Louisburg Healthcare And Rehabilitation Center
Inspection history, citations, penalties and survey trends for this long-term care facility in Louisburg, Kansas.
- Location
- 1200 S Broadway St, Louisburg, Kansas 66053
- CMS Provider Number
- 175238
- Inspections on file
- 19
- Latest survey
- August 26, 2025
- Citations (last 12 mo.)
- 16
Citation history
Health deficiencies cited at Louisburg Healthcare And Rehabilitation Center during CMS and state inspections, most recent first.
Surveyors identified unsanitary conditions in the kitchen, including food debris and dried substances on carts, a refrigerator with spills and dirty dressing containers, and a prep table with food debris. Dietary staff acknowledged these areas were not on the cleaning schedule, and no kitchen cleanliness policy was provided.
Surveyors found that the laundry area had flaking paint above clean linens, cluttered counters with non-laundry items, and dirty laundry blocking essential sinks and stations. Staff interviews confirmed awareness of these issues, and a backlog of laundry was reported due to equipment failure. The facility's maintenance policy assigned responsibility for upkeep, but these deficiencies were not addressed.
Several residents and/or their representatives were not fully informed about the specific names, dosages, and reasons for their prescribed psychotropic medications, as consent forms only listed medication classes and general side effects. Although staff reported verbally educating residents, this was not documented in the medical record, resulting in incomplete compliance with facility policy.
A resident with severe cognitive impairment and incontinence was provided peri-care by staff who failed to close the window blinds, exposing the resident to the front parking lot. Staff acknowledged the oversight, and facility policy requires residents to be treated with respect and dignity.
A resident with dementia and moderate cognitive impairment did not have a complete Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, as staff failed to analyze findings for triggered Care Area Assessments (CAA). The resident was frequently incontinent and dependent on staff for toileting, but the required analysis was missing from documentation, as confirmed by staff interviews and record review.
Staff did not follow Enhanced Barrier Precautions when accessing a resident's G-tube, using only gloves instead of the required gown and gloves, despite an active order and facility policy. Additionally, the laundry area was found to be unsanitary, with flaking paint above clean linens, cluttered counters with non-laundry items, and dirty laundry blocking essential areas due to equipment issues and lack of awareness among staff.
The facility did not consistently post daily nurse staffing sheets with the actual hours worked by licensed and unlicensed staff, as required. On several observed days, the posted sheets lacked this information, and administrative staff confirmed that actual hours were omitted if they matched scheduled hours, contrary to facility policy.
The facility did not accurately submit hourly staffing data for all weekend personnel through the PBJ system, despite having sufficient staff coverage according to internal schedules and payroll records. Administrative staff confirmed that inaccuracies in reported time were due to automatic lunch deductions and discrepancies between scheduled and reported hours.
Failure to Maintain Sanitary Food Preparation and Service Conditions
Penalty
Summary
Surveyors observed multiple sanitation deficiencies in the facility's kitchen and food service areas during an initial tour. Specifically, several carts used for holding and delivering food and beverages were found with food debris and dried-on sticky substances. The inside of a two-doored reach-in refrigerator contained a dried-on red liquid and food debris, and three one-gallon containers of dressings inside the refrigerator had dried-on dressing around the tops and sides. Additionally, a prep table had food debris on its bottom shelf. Dietary staff confirmed that these areas of concern were not currently included in the kitchen's cleaning schedules. The facility was unable to provide a policy regarding the cleanliness of the kitchen.
Deficient Laundry Area Sanitation and Maintenance
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to maintain a safe and sanitary environment in the laundry area, as evidenced by multiple observations and staff interviews. In the clean linen processing room, the ceiling had flaking and missing paint directly above residents' clean laundry, and the clean linen folding counter was cluttered with non-laundry items such as a staff purse, a laptop, and a desk organizer. In the dirty laundry washing area, resident linen and clothes in bags were stacked on the floor, causing clutter and blocking access to the staff hand-washing sink, the eye-wash station, and the washer laundry-soap refill. Additionally, both the ceiling and walls in the laundry areas had chipped and missing paint. Staff interviews confirmed awareness of the inappropriate conditions. Administrative staff acknowledged that paint flaking and chipping near clean laundry presented an infection concern and that only clean laundry should be on the folding counter. Maintenance staff were unaware of the missing paint in the laundry areas, and housekeeping staff reported that a washer had been out of service, leading to a backlog of laundry. Housekeeping staff also stated they were unaware that non-laundry items should not be on the folding counter. The facility's preventive maintenance policy assigned responsibility to the maintenance director for ensuring the building and equipment were maintained in a safe and operable manner.
Failure to Provide and Document Complete Psychotropic Medication Information
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to adequately inform several residents and/or their representatives about the specific risks, benefits, and alternatives associated with their prescribed psychotropic medications. In multiple cases, the consent forms provided to residents only listed the general class of medication (such as antidepressant, antipsychotic, or antianxiety) and potential side effects for the class, but did not include the names of the individual medications, their prescribed dosages, or the specific reasons for their use. This lack of detailed information was observed in the records of residents with varying degrees of cognitive function, including those with intact cognition and those with moderate to severe cognitive impairment. For example, one resident with diagnoses including altered mental status, metabolic encephalopathy, and anxiety disorder had a consent form that omitted the names and dosages of prescribed medications such as Buspar and Cymbalta. Another resident with borderline personality disorder, cerebral palsy, and major depressive disorder was prescribed multiple psychotropic medications, but the consent form again lacked specific medication names and dosages. In both cases, administrative staff confirmed that while residents were verbally informed about their medications, this education was not documented in the medical record as required by facility policy. Additional residents with diagnoses such as schizophrenia, alcohol-induced dementia, and depression were also found to have incomplete psychotropic consent documentation. In some instances, residents expressed confusion or dissatisfaction regarding their medications, with one resident stating they were told an antidepressant would help with pain, but it was not effective. The facility's policy required that residents and/or their representatives be informed and that this communication be documented, but this was not consistently done, leading to the deficiency.
Failure to Ensure Resident Dignity During Personal Care
Penalty
Summary
Staff failed to maintain a resident's dignity during personal care by not closing the window blinds before beginning peri-care. The resident, who had a diagnosis of dementia with severe cognitive impairment and was always incontinent of bowel and bladder, was dependent on staff for toileting and wore incontinent products. During the care, staff removed the resident's cover and incontinent brief and turned her toward a window that faced the front parking lot, with the blinds raised approximately 12 inches. One staff member requested that the blinds be closed before continuing, at which point the administrative nurse acknowledged that the blinds should have been closed prior to starting care. Another staff member admitted to not thinking about closing the blinds before initiating care. Facility policy states that residents have the right to be treated with respect and dignity, and staff interviews confirmed that the expectation was to close blinds before providing care.
Incomplete MDS and CAA Documentation for Resident with Dementia
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to complete a thorough Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment for one resident with a diagnosis of dementia and moderately impaired cognition, as indicated by a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of nine. The resident was frequently incontinent of bowel and bladder and required staff assistance for toileting. The Care Area Assessments (CAA) triggered by the MDS were not fully analyzed, as the analysis of findings was missing from the documentation. This incomplete assessment was confirmed through review of the resident's electronic medical record and interviews with facility staff, who acknowledged the expectation to thoroughly complete the MDS and associated CAAs according to the RAI manual.
Failure to Implement Enhanced Barrier Precautions and Maintain Sanitary Laundry Environment
Penalty
Summary
Facility staff failed to implement adequate Enhanced Barrier Precautions (EBP) for a resident with a gastrostomy tube (G-tube) during a flushing procedure. Although the resident had an active order for EBP requiring gown and gloves for all cares due to the feeding tube, two licensed nurses accessed and flushed the G-tube using only gloves, omitting the required gown. Both nurses performed proper hand hygiene before and after the procedure, but did not follow the full PPE protocol as outlined in the facility's EBP policy. Interviews confirmed that staff were aware of the correct PPE requirements but did not adhere to them during the observed care. Additionally, the facility failed to maintain a sanitary environment in the laundry area. Observations revealed flaking and missing paint on the ceiling above clean laundry, clutter on the clean linen folding counter including non-laundry items, and a dirty laundry area that was cluttered and backed up with bags of resident linen and clothes stacked on the floor. This clutter blocked access to the staff hand-washing sink, eye-wash station, and laundry-soap refill. Maintenance and housekeeping staff were unaware of the extent of the issues, and one washer being out of service contributed to the laundry backlog.
Failure to Accurately Post Daily Nurse Staffing Hours
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure that the posted daily nurse staffing sheets included accurate and identifiable information, specifically the actual hours worked by licensed and unlicensed staff. Observations on multiple dates revealed that the posted staffing sheets did not list the actual number of hours worked, and this issue was found on several days throughout the month. During an interview, an administrative staff member stated that if the actual hours worked matched the total number of hours scheduled, she did not rewrite it on the daily staffing sheet. The facility's policy required accurate and timely posting of staffing information, as well as submission of staffing data through the CMS Payroll-Based Journal (PBJ) system.
Failure to Accurately Submit Weekend Staffing Data via PBJ
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to electronically submit complete and accurate direct care staffing information to the Federal regulatory agency through the Payroll-Based Journal (PBJ) system. Specifically, the facility did not accurately report hourly staffing data for all weekend personnel for multiple fiscal quarters. Although the PBJ Staffing Data Report indicated insufficient weekend staffing, a review of the nursing schedule and payroll data sheets for the same periods showed that the facility actually had sufficient staff coverage on weekends. During an interview, administrative staff confirmed that reported time was not accurately recorded in relation to staff scheduling, and that a half-hour was automatically deducted from each staff member's worked time for lunch by corporate policy. The facility's own policy requires timely and accurate submission of staffing data to CMS, but this was not followed, resulting in incomplete and inaccurate reporting for weekend staffing.
Latest citations in Kansas
Surveyors identified unsanitary food storage and preparation conditions, including food debris in a reach-in freezer, an unknown spilled liquid in a reach-in refrigerator, missing two-inch air gap on an ice machine drain, dirty carts used for clean dishes, and a steamtable shelf with built-up food debris. A dietary staff member acknowledged these areas needed cleaning, and it was determined the facility lacked a cleaning schedule or policy for kitchen cleanliness.
The facility failed to complete and analyze Care Area Assessments (CAAs) for multiple residents after Admission, Annual, and Significant Change MDS assessments triggered areas such as cognition, mood/behavior, functional status, urinary incontinence/indwelling catheter, nutrition, dental care, pressure ulcers, pain, falls, psychotropic drug use, psychosocial well-being, and visual function. Instead of documenting individualized analysis of underlying causes and contributing factors, an LPN reported she had stopped writing CAA notes and relied mainly on check-off worksheets and the fact that triggers appeared in the MDS CAA section. No facility policy on CAAs was provided to surveyors, and the CAAs consistently lacked required analytical documentation for residents with diverse and significant clinical needs.
A resident with dementia, severe cognitive impairment, and an indwelling urinary catheter was repeatedly observed sitting in common areas with his catheter drainage bag resting on his lower leg, visibly filled with dark amber urine and lacking a privacy cover, despite a care plan directing staff to cover the drainage bag. CNAs reported that the bag often slid down from the resident’s thigh, that they did not use catheter dignity bags on their hall, and that they simply moved the bag back up when it slid down. An administrative nurse stated she had not considered the use of dignity bags on the memory care unit, even though the facility’s resident rights policy affirms each resident’s right to a dignified existence, privacy, and confidentiality.
Two residents with documented cognitive ability to participate in care planning were not invited to any care plan meetings, and their EMRs lacked evidence of care plan conferences, invitations, or Interdisciplinary Care Conference assessments. Administrative staff stated that invitations should be mailed or hand-delivered and uploaded to the EMR, and that an Interdisciplinary Care Conference note should be completed, but none of this documentation existed for these residents, contrary to facility policy and federal requirements for resident and/or representative participation in care planning.
A resident with C-diff and CHF, newly admitted and with a baseline care plan that did not address call light use, was repeatedly found without access to a call light. Surveyors observed the resident yelling for help with her room door closed and later noted the call light on the floor under the bed and again on the floor while the resident sat in a recliner and stated she wanted to return to bed but could not do so independently. Staff reported using a binder clip to attach the call light to the resident’s clothing because the cord lacked a clip, acknowledged the resident sometimes threw the call light to the floor, and stated that call lights should be kept within residents’ reach. An administrative nurse confirmed the expectation that call lights be accessible at all times and was unsure about the use of a binder clip, and no facility policy on call lights was provided.
Surveyors found that a resident’s bathroom and handwashing area were not maintained in a safe, sanitary, and comfortable condition, including a loose baseboard with black substance behind it, a cracked toilet seat, and an empty, improperly mounted hand soap dispenser. Maintenance staff confirmed these conditions, noted that the soap dispenser was nonfunctional, and reported that although a QR code system existed for reporting maintenance issues, these problems had not been reported. Maintenance staff also stated there were no facility policies for maintenance repair in resident rooms and no policy provided for ensuring a safe, homelike environment.
Multiple residents were affected by inaccurate MDS assessments, including a resident with dementia and an indwelling catheter who was miscoded as always incontinent of urine and independent in ADLs despite staff and EMR documentation showing long-term catheter use and total dependence for dressing and wheelchair positioning. Another resident with a history of stroke was incorrectly coded as having a restraint, even though bed grab bars were used as enablers to assist with repositioning and did not limit voluntary movement. A resident with diabetes and unsteadiness experienced two documented falls that were not captured on the MDS, and another resident with diabetes, depression, CAD, and CKD was actively receiving hospice services per EMR, social services, and staff interviews, yet hospice was not coded on the MDS. The consultant MDS nurse confirmed these were significant coding errors not in accordance with the RAI User’s Manual.
A resident with C. diff and CHF was admitted, and while a baseline care plan documenting contact precautions was created, the resident later reported not knowing what a baseline care plan was. The resident was also found yelling for help with her call light on the floor under the bed. Nursing staff stated that baseline care plans are started on the day of admission and reviewed with residents, but also indicated that residents and families are not given written copies. An administrative nurse claimed a 48-hour interdisciplinary care conference had been completed, yet no corresponding documentation existed in the EMR, and explanations about who was responsible and why it was missing were inconsistent. No facility policy for baseline care plans was provided.
A resident with dementia and severe cognitive impairment was inaccurately assessed and care planned as needing only setup or independent assistance with dressing, despite actually requiring total staff assistance. The EMR lacked clear ADL documentation, and the ADL CAA did not trigger, leading to inaccurate MDS entries and a care plan that did not match the resident’s functional status. Surveyors observed the resident sitting in a wheelchair wearing dirty, food-stained pants and being taken to the dining room without a clothing change, with the soiled pants not changed until later when two CNAs provided total assistance. Staff, including CNAs, an LN, and an administrative nurse, acknowledged that the resident needed total help with dressing and should always be in clean clothing, revealing a failure to provide appropriate ADL support and maintain clean attire.
A resident with dementia and severe cognitive impairment was transported multiple times in a wheelchair without staff ensuring that his feet remained safely on the foot pedals. Although assessments inaccurately documented that he was independent with walking using a walker and/or wheelchair, his care plan did not instruct staff on proper use of wheelchair foot pedals. During observed transports by CNAs, the resident’s shoed feet repeatedly fell off the pedals and skimmed the floor between them. Staff acknowledged that his feet did not stay on the pedals and that the pedals were not effectively adjusted, and nursing leadership confirmed expectations that feet should remain on the pedals during transport. No wheelchair safety policy was provided.
Unsanitary Kitchen Conditions and Lack of Cleaning Policy
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to prepare and serve food under sanitary conditions when surveyors observed multiple cleanliness and equipment issues in the kitchen. During an initial kitchen tour on 04/27/26 at 08:57 AM, the three-door reach-in freezer was found with food debris on the bottom shelf, and the three-door reach-in refrigerator had an unknown spilled liquid on the bottom shelf. The drain to the ice machine did not have the required two-inch air gap. Two black two-tiered plastic carts used to store clean dishes had food debris on the bottom tier, and the bottom shelf of the steamtable, which was used to store plate covers, had a buildup of food debris. On 04/28/26 at 01:57 PM, a dietary staff member confirmed these areas required cleaning, and it was identified that the facility did not have a cleaning schedule or a policy regarding kitchen cleanliness. No specific residents, medical histories, or clinical conditions were mentioned in the report in relation to this deficiency.
Failure to Complete and Analyze Care Area Assessments for Multiple Residents
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to complete comprehensive Care Area Assessments (CAAs) with analysis of underlying causes, contributing factors, and risk factors for multiple residents following MDS assessments. Record review showed that numerous residents had Admission, Annual, or Significant Change MDS assessments that triggered CAAs in areas such as mood/behavior, cognitive loss/dementia, functional abilities, communication, urinary incontinence/indwelling catheter, nutritional status, dental care, pressure ulcers, pain, falls, psychotropic drug use, psychosocial well-being, visual function, and psychosocial well-being. For each of these triggered areas, the corresponding CAAs lacked analysis of the findings. This pattern was identified for residents with a wide range of clinical issues, including dementia, incontinence, falls, pressure ulcers, nutritional concerns, psychotropic medication use, pain, and functional decline. During an interview, a licensed nurse reported that she had stopped writing CAA notes the previous year after being told to do so by someone she could not identify. She stated that she did not write anything on the triggered CAAs and that, at times, she would document risk concerns only on a main check-off worksheet, relying on the fact that the triggers were already reflected in the MDS CAA section. The facility did not provide a policy regarding CAAs when requested. These findings demonstrate that the facility did not ensure that comprehensive assessments were fully completed as required when residents were first admitted and periodically thereafter.
Failure to Maintain Dignity and Privacy for Resident with Indwelling Catheter
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to honor a resident’s right to a dignified existence by not maintaining privacy for his urinary catheter drainage bag as directed in his care plan. The resident had diagnoses including bladder calculus and dementia, with a BIMS score of one indicating severe cognitive impairment, and was dependent on staff for toileting hygiene with an indwelling urinary catheter and constant urinary incontinence. His care plan, revised 03/23/26, instructed staff to cover his drainage bag with a privacy cover. However, during observations on 04/27/26, the resident was seen sitting in his wheelchair at his room doorway and later in the dining room with his catheter drainage bag resting on his lower left leg, supported by his shoe, containing dark amber urine and visible to visitors and other residents, without a privacy cover. Staff interviews confirmed that the catheter drainage bag frequently slid from the resident’s left thigh down to his lower leg and that staff did not consistently reposition it or use dignity/privacy bags. One CNA stated he had never placed a dignity bag on the resident’s drainage bag, and another CNA reported that staff on their hall did not utilize catheter dignity bags, instead just moving the bag back up when it slid down. An administrative nurse acknowledged she had not considered staff use of dignity bags for urinary catheters on the memory care unit. The facility’s Resident Rights policy, approved 12/2024, stated that each resident has the right to a dignified existence including privacy and confidentiality, which was not followed in this case.
Failure to Involve Cognitively Able Residents in Care Plan Meetings
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to ensure residents were given the opportunity to participate in the development and implementation of their person-centered plans of care. For one resident with a Brief Interview of Mental Status (BIMS) score of 12, indicating moderately impaired cognition, the electronic medical record showed an admission MDS and a Significant Change MDS, but there was no documentation of any care plan meeting in the prior four months. This resident reported not being invited to any care plan meeting. For a second resident with a BIMS score of 14, indicating intact cognition, the electronic medical record contained an admission MDS and a Quarterly MDS, but there was no documentation of a care plan meeting in the prior two months. This resident also reported not being invited to any care plan meeting. Administrative staff reported that residents and/or family members were supposed to be mailed or hand-delivered invitations to attend care planning meetings and that a copy of the invitation should be uploaded into the EMR. They further stated that an Interdisciplinary Care Conference assessment should be completed in the EMR during the care plan meeting. However, the administrative nurse confirmed that there was no documentation of invitations, Interdisciplinary Care Conference assessments, or completed care plan meetings for the two residents. The facility’s care planning policy stated that social services should attend care plan meetings and that the team presents information to the resident and/or representative about progress toward care plan goals, and referenced federal law requiring resident and/or representative participation in care plan meetings to the extent possible, but this process was not carried out or documented for the two residents identified.
Failure to Keep Call Light Within Reach for Dependent Resident
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to ensure a resident’s call light was within reach and to reasonably accommodate the resident’s needs and preferences. The resident had documented diagnoses of C-diff and CHF, and her baseline care plan dated 04/23/26 directed staff to evaluate for changes in level of consciousness but did not include any direction regarding call light use or accessibility. On 04/28/26 at 08:06 AM, surveyors observed the resident’s room door closed while she yelled loudly for help several times. When a licensed nurse entered the room, the resident was lying on her left side in bed, stated she wanted to get up, and reported she could not find her call light. The call light was observed on the floor under her bed. Later that morning, a CNA attached the call light to the resident’s shirt using a black and silver binder clip because the call light cord did not have its own clip. On 04/29/26 at 12:15 PM, the resident was seated in a recliner with the call light again lying on the floor out of her reach; she reported she wanted to go to bed and could not get herself back into bed. Staff interviews revealed that the CNA used the binder clip to keep the call light attached to the resident, and the licensed nurse stated staff should make sure the call light is clipped to the resident’s clothes and reported that the resident would throw her call light on the floor. An administrative nurse stated she expected staff to ensure all residents always have their call lights in reach and was unsure about using a binder clip to hold a call light in place. The facility did not provide a policy regarding call lights.
Failure to Maintain Safe and Sanitary Resident Bathroom Environment
Penalty
Summary
Surveyors identified that the facility failed to maintain a safe, functional, sanitary, and comfortable environment in Resident 87’s bathroom and handwashing area. During an environmental tour with Maintenance Staff UU, surveyors observed an approximately four-foot section of loose baseboard to the left of and behind the toilet, with a black substance present on the wall and floor behind the loose baseboard. They also noted an approximately three-inch crack in the toilet seat and an empty hand soap dispenser hanging above the handwashing sink, mounted with exposed lag bolt fasteners. Maintenance Staff UU confirmed these conditions, acknowledged that the soap dispenser did not work, and stated that the toilet seat should be replaced, the bathroom baseboard removed, the black substance tested for mold, and the sheetrock removed and replaced. Further interview with Maintenance Staff UU revealed that the facility had implemented a QR code system for staff and visitors to report maintenance items, but the issues in this resident’s bathroom had not been reported through that system. He also reported that there had been a leak behind the handwashing sink that had flowed into the bathroom area, leading to the sink’s replacement, but he had received no report of the specific deficiencies observed in the bathroom. Additionally, Maintenance Staff UU stated that the facility did not have policies for maintenance repair in residents’ rooms, and the facility did not provide a policy for ensuring a safe, homelike environment.
Inaccurate MDS Coding for ADLs, Restraints, Falls, and Hospice Services
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to complete accurate Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessments in accordance with the Resident Assessment Instrument (RAI) User’s Manual, resulting in multiple residents’ clinical status not being correctly reflected. For one resident with dementia and severe cognitive impairment, the Significant Change and subsequent Quarterly MDS assessments coded him as always incontinent of bladder and independent with eating and upper body dressing, with use of a walker and wheelchair. However, the electronic medical record showed ongoing indwelling catheter care each shift and no documentation of walker use, wheelchair mobility, or dressing requirements during the review period. Staff interviews revealed that this resident had an indwelling catheter for more than a year, had not walked for several years, and was dependent on staff for all ADLs, including dressing and wheelchair positioning, contradicting the MDS coding. Observations showed the resident slumped in a wheelchair, wearing a hospital gown over clothing, with a visible catheter bag on his lower leg and feet frequently skimming the floor despite foot pedals being present, further indicating dependence and catheter use not accurately captured on the MDS. Another deficiency involved a resident with a history of stroke, hemiplegia, and hemiparesis whose Significant Change MDS coded the use of “other restraint.” During observation, the resident was seen in bed with bilateral grab bars at the head of the bed and her right arm positioned on a pillow. The resident reported using the grab bars to help move and reposition herself in bed. CNAs and administrative nursing staff confirmed that the facility did not use restraints and that the grab bars were used as enablers to assist residents with repositioning and to increase independence. Administrative staff acknowledged that the MDS coding for restraints was inaccurate because the grab bars did not limit the resident’s voluntary movement or access to her body. A further inaccuracy was identified for a resident with diabetes, atrial fibrillation, unsteadiness of feet, and a toe fracture. Both a Significant Change and a Quarterly MDS documented intact cognition, partial/moderate assistance with transfers, no ambulation, and no falls. However, progress notes in the EMR documented two unwitnessed falls during the look-back period, including one where the resident was found on the floor next to the bed with a forehead skin tear and another where the resident was found sitting on a fall mat on the floor with a scratch on the ankle. These documented falls were not reflected on the MDS. In addition, another resident with diabetes, depression, CAD, and chronic kidney disease had a Significant Change MDS that coded no hospice services, while the EMR contained a hospice certification and physician orders initiating hospice services, and social service notes and staff interviews confirmed that hospice services, including bathing by a hospice aide, were being provided during the look-back period. The consultant MDS nurse confirmed that these assessments were inaccurate and not completed in accordance with the RAI User’s Manual, constituting significant errors in coding for urinary status, ADL dependence, restraints, falls, and hospice services. The consultant MDS nurse stated that the resident with the indwelling catheter should have been coded as not rated for urinary continence due to catheter placement rather than as always incontinent, and that his ADL status should not have been coded as independent given his dependence on staff for dressing and wheelchair positioning. For the resident with grab bars, the nurse confirmed that the grab bars were used as enablers and not as restraints, making the restraint coding inaccurate. For the resident with documented falls, the MDS failed to capture falls that occurred within the look-back period, and for the resident receiving hospice services, the MDS did not reflect hospice care that was active during the look-back period. These miscodings met the RAI Manual’s definition of significant error, in which the resident’s overall clinical status is not accurately represented on the assessment and the error has not been corrected by a more recent assessment.
Failure to Provide and Communicate Baseline Care Plan to New Admission
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to provide a summary of the baseline care plan to a newly admitted resident and to ensure that the baseline care plan process was completed and documented as required. The resident’s EMR documented diagnoses of C. difficile and CHF. The Entry MDS was completed on the admission date, and the admission MDS was noted as in progress with no information available. A baseline care plan dated the day after admission documented contact precautions, including staff use of gowns and masks when changing contaminated linens and proper handling and bagging of soiled linens. However, during an interview several days after admission, the resident reported she did not know what a baseline care plan was, indicating that the plan had not been explained or summarized to her. Further observations and interviews showed additional failures in implementing and communicating the baseline care plan. On one occasion, the resident was heard yelling for help with her room door closed; when a nurse entered, the resident stated she wanted to get up but could not find her call light, which was observed on the floor under the bed. A nurse reported that the baseline care plan was started on the day of admission and that nurses would review it with the resident, but also stated that the charge nurse would not provide a written copy of the baseline care plan to the resident or family. An administrative nurse reported she would review the baseline care plan with the resident and/or family and claimed to have completed a 48-hour interdisciplinary care conference, but there was no opened or completed conference note in the EMR. She gave inconsistent explanations regarding who was responsible and why the conference note was missing. The facility did not provide a policy for baseline care plans.
Failure to Provide Accurate ADL Assessment and Timely Clothing Changes
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to provide appropriate assistance with activities of daily living (ADLs), specifically dressing and clothing changes, for a resident with severe cognitive impairment. The resident had a diagnosis of dementia and repeated Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) scores of one, indicating severe cognitive impairment. Despite this, both a Significant Change MDS and a Quarterly MDS inaccurately documented that the resident required only setup assistance with lower body dressing. The ADL Care Area Assessment did not trigger, and the resident’s care plan, revised on 03/23/26, inaccurately instructed staff that the resident was independent with dressing. The electronic medical record lacked staff documentation of the resident’s ADL needs, resulting in care instructions that did not reflect the resident’s actual functional status. On the day of observation, the resident was seen sitting in a wheelchair wearing black pants with food crumbs on them in the morning, and later was transported by a CNA to the dining room still wearing the same dirty pants. The pants were not changed until early afternoon, at which time two CNAs provided total assistance to change the dirty pants, and the resident was unable to participate in dressing or undressing. During interviews, the CNAs, a licensed nurse, and an administrative nurse all stated that residents should always be dressed in clean clothing and confirmed that this resident required total staff assistance with dressing. These observations and interviews showed that the resident’s actual need for total assistance with dressing and clothing changes was not accurately reflected in the MDS, care plan, or ADL documentation, and that the facility did not ensure the resident was kept in clean clothing as expected by facility policy for ADL care.
Failure to Maintain Safe Wheelchair Foot Positioning During Resident Transport
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to ensure an environment free from accident hazards and to provide adequate supervision during wheelchair transport for a resident with dementia. The resident’s EMR documented a diagnosis of dementia and a BIMS score of one on both a Significant Change MDS and a Quarterly MDS, indicating severe cognitive impairment. These MDS assessments inaccurately documented that the resident was independent with walking using a walker and/or wheelchair, and the ADL CAA did not trigger. The resident’s care plan, revised 03/23/26, identified cognitive impairment due to dementia but did not include instructions for staff on the use of wheelchair foot pedals while propelling the resident. On multiple observed occasions, staff propelled the resident in a wheelchair without maintaining his feet safely on the foot pedals. During transport from his room to the dining room, the resident’s left shoed foot fell from the foot pedal and skimmed the floor between the pedals, and later, during transport from the dining room to the shower room, both shoed feet skimmed the floor between the pedals. CNAs reported that the resident’s feet never stayed on the foot pedals and described the pedals as useless because he could not keep his feet on them. A licensed nurse confirmed the resident’s feet did not always remain on the foot pedals when staff propelled him and stated the pedals should be adjusted to better fit his needs. An administrative nurse stated it was the expectation that staff ensure the resident’s feet remained on the foot pedals during transport and that pedals should be lowered if needed. The facility did not provide a policy regarding wheelchair safety.
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.
