Winter Garden Rehabilitation And Nursing Center
Inspection history, citations, penalties and survey trends for this long-term care facility in Winter Garden, Florida.
- Location
- 12751 W Colonial Drive, Winter Garden, Florida 34787
- CMS Provider Number
- 105518
- Inspections on file
- 20
- Latest survey
- February 4, 2026
- Citations (last 12 mo.)
- 4
Citation history
Health deficiencies cited at Winter Garden Rehabilitation And Nursing Center during CMS and state inspections, most recent first.
The facility failed to include pressure and surgical wounds in comprehensive, person-centered care plans for two residents receiving wound care. One resident with a hip fracture, dementia, and a documented stage 2 pressure ulcer had no care plan focus, goals, or interventions addressing pressure or surgical wounds, and an MDS later incorrectly indicated the ulcer was not present on admission. Another resident with multiple comorbidities and a recurrent stage 3 sacral pressure ulcer had physician-ordered wound treatments documented, but the comprehensive care plan lacked any pressure ulcer focus. These omissions occurred despite facility standards requiring comprehensive care plans with measurable objectives and timeframes for needs identified in the MDS assessments.
A resident with dementia, muscle weakness, a hip fracture, and an existing stage 2 pressure ulcer developed a deteriorating pressure injury that progressed from stage 3 to stage 4 with exposed bone after the facility failed to implement revised wound specialist orders. The Wound Care PA ordered changes from collagen and honey gel to Santyl with calcium alginate and later added Xeroform and recommended imaging for suspected osteomyelitis, but the LPN responsible for wound care did not enter or implement these revised orders, and the TARs continued to show the original treatment. The LPN later claimed the PCP verbally overrode the PA’s orders, yet there was no documentation of such orders, no notification to the PA, and no care plan update for the pressure wound. The DON confirmed that the revised orders and imaging were never entered, while the Medical Director stated he relied on the wound specialist and did not order an X-ray, deferring to an orthopedic visit that did not address the wound. Facility policies requiring adherence to physician orders, documentation when orders are not followed, and revision of the care plan based on the resident’s condition were not followed, and the resident was ultimately hospitalized with an infected mid-back pressure wound and MRSA bacteremia.
A high fall risk resident with severe cognitive impairment and multiple comorbidities experienced a fall resulting in a visibly turned leg and pain. Staff assisted the resident back to bed without a documented full post-fall or neurological assessment, and pain medication was delayed for over three hours. Multiple attempts to reach the on-call provider were unsuccessful, and EMS was not contacted until more than four hours after the incident, resulting in a significant delay in emergency medical intervention.
A resident with multiple medical conditions and intact cognition was frustrated by inconsistent and cold meal service. After attempting to serve food to others in the absence of staff, the resident was told not to do so and subsequently became upset. The resident was then restricted from eating in the dining room and participating in certain activities for up to 30 days, a decision confirmed by staff and other residents. This restriction was not in line with the resident's care plan preferences and was not communicated as a voluntary choice, resulting in a failure to honor the resident's right to dignity and respect.
The facility failed to ensure that milk, a potentially hazardous food, was at a safe cold holding temperature before distribution. During lunch trayline observation, the cook did not take the milk's temperature, and the CDM confirmed it should have been checked before starting. The required cold holding temperature is at or below 41°F.
The facility administration failed to ensure safe water temperatures in resident areas, as evidenced by excessively high water temperatures in two resident bathrooms. A resident reported the bath water was too hot, and checks by the Maintenance Director confirmed temperatures of 151.7°F and 149.1°F, well above the acceptable limit of 115°F. The Administrator was unaware of the Maintenance Director's actions and lacked documentation on performance monitoring, contributing to the deficiency.
The facility failed to maintain safe water temperatures and a sanitary environment. A resident reported excessively hot bath water, confirmed by the Maintenance Director's measurements. The Director adjusted the mixing valve without proper training, leading to unsafe temperatures. Additionally, room maintenance was inadequate, with damaged walls and pest issues reported by residents. The Administrator was unaware of these issues, indicating a communication gap.
A resident was found self-administering an antibiotic ointment without a physician's order or care plan, contrary to facility policy. Despite the resident's cognitive capability, the facility failed to conduct a necessary assessment for self-administration, as confirmed by the RN and DON.
A facility failed to revise a care plan for a resident with an ADL self-care deficit to accurately reflect toileting interventions. Despite being incontinent and not on a toileting program, the care plan indicated the need for assistance to use a commode or bedpan, which the resident did not use. Both the LPN and CNA confirmed the resident remained in bed, and the care plan was not updated to reflect this.
A facility failed to provide adequate grooming for a resident with Huntington's disease and dementia, who required substantial assistance with ADLs. The resident's care plan did not include interventions for shaving her legs, despite her preference and dependency on staff for personal hygiene. Observations revealed her legs were unshaven for over a week, and discussions with staff confirmed the omission in her care plan.
A resident with a history of stroke and chronic kidney disease had a physician's order for Calamine lotion to treat a rash, but the treatment was not administered in January or February. Skin checks revealed scratch marks, but no additional treatment was provided, nor was the physician notified. On observation, multiple scabbed and open areas were found on the resident's skin, which had been present for about a month.
A resident with type 2 diabetes mellitus experienced a breach in infection control practices during medication administration. An RN failed to disinfect a tray used for blood glucose monitoring supplies and did not clean the Humalog KwikPen's rubber seal before attaching a needle, contrary to best practices and manufacturer's instructions. The DON confirmed these lapses in protocol.
Failure to Include Pressure and Surgical Wounds in Comprehensive Care Plans
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to develop and implement comprehensive, person-centered care plans that included pressure and surgical wounds for two residents receiving wound care. For one resident, an older female with diagnoses including a right femur fracture, dementia, muscle weakness, and a pressure ulcer of the left lower back, the admission MDS documented one unhealed stage 2 pressure ulcer present on admission. However, the resident’s most recent comprehensive care plan did not include any focus, goals, or interventions related to pressure or surgical wounds. Additionally, the discharge return anticipated MDS later incorrectly documented that the unhealed stage 2 pressure ulcer was not present upon admission or reentry during the look-back period. During a joint interview, the MDS nurse who completed the admission MDS recalled a decision to address pressure wounds in the care plan but was unable to locate such a care plan in the record, and the DON confirmed she was not aware the wounds were missing from the comprehensive care plan. For another resident, an older female with metabolic encephalopathy, type 2 diabetes mellitus, malnutrition, anemia, dementia, and bilateral knee contractures, a recurrent stage 3 sacral pressure ulcer was diagnosed by the wound care PA, and the quarterly MDS documented an unhealed pressure ulcer not present on admission or reentry during the look-back period. Physician’s orders for sacral wound care treatment were implemented and documented on the Treatment Administration Record. Despite this, review of the current comprehensive care plan showed no focus for the resident’s pressure ulcer. In a joint interview, the DON and Nursing Home Administrator acknowledged that the pressure ulcer care plan for this resident had been missing from the comprehensive care plan. The facility’s own standards and guidelines required comprehensive person-centered care plans with measurable objectives and timeframes to meet residents’ medical and nursing needs identified in the comprehensive assessment, which were not followed in these cases.
Failure to Implement Revised Wound Specialist Orders for Deteriorating Pressure Ulcer
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to implement revised wound specialist orders for a deteriorating pressure injury, and failure to update the care plan and documentation accordingly. A female resident with dementia, muscle weakness, a right femur fracture, and a stage 2 pressure ulcer on the left lower back was admitted and later re-admitted after hip fracture surgery. The admission MDS identified one unhealed stage 2 pressure ulcer present on admission, and a subsequent discharge-return-anticipated MDS identified one unhealed stage 2 pressure ulcer not present on admission during the look-back period. Despite this, the resident’s most recent care plan did not include a pressure wound. The Wound Care Specialist PA assessed the back wound as a stage 3 pressure injury and ordered treatment with Normal Saline, collagen, and honey gel, covered with border gauze. The Wound Care Nurse’s weekly evaluation documented only collagen as the current treatment. A week later, the Wound Care PA documented that the wound was deteriorating and revised the orders to cleanse with Normal Saline, pat dry, apply Santyl nickel thick to the wound bed, then apply calcium alginate and cover with border gauze daily and as needed. Subsequent PA documentation showed further deterioration, with bone exposure and restaging of the wound to stage 4, along with a significant increase in wound size and volume. The PA ordered continued treatment with Santyl, calcium alginate, and Xeroform over the exposed bone, and requested imaging to rule out suspected osteomyelitis. However, review of the physician’s orders and TARs showed that the only wound treatment orders in place from the time of the revised orders until the resident’s discharge to the hospital remained the original regimen of Normal Saline, barrier cream to the peri-wound, collagen to the wound bed, and border gauze. None of the PA’s revised orders, including the imaging recommendation, were entered or implemented. The Wound Care Nurse, an LPN, stated that her usual practice was to receive verbal orders from the Wound Care PA and transcribe them from his progress notes within a day, and that timely entry of treatment orders was important so they could be carried out. She acknowledged that a weekly wound evaluation note was entered two weeks late and stated she had “got a little behind.” In a joint interview with the DON, the LPN reported that she recalled receiving verbal orders from the resident’s PCP to override the Wound Care PA’s revised treatment orders and to leave the previous orders unchanged, but she had not documented these verbal orders, did not recall informing the PA, and there were no progress or treatment notes reflecting this. The DON confirmed that the PA’s revised orders were not entered, that the X-ray to rule out osteomyelitis was never ordered, and that she could not explain why these orders were missed. The Medical Director stated he relied on the Wound Care Specialist for pressure wound care and that an X-ray was not ordered because he believed it could not detect osteomyelitis and the resident was scheduled to see the orthopedic surgeon, whose office note later did not address suspected osteomyelitis or the pressure wound. The facility’s policies required that physician orders be followed as prescribed, that any orders not followed be recorded in the medical record with physician notification, and that the plan of care include revised interventions as indicated by the resident’s condition; these requirements were not met in this case. During this period, the Wound Care Nurse’s weekly wound evaluations documented wound decline and listed “n/a” under other interventions, while current treatment entries eventually reflected Xeroform, Santyl, and calcium alginate but were completed two weeks after the evaluation date. The Wound Care PA reported that he gave verbal orders during assessments, printed notes for transcription the same day, and relied on the nurse to enter and implement the orders; he did not recall any of his orders being overridden by the PCP and noted that dressings were typically removed before his assessments, preventing him from knowing what dressing was in place. The resident’s PCP follow-up notes over multiple visits did not address pressure wound assessment or care, listing only other medical diagnoses. The resident was ultimately admitted to the hospital, where records showed treatment for an infected mid-back pressure wound, MRSA bacteremia, and sepsis, and she later died. A letter from the Medical Director and PCP written after the survey stated that, seeing the previous treatment had worked well, an order was given to continue the previous treatment, but this was not contemporaneously documented in the resident’s record. The facility’s failure to implement the wound specialist’s revised orders, to document and communicate any overriding PCP orders, to update the care plan, and to follow its own policies on physician orders and pressure injury prevention constituted the identified deficiency. The resident’s daughter reported that she was informed by the facility’s Wound Care Nurse that the wound measured 2 cm about a week before the resident’s rehospitalization, and later learned from hospital staff that her mother had a severe, large, infected spinal wound with exposed bone requiring six weeks of IV antibiotics and a special infusion catheter. She described that her mother looked terrible, rapidly declined, and was unable to communicate while hospitalized. These accounts, along with the hospital documentation of an infected mid-back pressure wound and MRSA bacteremia, were part of the surveyors’ findings related to the facility’s failure to provide appropriate pressure ulcer care and to prevent the development and worsening of pressure injuries.
Delayed Post-Fall Assessment and Emergency Response for High-Risk Resident
Penalty
Summary
A high fall risk resident with severe cognitive impairment and multiple comorbidities, including Alzheimer's dementia, osteoporosis, and a history of falls, was admitted for short-term rehabilitation. The resident required supervision and assistance for mobility and was identified as needing assistance at all times. On the evening of the incident, a CNA found the resident on the floor with her leg turned inward, a sign that may indicate the need for immediate medical attention. The LPN and two CNAs assisted the resident back into bed without a documented full post-fall or neurological assessment. The nurse noted the resident had limited movement in one leg and reported pain, but only provided a pillow for comfort initially. There was no documentation of a comprehensive assessment following the fall. Over the next several hours, nursing staff made multiple unsuccessful attempts to contact the on-call provider. Pain medication was not administered until more than three hours after the fall, and EMS was not contacted during this period. The LPN did not call 911, believing a provider order was required, despite the resident's visible injury. The resident was ultimately transported to the hospital over four hours after the fall, following a delayed response from the on-call provider. Interviews with staff and the resident's family confirmed concerns about the delay in assessment, pain management, and emergency intervention.
Failure to Treat Resident with Dignity and Respect During Meal Service Incident
Penalty
Summary
A cognitively intact resident with multiple medical diagnoses, including atrial fibrillation, type 2 diabetes, orthostatic hypotension, and a history of falls, experienced issues related to the timeliness and temperature of meal service. The resident expressed frustration that meals were not consistently served at the same time and were often cold. On one occasion, due to the absence of nursing staff in the dining room, the resident began serving trays to others, which led to staff intervention and the resident being told he was not permitted to serve other residents. The resident became upset, raised his voice to get staff attention, and subsequently reported feeling punished by being required to eat in his room for four weeks. The resident's care plan indicated a preference for both social and independent leisure activities, with goals and interventions focused on encouraging participation and honoring his choices. However, following the dining room incident, documentation and interviews revealed that the resident was restricted from eating in the dining room and from participating in certain activities, such as outings, for a period of up to 30 days. Multiple staff members, including a CNA, RN, and the DON, as well as other residents, confirmed the existence of this restriction. The restriction was reportedly announced to other residents, and the resident himself stated he felt treated like a child as a result. Despite the administrator's statement that she was unaware of a formal restriction and believed the resident had chosen to take a break from the dining room, consistent accounts from staff and residents indicated that the resident was not allowed to eat in the dining room or participate in group activities for a set period. The facility's policy requires treating residents with respect and dignity and promoting their rights, but the actions taken in response to the resident's behavior did not align with these requirements, resulting in a failure to treat the resident in a dignified and respectful manner.
Failure to Monitor Cold Holding Temperature of Milk
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure that potentially hazardous foods were at a safe cold holding temperature before distribution. During an observation of the lunch trayline, the cook was seen taking temperatures of hot food items on the steam table. However, the cold holding temperature for milk, a potentially hazardous food, was not obtained. The cook acknowledged this oversight after the lunch trayline had started, and the Certified Dietary Manager (CDM) confirmed that the temperature should have been checked before the trayline began. Both the cook and the CDM confirmed that the cold holding temperature for potentially hazardous foods is required to be at or below 41 degrees Fahrenheit.
Failure to Ensure Safe Water Temperatures
Penalty
Summary
The administration of the facility failed to ensure safe water temperatures in resident areas, as evidenced by the findings from interviews and record reviews. During an interview, a resident reported that the bath water provided by a CNA was too hot, requiring adjustment. Subsequent checks by the Maintenance Director revealed that the water temperatures in two resident bathrooms were excessively high, measuring 151.7 degrees Fahrenheit and 149.1 degrees Fahrenheit, respectively. These temperatures were significantly above the acceptable limit of 115 degrees Fahrenheit, as acknowledged by the Administrator. The Administrator admitted to being unaware of the Maintenance Director's actions, including the adjustment of the mixing valve and the use of an infrared thermometer for temperature checks. The Administrator also lacked documentation on how the Maintenance Director's performance was monitored or evaluated, despite the Maintenance Director reporting directly to him. The job descriptions for both the Administrator and the Maintenance Director highlighted responsibilities for maintaining a safe environment, yet the Administrator did not provide evidence of oversight or training for the Maintenance Director, contributing to the deficiency in ensuring safe water temperatures.
Unsafe Water Temperatures and Poor Maintenance Practices
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to maintain a safe environment by not adequately monitoring and controlling hot water temperatures in resident rooms. On a specific day, a resident reported that the bath water was too hot, which was confirmed by the Maintenance Director using a digital probe thermometer, showing temperatures of 151.7°F and 149.1°F in two different rooms. The Maintenance Director admitted to adjusting the mixing valve to provide hotter water without proper documentation or training, leading to unsafe water temperatures. The facility's policy required water temperatures to be maintained between 105°F and 115°F, but the Maintenance Director was not aware of the correct procedures and used an inappropriate infrared thermometer for measurements. Additionally, the facility failed to maintain the physical environment in a sanitary and safe manner. In one resident's room, the wall behind the headboard was damaged with deep scratches, exposing the drywall. The Administrator presented a schedule for room renovations but could not provide a plan for routine repairs. Another resident reported roaches in her bathroom, and observations confirmed the presence of insects and water damage under the sink. The Visiting Maintenance Director from a sister facility verified the extent of the damage, noting that the vanity needed removal due to extensive water damage and that caulking was required around the air conditioner to prevent exposure to the outside. The facility's maintenance practices were inadequate, as evidenced by the lack of a regular schedule for room repairs and the improper handling of water temperature adjustments. The Maintenance Director's lack of training and the absence of a backup system for monitoring water temperatures contributed to the unsafe conditions. The Administrator was unaware of the adjustments made to the mixing valve and the use of an inappropriate thermometer, highlighting a communication gap within the facility's management.
Failure to Conduct Medication Self-Administration Assessment
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to conduct a medication self-administration assessment for a resident who was self-administering a multipurpose antibiotic ointment without a physician's order or a care plan in place. The resident, who had diagnoses including heart failure, hyperlipidemia, hypertension, and prostate cancer, was observed with the ointment on his bedside table and admitted to using it for a rash on his right ear. Despite the resident's cognitive capability, as indicated by a perfect score on the Brief Interview of Mental Status, the facility did not have an order or care plan for self-administration, which is against their policy. The Registered Nurse (RN) confirmed that the resident was not supposed to have medications at the bedside and acknowledged the need for a physician's order for self-administration. The Director of Nursing (DON) validated the facility's policy, which prohibits medications at the bedside without an evaluation and physician's order. The facility's Welcome Packet also states that prescription and over-the-counter medications may not be brought into the facility without approval, highlighting the oversight in this case.
Inaccurate Care Plan for ADL Self-Care Deficit
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure the care plan for a resident with an activities of daily living (ADL) self-care deficit was accurately revised to reflect the necessary interventions for toileting. The resident, who was always incontinent and not on a bladder or bowel toileting program, had a care plan indicating the need for extensive assistance to use a commode or bedpan. However, both the resident's LPN and CNA confirmed that the resident did not use a commode or bedpan and remained in bed. The MDS assessment and care plan were reviewed, and it was confirmed that the care plan had not been updated to accurately reflect the resident's needs and interventions for toileting.
Failure to Provide Adequate Grooming for Resident
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to provide adequate grooming and personal hygiene care for a resident who required substantial assistance with activities of daily living (ADLs). The resident, who was non-geriatric and diagnosed with Huntington's disease, respiratory failure, neuromuscular dysfunction, and dementia, was observed with unshaven legs on multiple occasions. Despite being able to communicate her needs, the resident had poor memory and was unable to recall when her legs were last shaved. Her care plan, which was revised recently, did not include any interventions for shaving her legs, although it noted her dependency on staff for bathing. The resident's shower schedule indicated she was bathed twice a week, but there was no specific mention of shaving her legs. During discussions with the Care Plan staff and the Social Worker, it was confirmed that the intervention for shaving the resident's legs was not included in her care plan or kardex. The Social Worker acknowledged the resident's legs had more than a week's growth, indicating a lack of attention to her grooming needs. This oversight in the care plan and failure to address the resident's grooming preferences led to the deficiency identified by the surveyors.
Failure to Address Skin Integrity Issues
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to address an alteration in a resident's skin integrity in a timely manner. A resident with a history of cerebral infarction, chronic kidney disease, and cervicalgia was noted to have a physician's order for Calamine lotion to be applied to a rash on the arms every eight hours as needed for itching. Despite this order, the Treatment Administration Record showed that the Calamine lotion was not applied in January or February 2025. Weekly skin checks conducted in January 2025 indicated scratch marks on the resident's legs, right arm, and right chest, but no additional treatment was administered, nor was the physician notified of these findings. On February 7, 2025, a CNA observed multiple scabbed and open areas on the resident's chest and legs, which had been present for approximately a month due to scratching. The DON and East Unit Manager confirmed the presence of these skin issues, which included scabbed areas and open wounds on the chest, arms, and legs. The DON acknowledged that the skin checks from January 2025 indicated problems that warranted further action, such as notifying the physician and applying the prescribed treatment, which was not done.
Infection Control Breach in Medication Administration
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to adhere to proper infection control practices during medication administration for a resident diagnosed with type 2 diabetes mellitus with hyperglycemia. The resident had a physician's order for Humalog Kwikpen insulin to be administered subcutaneously before meals and at bedtime according to a sliding scale. During an observation, a Registered Nurse (RN) used a small plastic tray to transport blood glucose monitoring supplies from the medication cart to the resident's room and back without disinfecting the tray after it had been in the resident's room. This action risked contamination of the medication cart. Additionally, the RN did not follow the manufacturer's instructions for the Humalog KwikPen, which required wiping the rubber seal with an alcohol swab before attaching the needle. The RN admitted to forgetting to disinfect the rubber seal of the insulin pen before use. The Director of Nursing confirmed that the RN did not disinfect the tray or the insulin pen's rubber seal, acknowledging that these actions were against best practices for infection control.
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.



