a history of retention and was using a catheter, which was supposed to be positioned off the floor according to her care plan. However, the nursing staff, including Staff E, RN, were unaware of the improper positioning of the catheter bag and tubing. Similarly, Resident #124 was observed with her catheter bag and tubing touching the floor on multiple occasions. The tubing was seen in excess tension and was even run over by the wheelchair tires when a visitor repositioned the resident. Resident #124's medical records showed a history of retention and the use of a catheter, with care plans specifying the need for proper positioning of the catheter bag and tubing. Despite these care plans, the staff, including CNAs Staff F and G, confirmed they had observed the improper positioning but did not consistently address it. Interviews with the Director and the Director of Nursing revealed that they were not aware of the issues with the catheter bags and tubing touching the floor. The facility's policy on catheter care emphasized the importance of securing the tubing and positioning the drainage bag off the floor, yet this was not adhered to in practice. The failure to follow these procedures led to the deficiency in providing adequate and appropriate health care to the residents involved.
Plan Of Correction
On the for resident #123 was positioned and secured properly so the bag nor the tubing touched the floor. On the for resident #124 was positioned and secured properly so the bag nor the tubing touched the floor. On , all other residents identified with were checked for proper positioning and securing so the bag nor the tubing of the touched the floor. For these other residents, no area of concern identified. On the Director of Nursing (DON)/designee initiated education for nurses, certified nursing assistants and staff related to proper positioning and securing of bags/tubing. Education completed by The Director of Nursing/designee for all residents with will do an audit 2 times a week for 12 weeks to ensure proper positioning and securing the tubing for those residents with so no bag or tubing for are touching the floor. The Director of Nursing/designee will review the audits with the monthly Quality Assurance Performance Improvement (QAPI) Committee for three months. The Quality Assurance Performance Improvement committee will evaluate the outcome of the audits and if necessary, amend the improvement plan and continue to monitor until substantial compliance has been determined by the committee.
Deficiencies in Transfer and Discharge Notice Procedures
Penalty
Summary
The report identifies deficiencies in the handling of Nursing Home Transfer and Discharge Notices for residents being transferred to acute care facilities. Specifically, the facility failed to provide timely and complete discharge notices to residents and their representatives. In the case of Resident #11, the notice was signed by the Social Service Director (SSD) and the resident, but the Nursing Home Administrator expressed uncertainty about how residents could sign the notice during emergency transfers. Similarly, for Resident #60, the notice lacked a brief explanation to support the transfer action and did not include resident representative information. The SSD admitted that notices were often completed after the resident returned from the hospital, due to the emergency nature of the transfers. The facility's policy on transfer and discharge requires that residents and their representatives be notified in writing of the reasons for transfer or discharge. However, the SSD acknowledged that in 9 out of 10 cases, the transfer was an emergency, and the resident or family was not present to sign the notice. The SSD also mentioned that the notices were typically uploaded into resident records but might still be in the office. The facility's policy allows for immediate notice in cases where the resident's urgent medical needs require a transfer, but the report indicates that the facility did not consistently adhere to this policy, resulting in incomplete and delayed notifications.
Plan Of Correction
Do a weekly audit for 12 weeks on a minimum of 3 discharged residents each week. Otherwise, if the facility doesn't have at least 3 discharges per week, the Social Service Director/designee will complete the weekly audit on the number of discharges the facility has for that week. This weekly audit will be done to ensure that the facility provided discharged residents the Nursing Home Transfer and Discharge Notice form per the facility policy. The Social Service Director or designee will review the audits with the monthly Quality Assurance Performance Improvement Committee for three months. The Quality Assurance and Performance Improvement Committee will evaluate the outcome of the audits and if necessary, amend the improvement plan and continue to monitor until substantial compliance has been determined by the committee.
Failure to Provide Timely Transfer Notices
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to provide proper notice of transfer before initiating a transfer for two residents, which is a violation of the regulatory requirements. Resident #11 was admitted with multiple diagnoses, including acute failure, and experienced a change in condition that led to a recommendation for hospital transfer. The facility issued a Nursing Home Transfer and Discharge Notice after the transfer, which was signed by the Social Service Director and the resident post-transfer, indicating a lack of timely notification. Resident #60 was transferred to an acute care facility for a medical procedure, but the Nursing Home Transfer and Discharge Notice was not completed with all required information. The notice lacked a brief explanation to support the transfer action and did not include the resident representative's information. The notice was signed by the resident after the transfer, which suggests that the facility did not provide the notice in advance as required. Interviews with facility staff, including the Nursing Home Administrator and the Social Services Director, revealed a misunderstanding or misapplication of the notice requirements, particularly in emergency situations. The facility's policy on transfer and discharge notice was not followed, as evidenced by the delayed completion and signing of the notices. This deficiency highlights the facility's failure to adhere to federal regulations regarding timely and complete notification of transfers or discharges.
Plan Of Correction
The facility is unable to have residents #55, #60 and #11 sign the Nursing Home Transfer and Discharge Notice at the time of discharge to the hospital since the date of their discharge has passed. Residents #55, #60 and #11 were re-admitted and/or returned to the facility after their emergency discharge to the hospital. Other residents discharged after will receive the Nursing Home Transfer and Discharge Notice based on the facility policies. The facility policy for Notice of Transfer and/or Discharge was reviewed. On the Director of Nursing/designee initiated education for the nurses, Assistant Director of Nursing, Social Service Director and Medical records related to the facility Notice of Transfer and Discharge policy and Making an Emergency Transfer or Discharge policy. The education included the Nursing Home Transfer and Discharge Notice form. This education was completed by The Social Service Director/designee will do a weekly audit for 12 weeks on a minimum of 3 discharged residents each week. Otherwise, if the facility doesn't have at least 3 discharges per week, the Social Service Director/designee will complete the weekly audit on the number of discharges the facility has for that week. This weekly audit will be done to ensure that the facility provided discharged residents the Nursing Home Transfer and Discharge Notice form per the facility policy. The Social Service Director or designee will review the audits with the monthly Quality Assurance Performance Improvement Committee for three months. The Quality Assurance and Performance Improvement Committee will evaluate the outcome of the audits and if necessary, amend the improvement plan and continue to monitor until substantial compliance has been determined by the committee.
Inaccurate PASRR Screenings for Two Residents
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure accurate Level I Preadmission Screening and Resident Review (PASRR) screenings for two residents prior to their admission. Resident #41 was admitted with diagnoses including adjustment disorder with mixed anxiety and depressed mood, and major depressive disorder. However, the initial Level I PASRR screen completed by a Licensed Clinical Social Worker at a hospital did not identify these mental illness diagnoses. A subsequent PASRR screen completed by a Registered Nurse at the facility also failed to include all necessary diagnoses, leading to an incomplete and inaccurate assessment. Resident #16 was admitted with diagnoses including major depressive disorder, recurrent, severe with psychotic symptoms, and unspecified anxiety disorder. The Level I PASRR screen for this resident did not accurately reflect the presence of serious mental illness, as it marked that no diagnosis or suspicion of serious mental illness was indicated. This oversight resulted in the resident not being flagged for a Level II PASRR evaluation, which is required for individuals with serious mental illness or intellectual disabilities. Interviews with the facility's MDS Coordinator and Director of Nursing (DON) revealed that the PASRR screenings were often inaccurate when received from hospitals, and there was no existing PASRR policy at the facility. The MDS Coordinator acknowledged the need for a Level II PASRR review for Resident #16 and confirmed that the facility's PASRR processes were not being conducted accurately, as evidenced by the incorrect screenings for both residents.
Plan Of Correction
A new Preadmission Screening and Resident Review (PASRR) was completed on 3/14/25 for resident #41 to include anxiety. On Resident #16, Preadmission Screening and Resident Review (PASRR) was re-evaluated by the Minimum Data Set (MDS) Coordinator, and a Level II Preadmission Screening and Resident Review (PASRR) was requested and submitted to the Florida Preadmission Screening and Resident Review Portal. The Minimum Data Set (MDS) Coordinator received a response from the Florida Preadmission Screening and Resident Review Portal on the outcome of the Level II request for resident #16, and it was denied. The Minimum Data Set (MDS) Coordinator initiated an audit of the Level I Preadmission Screening and Resident Reviews (PASRRs) for all current residents to ensure the Level I Preadmission Screening and Resident Reviews are correct based on each individual resident. Identified corrections were addressed, and the appropriate corrections were made. In addition, as noted in the Statement of Deficiency, the Minimum Data Set (MDS) Coordinator recently participated in a Webinar by the Florida Preadmission Screening and Resident Review Portal. This educational Webinar addressed proper completion for Level II Preadmission Screening and Resident Reviews (PASRRs). The education included the need for a Level II Preadmission Screening and Resident Review (PASRR) to be submitted for a resident. Education was provided by the Minimum Data Set (MDS) Coordinator to the Admissions team and RN Management staff related to Level I and Level II Preadmission Screening and Resident Reviews. The education was completed by the Minimum Data Set Coordinator/designee. The Minimum Data Set (MDS) Coordinator/designee is auditing a minimum of three Preadmission Screening and Resident Reviews (PASRRs) each week for 12 weeks to ensure that the admission Preadmission Screening and Resident Reviews are accurate and the follow-up related to Level II Preadmission Screening and Resident Reviews (PASRRs) are completed. The Minimum Data Set (MDS) Coordinator/designee will review the audits with the monthly Quality Assurance Performance Improvement Committee for three months. The Quality Assurance Performance Improvement Committee will evaluate the outcome of the audits and, if necessary, amend the improvement plan and continue to monitor until substantial compliance has been determined by the committee.
Inadequate Catheter Care Leads to Safety Hazards
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to provide adequate care and services to prevent injuries for two residents who utilized urinary catheters. Observations revealed that Resident #123 had a catheter bag and tubing hanging below the seat of her wheelchair, with portions touching the floor. This was observed while she was scooting back and forth in her wheelchair, creating a potential hazard. The resident's medical records indicated a diagnosis of urinary retention, and she had orders for a catheter. However, the care plan did not ensure the catheter bag and tubing were kept off the floor, as confirmed by the resident's nurse, Staff E, RN. Similarly, Resident #124 was observed with a catheter bag and tubing touching the floor while seated in her wheelchair. The tubing was in excess tension and was observed touching the front wheel of the wheelchair. The resident's medical records showed a history of urinary retention and orders for a catheter. Despite this, the care plan failed to ensure the catheter bag and tubing were properly positioned, as confirmed by Staff E, RN, and CNAs Staff F and Staff G. Both CNAs acknowledged observing the catheter equipment on the floor and stated that they could reposition it or report it to a nurse. The facility's Director of Nursing provided a policy for catheter care, which stated that the drainage bag should be secured in a manner that prevents it from touching the floor. However, the policy was not effectively implemented, as evidenced by the observations of the catheter bags and tubing on the floor for both residents. The Director of Rehabilitation also confirmed that her staff should ensure proper positioning of the catheter equipment but was unaware of the deficiencies observed with Residents #123 and #124.
Plan Of Correction
On the for resident #123 was positioned and secured properly so the bag nor the tubing touched the floor. On the for resident #124 was positioned and secured properly so the bag nor the tubing touched the floor. On all other residents identified with were checked for proper positioning and securing so the bag nor the tubing of the touched the floor. For these other residents, no area of concern identified. On the Director of Nursing (DON)/designee initiated education for nurses, certified nursing assistants and staff related to proper positioning and securing of bags/tubing. Education completed by The Director of Nursing/designee for all residents with will do an audit 2 times a week for 12 weeks to ensure proper positioning and securing the tubing for those residents with so no bag or tubing for are touching the floor. The Director of Nursing/designee will review the audits with the monthly Quality Assurance Performance Improvement (QAPI) Committee for three months. The Quality Assurance Performance Improvement committee will evaluate the outcome of the audits and if necessary, amend the improvement plan and continue to monitor until substantial compliance has been determined by the committee.
Inaccurate Documentation of Resident Assessment
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to accurately document in the clinical record for one resident, identified as Resident #60, during a time when the resident was not present in the facility. An observation noted that Resident #60 was sitting up in bed with a meal and did not appear to be in visible distress. However, a review of the Skilled Nursing Facility/Nursing Facility to Hospital Transfer form indicated that the resident had been transferred to an acute care facility for a procedure. Despite this, a Daily Medicare A/Managed Care Nursing Note was documented, detailing a physical assessment of the resident, which included various health metrics and observations, even though the resident was not in the facility at the time. Interviews with facility staff, including a Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) and the Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON), revealed inconsistencies in the documentation process. The LPN acknowledged that a mistake might have been made, as it was not typical to document on a discharged resident. The ADON confirmed that the resident had been discharged and should not have been documented on, except for a hospital follow-up note. The ADON also noted that the expectation was to assess and document accurately, indicating that the note in question was incorrect. The facility's policy on clinical documentation emphasized the need for accurate and timely entries that reflect the care and services provided to residents. The policy outlined the importance of maintaining a complete account of the resident's care, treatment, and response, as well as supporting quality medical care and legal records. However, the documentation for Resident #60 did not adhere to these standards, as it included an assessment for a resident who was not present in the facility, highlighting a lapse in the facility's documentation practices.
Plan Of Correction
The Director of Nursing (DON) interviewed the nurse who entered the incorrect documentation into the medical record for Resident #60 on [date], and then followed the facility policy for incorrect documentation and struck out the incorrect documentation for Resident #60 on [date]. On [date], the Director of Nursing/designee initiated an audit on other residents discharged from [date] to [date] and there were no other residents that had documentation after discharge. On [date], the Director of Nursing provided education to the facility per diem nurse that incorrectly documented on discharged resident #60. On [date], the Director of Nursing/designee initiated education for the other nurses related to accurate and complete resident documentation on current residents only. The education was completed by [date]. The Director of Nursing/designee will complete an audit a minimum of one time per week for 12 weeks. This weekly audit will be to review discharged residents for the week to ensure that there is no incorrect documentation entered after a resident has discharged. The Director of Nursing/designee will review the audits with the monthly Quality Assurance Performance Improvement (QAPI) Committee for three months. The Quality Assurance Performance Improvement committee will evaluate the outcome of the audits and if necessary, amend the improvement plan and continue to monitor until substantial compliance has been determined by the committee.
Failure to Maintain Exit Door Latching in Therapy Gym
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to maintain exit doors in accordance with NFPA 101 (2012 Edition) during a facility tour conducted on March 12, 2025, between 9:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. An exit door in the therapy gym was observed to be not latching properly. This observation was confirmed through an interview with facility maintenance staff who were present during the tour. The deficiency is cited under NFPA 101 (2012 Edition) sections 19.2.2.2.1, 7.2.1, 7.2.1.5.10, and 4.6.
Plan Of Correction
On 3/12/25 the Maintenance Director/Maintenance Assistance evaluated the Exit Door in the therapy gym and made adjustments to the door so it could latch properly. ATTACHMENT #55 See corresponding email sent to area office dated 4/4/25 with attachments. On 3/12/25 the Maintenance Director inspected the other Exit Doors to ensure that the exit doors close and latch properly. During this inspection, there were no other exit doors that did not close and latch properly. ATTACHMENT #56 See corresponding email sent to area office dated 4/4/25 with attachments. On 3/12/25, the Administrator provided an inservice for the Maintenance and Therapy staff on the importance for exit doors to close and latch properly. The inservice included notifying the administrator/designee of any exit doors that do not close and latch properly and a plan to correct as indicated. ATTACHMENT #57 See corresponding email sent to area office dated 4/4/25 with attachments. The facility Maintenance Director/designee will audit facility exit doors weekly to help monitor and maintain proper latching for the facility exit doors. The monthly audit of exit doors will be recorded on a log. ATTACHMENT #58 See corresponding email sent to area office dated 4/4/25 with attachments. The Maintenance Director/designee will provide the monthly QAPI Committee a summary report on the findings from the audits of the facility exit doors for three (3) months. The QAPI committee will evaluate the outcome of the audits and if necessary amend the improvement plan and continue to monitor until sustained improvement has been determined by the committee. ATTACHMENT #59 See corresponding email sent to area office dated 4/4/25 with attachments.
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.



